Posted By Colin
Whilst not a regular contributor to this forum, as an engineer and safety practitioner with some 30-years experience in the machinery sector I do feel compelled to outline the requirements relating to the original question, as the possible consequences of some of the approaches suggested could be serious.
There are two issues here. Firstly, there is the legal requirement to effectively guard machinery and comply with the various associated regulatory requirements. Secondly, there are the management and behavioural issues of achieving compliance in practice.
These form a hierarchy. The legal requirement is predominant. Indeed, the provision of effective guarding is more often considered an absolute duty. In this particular case the behavioural issues relate to management rather than inherent human characteristics (unless you elect to include laziness). The manager is responsible for ensuring that the guards are maintained in a safe and efficient condition. This includes the guard fixings. The ‘3-wheels on my wagon and I’m still rolling along’ scenario will not provide a cogent defence.
The question of the function of the guard, to prevent access, restrict ejections, or both, is relevant only in terms of the machinery design. If the machinery was supplied under one of the Directives these requirements should have been the subject of design risk assessment, which gives rise to an assumption that the guard is correctly designed, and a failure to maintain the guard fixings gives rise to a breach of PUWER and the HSAWA. If the machinery was supplied prior to the Directives then the employer is under a duty to assess its safety through risk assessment under the Management Regulations, and any applicable technical requirements. Either method should give rise to an adequately designed guard, which must be maintained in that condition.
That said manufacturers do sometimes provide poorly designed guarding and the suggested redesign process with risk assessments applied by suitable qualified designers seems appropriate, although in cases involving machinery supplied under the Directives this must follow the prescribed process.
The new Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC revises the design requirement for fixed guards (EHSR 1.4.2.1). The requirement for removal by tool only is retained, whilst requirements that guard fixings must remain attached to the guard or the machinery when the guard is removed and, where possible, that guards must be incapable of remaining in place without their fixings, are introduced. I guess this should go some way to eliminate the ‘throw away the bolts’ culture, although I cannot recall having been instructed in this particular practice during my engineering training. It also implies an underlying intent on behalf of the directive’s drafter that all of the guard fixings should be in place.
I am in general agreement with the suggested view that this topic should be of little relevance in the modern environment, but not for the reasons suggested. The requirements for machinery guarding have been around for a long time, certainly back into the annals of the various Factories Acts, and during the last 30 odd years in more modern statutes, regulation, ACOPs, standards, directives, publications, etc. On this basis alone it is amazing that the subject gives rise to so many different views and interpretations, and that so many managers in industry, construction and other sectors continue to adopt, what seem to me, such indifferent attitudes to a simple concept. Provide adequate guards to meet the particular application and maintain these (including the fixings) in a safe and efficient state.
There is some discussion of the ‘beating over the head’ metaphor. Could this is the correct approach? As professional practitioners we owe our employers and fellow employees a duty of care. Do we fulfil this duty by ignoring such situations, particularly in areas so fundamental as machinery guarding? In addition there are the underlying cultural, management and behavioural aspects to consider. Will anything change whilst the senior manager continues the current approach? No! Do the employer’s policy and operating procedures state that its acceptable to leave fixings out of guards. No, unless the employer has lost the plot!
In his original posting James states that the manager in question is a ‘senior manager’. Possibly sufficiently senior to be considered a ‘controlling mind’? God forbid, but if the failure of an incorrectly fixed guard gave rise to a serious accident I would guess that the manager, having been aware of the malpractices, and deliberately ignoring, or perhaps endorsing these, would be considered negligent, possibly grossly so, giving rise, in the case of fatal injury, to a possible gross negligence manslaughter charge! In addition it may be inferred that the reason the malpractice was condoned was for financial gain in saving maintenance time. Not an enviable position for the manager in question! My guess is that if these factors were perhaps pointed out, that the manager in question’s approach, if not that of the fitters, may change, assuming of course that someone can find the bolts?
Trust this is of some assistance in what is perhaps not as simple and mundane a subject as it may first appear.
Best regards
Colin.