Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Schedule 2 Paragraph 14 calls for:
Suitable and sufficient facilities shall where necessary be provided or made available at readily accessible places to enable persons to lock away -
any special clothing
their own clothing which is not worn during working hours
their personal effects
We're under pressure by the client to provide individual lockers - is there any other solutions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
The client appears to be looking for 'best practice', as if the client has supplied the resources why is there a problem supplying individual lockers?; noting that some laws etc state situations re mixing dirty with clean clothing etc is not acceptable
If the client has not provided the resources perhaps you should ask for those resources or have you priced to a less than best practice situation?
I have found on occasion that clients have provided adequate '£' and the company has took the '£' but not provided the proper equipment etc to their employees!
Standards have risen over the years only because we have pushed up the bar
There are more ways to provide proper hygiene etc than providing individual lockers but in all cases 'best practice' should be encouraged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton Bob: I think you may have missed the point of Peter's posting - the Regs stipulate that lockable facilities must be provided where necessary. This is not 'best practice'. I posted about this 'tightening' of the regs some time ago.. see: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...ocess&RequestTimeout=500Can the 'facilities' be anything other than individual lockers? I don't see how - if I want to lock away my I Pod and my mobile 'phone, along with my Guccis etc, then I don't want anyone else getting into my stuff. These are my 'personal effects' which I would consider need be 'locked away' whilst I am at work. So - Peter - I suspect that you will have to find some way of providing the lockers the client is asking for. Some contractors may be able to provide individual lockers in vans or similar - but for most sites, it is my belief that lockers will have to be provided in order to comply. We await the first test case prosecution… Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,
Very interested in this as my employer has just taken the first tentative steps towards being a full-scale client. Steve, while i agree that this couldn't be interpreted as guidance, wouldn't a locked room suffice, rater than individual lockers, provided there were suitable controls over access? After all, it doesn't say 'individual locked storage',
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Thanks Steve and John, you're both on my wavelength. We've offered a locked cabin with just employees having the key - but we are still being pushed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
With regard to a locked room - Would anyone realy want to go to the theatre and leave all their belongings in a locked room for which everybody had a key? I rather think not. For me the clear intent is individual lockable facilities suitable for the work intended.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Sorry Bob?
We're talking 6 colleagues using the same locked cabin, how is that remotely comparable to a public theatre?
I despair of this site at times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Bob,
But at a theatre you do hand your coat and things in at the desk; I'm not suggesting that everybody has a key, I'm talking about suitable controls over keys,
Johbn
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Peter
The analogy is sound in my view - to allow persons other than the owner access to a place where belongings are held is an invitation to the dishonest. A lockable cabin where any entrant can access all other persons belongings is not the same as secure storage. It also means that a single lock stands guard over all belongings. It is a sore point at the moment however for a work colleague. His local pool attendant opened his locker on request by somebody and they took all his clothes, his valuables and his car. At least his insurers accepted that he had left his keys in a secure place - would the same answer be given if such valuables were left in a general room with other peoples' property? I doubt it somehow.
Of course one might want to go to the cloakroom attendant situation if money is no object. I was ensuring individual lockers over 12 years ago - surely we must be moving forwards?!!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
An apt analogy for you Bob (esp ref building sites) is when in a hole stop digging!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
As long as the hole is big enough to bury the opposition as well I will keep digging though:-)
Seriously the idea of communal secure area is one I cannot get my head around. Why should we not provide individual lockers for employees? It is not as if the idea is a new one and there seems no sensible grounds other than cost for not doing it. Even the costs are not that high!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane J
Lockers can't be that expensive can they?
Can you at least provide the space for employees to bring their own lockers to work and leave them somewhere secure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
I'm just putting my recommendations together for the client, we should now provide a travelling theatre for the site guys, but I see a problem ....should we have 'Much ado about nothing' for the first play or should I ask for suggestions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sally
to take this to it's logical conclusion what will happen if something does go missing. Will the six people with keys have to stay behind until one of them admits having it??
I'm sorry if that sounds facetious but realistically that is the position you would be in and the accusations etc would cause a great deal of bad feeling.
My advice as a professional to a company would be just buy the individual lockers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane J
Only 6 six people?
I agree buy the lockers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Oliver Twist and Fagin come to mind -
as does
Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves
Still if you are happy to risk the thefts then it would seem to be a happy solution.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
The logical conclusion then, is to extend this nationwide with 6 lockers at each of currently 15 sites and possibly 20, and each would have to be thoroughly cleaned, spare keys kept, storage space needed, loaded and unloaded on each site and each move on site replacement lockers for damaged ones, it could go on and n..........
That's company 1, but what about the rest on all those site throughout the UK?
We need to look at the realities as well guys!
We'll stick with the lockable site hut.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Peter
Go back to schedule 2 of the acop. The title section concerning this is Changing Rooms and Lockers.
Suitable and sufficient facilities shall, where necessary.
Your only "out point" is that the facilities may not be necessary - that is a point for you to assess and evidence if requested by the HSE.
If they are required for me the clear implication is that each operative must have the ability to secure his/her own personal effects. A general cabin does not provide this. Your comments that there are 15-20 sites with potentially 6 on each now suggests that this is a bigger issue with more people affected by your decision. It also suggests that your company turnover is reasonably large and could thus support proper locker facilities on your sites.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Leese
Yes but I forgot to say Bob, each hut will have theatre facilities in them including the full time cloakroom attendant.
Happy now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steve e ashton
Peter:
You may be adopting a 'pragmatic' approach - you may not like the regulations. However, your approach does not appear (to me) to be in compliance with the regs.
Under Reg 45, CDM confers a right of action in civil proceedings for breach of schedule 2 of the regs.
So, as well as potential prosecution, you could be facing an (almost inevitable) string of (no doubt vastly inflated) claims for lost or damaged personal effects.
Your choice.
My advice? Provide the lockers!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I think it time to let the curtain fall on this one!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.