Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jude H
Two employers share premises, the level of risk is disputed, the perception of the risk is partly subjective - in that one set of employees feel threatened by the hazard. There is evidence to support their concerns. I believe that if the risk rate cannot be agreed it would be best practice to look at the higher rating and work from there rather than diminish the risk - is there any thing formal to support this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Holly McDermott
Hi Jude
Not a lot of info in your posting but if two employers share the premises then who owns it. If it is an intrinsic risk associated with the premises then the landlord might be the person who needs to do the risk assessment. Other than that I would agree with you and use the higher rating risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Jude,
More info is probably needed, but level of risk can vary between employees based on their personal attributes.
For example, Young Persons Risk Assessments need to take into account the inexperience of an individual in the assessment.
So it is quite possible that your assessment of the situation or process could be low for one staff member and medium for another.
In that case you would need to consider extra control measures for the employee in question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
It might be best for everyone to sit down around a table with a cup of tea and discuss this. There is a legal obligation under the Management regs (reg 11 of the '99 Regs) to co-ooperate and co-ordinate activities where two or more employers share a workplace. Co-operation means far more than one occupier imposing his interpretation on the other.
Risk perception is a very personal thing, and what is part and parcel of an acceptable day for one employer may be up-in-arms-stop-the-job panic worthy for another. Even so-called 'quantitative' risk assessments can import highly subjective ideas into the process.
Unless the two sides can sit down and agree (co-operate) on what to do together (co-ordinate) to control the risks to a level that is acceptable to both parties then the potential exists for extreme unpleasantness.
A domestic neighbour can be driven to murder by a tree overhanging his boundary fence. Neighbour disputes are notorious for escalating into unpleasantness.
How much more can be expected when for example one firm's fork lift trucks buzz around another firm's pedestrian access in the shared yard? It is not as simple as saying 'oh we'll use the highest risk estimate'. In this case, the owner of the pedestrian entry would then segregate / barricade his 'part' of the yard (which will always be open to dispute), effectively preventing the other business from accepting or making deliveries and putting them out of business...
The ONLY way forward is to get together, discuss the different perceptions of risk - and agree on a mutually acceptable way forward. It is NOT usually acceptable for one company, with their perception of risk, to impose the results of their perception on another business.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Whoops, misread the question first time!
But what I said is also applicable in the scenario you describe.
One set of employees maybe feel at less risk because of their experience & training, while the other group feel at greater risk precisely because of their inexperience with the hazard in question.
Your risk assessment needs to take into account both these groups.
As Steve says, the best solution is to involve both groups and their respective employers in the assessment.
Because - let's face it, any problem is likely to affect both groups and that is when a lack of training could pose the biggest problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.