Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
HSE have put up an interesting press release on Friday concerning a worker killed in a roof fall. The employer was charged under HASAWA for the fall and also for committing acts to pervert the course of justice.
Does anybody have any further details on this that are in the public domain? The speculation I have concerning perverting justice is intriguing to say the least.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Merchant See this link from the press:- http://www.dailypost.co....r-up-bid-55578-20182286/The PCJ charge resulted from the defendant's placing of PFPE safety equipment on the site at a time _after_ the accident and his subsequent statement to police that the items were provided before the accident. A perfect example of "if you're in a hole stop digging".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave m
Thanks for this. It crossed my mind that something like this must have been at the base of the charge. Interesting too that it is one of the few gross negligence manslaughters to have come forward - again a small organisation though with a clear leader.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tarquin Farquor
Rob / Dave,
Thanks for posting this, very interesting.
Regards,
TF
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
Interesting that there is no mention of Comet's duties towards contractors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
And what duties would those be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian D.
Section 3 duties... but I don't think MT was refers to these, I read it as the duty to select competent contractors , background checks etc
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By MT
Yes, Ian D, you're right. I was referring to Comet's duty to satisfy themselves that their contractor was competent and also supervise their work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
The answer to the first part is interesting, But I would suggest that the answer to the second part is because they did not have control:
The requirements imposed by these Regulations(WAH) on an employer shall apply in relation to work -
(a) by an employee of his; or
(b) by any other person under his control, to the extent of his control
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
No dates attached to the timing of this accident but I suspect it was before April 2007. In which case the duty to select competent contractors was not so clearly set out as it is now. Having said that the section 2 duties would require the contracting of persons who would not put your own employees at risk, followed by the section 3 towards members of the public. With this sort of contractor on board it indicates that these also were potentially exposed to risk.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
I would suggest that the fact there is no mention of charges against comet is for one of two reasons:
1. There is insufficient evidence that they have failed in their duty under section 3 or CDM
2. Or most likely, HSE have not yet finished their investigation into the accident. The police act much more quickly on these things.
Kenneth, they may not have had control under the WAH regs but there are clear duties (and case law) under HSW and CDM.
There is an expectation that a larger company can and should do more by way of vetting method statements and risk assessments especially where the activity has an impact upon it's own employees or MOP's using the store.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.