Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Mac
I came across an auto palletiser that had suffered a failure on one of the safety systems. The light readers on the door had failed and therefore, as is the way, automotically cut out the machine.
An engineer came to me saying the system could be bypassed so we could get the final pallet out and this would take an hour, and then we could get the part over the weekend and it should be repaired for next week.
It was initially conveyed to me that this final pallet was urgently required to meet some production target etc and the engineer promised one of his guys would stand at the machine for the final pallet, making sure nobody entered the machine etc and all employees would be made aware of the bypass and the issue.
My initial thoughts were that I was not happy with this and I would have to argue it out with the production manager, but he was actually ok about it and said it can wait, and we shouldnt be seen to bypass safety systems regardless of production, of course I agreed.
Has anyone come across similiar situations where production has won and a line has been finished with temporary measures in place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Chris, this is a situation where a H&S practitioner is really tested and can prove to the employer that we can contribute in a positive way, not just stopping activities.
The challenge is to ensure that the out of the ordinary situation is managed safely, that all participants in the activity remain safe and that the risk of harm is kept to the lowest level reasonably practicable in the circumstances. The new circumstances will produce previously unrecognised risks that need to be controlled and the usual way of these things is that work proceeds slowly with much thought and hopefully a lot of "what ifs".
A different scenario is that the production manager says " get the thing out, quickly" and the safety practitioner is totally overruled or ignored, losing credibility. The accident occurs and the Courts tear all involved to shreds.
Of course, with perfect hindsight one could say that the original risk assessment failed to consider this predictable maintenance/failure mode. But we will be prepared next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I generally agree with David. this kind of situation occurs quite frequently, ie standard safety precautions are out of action. What is required is a secondary system which will provide an equivalent or better level of protection.
Where I disagree is in his last phrase : "the original risk assessment failed to consider this predictable maintenance/failure mode"
For me it seems to have worked. The operator, faced with a non-ordinary situation called maintenance and supervision and the H&S person was also involved.
Now we need a Dynamic Risk Assessment and a temporary, written Safe System Of Work". Signed by the manager after H&S advice.
In the old days appropriate action, decided by the employee or by his foreman would have been "stick a screwdriver in there for now ..."
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.