Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Taff2
We operate a scafftag system on site and have a dedicated crew / competent persons to erect & inspect all scaffolding.
Last week on nights a small platform (2m high) was hindering production and the scaffolding team were not on site. Since the scaffold was redundant (no scafftag on it), was not structurally integrated into other items and could be dismantled from ground floor level - could a team of fitters perform this task legally? They did do it safely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian D Jones
it is the norm that only trained and competent scaffolders carry out tasks of this nature when being tested for cscs card this same question is asked and the answer is no. If an accident had occured there would have been questions raised as to why non scaffolders were carrying out this type of work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ste Germski
Is this for fixed tube and fitting scaffold or for Mobile tower scaffold.
Steve Housbey
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Taff2
Fixed tube - it was free-standing and not connected to the tank which required to be washed. The scaffolding was originally made available to provide a 3' working platform to inspect the said-tank. I believe there were 10 scaffold tubes + 2 boards. Not rocket science. All dismlanting done from floor / ground level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
You asked: "could a team of fitters perform this task legally?"
IMHO the answer is yes.
The scaffold was being dismantled and most likely everything was accessible from ground/low level where no harness work was required.The competency requirements were minimal.
The only caveat I would add is of situations of conflicting requirements at finishing works.In similar situations, it is not unusual for a squad to turn up the next morning who needed to use that platform, and who then adopt poor/unsafe practice in a work-around fashion. i.e. lack of project co-ordination = accidents/violations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
F.A.O. Taff2
I quite agree that the dismanlalment of this particular Scaffolding Structure may not be on the same par as rocket science.
However, the decommissioning Of; the alteration of or the removal of Scaffolding component parts ( other than a certified competent person ) could be considered a breach of competency and over steps demarcation lines. This could be construed as the thin edge of a wedge ( give them an inch and they take a mile).
Yet again, this is another case of every man and his dog taking the liberty to take it upon themselves dibble in procedures in which they are not trained to perform.
Never rub an other mans rhubarb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Taff2
At the end of the day the employer is the person who defines who is competent to do a task. Part 1 or 2 training is not evidence of competence. The Davyhulme prosecution written up in this month's SHP, involved a Part 1 scaffold erector and the faults listed, albeit ordered by the Con. Man., are basic scaffold faults which should not be permitted.
If an employer however wishes to make a rule that only trained scaffold erectors are used then the rule must be followed at all times. If a manager/supervisor permits/orders a breach then the whole edifice of the safety culture begins to crumble. After all it would now be clear that management will break rules if it benefits their needs. The only way back now is a long period of reflection and renewal of the safety committments. Alternatively the supervision/management involved can be disciplined as a mark of express Board disapproval. You cannot have it both ways.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Really Garry?
I have no training here, so I am trying to understand. Are there risks associated with what was described?
If not, don't the risks of having to work around the scaffold justify the removal?
Fitters are classed as skilled, and the skills required here seem to be within their normal competency.
I would never stand on anything they built - but I wouldn't avoid this situation. It sounds more like job protection than a safety breach in MHO.
But the question was about legality - what law did they break? (genuine interest, no sarcasm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Tabs,
Firstly, Please excuse this rather lengthily reply, however your question raises important and valid concerns and warrants more than a few lines of discussion.
The content of the original post has generated a great deal of interest and pontification amongst my peer group members within the Oil and Gas Industry.
My group and I have no issue with multi-skilled tasking, moreover multi-skilled operatives are highly prized within the Oil and Gas Industry, Indeed there is a work in progress to develop and create a training curriculum that will incorporate the core skills of, Scaffolding ; Rigging and Rope Access Techniques.
The amalgamation of the aforementioned disciplines is designed to deal with the decommissioning of redundant Offshore Installations. The core disciplines will be enhanced further with Bolt-on competency training which will address the decoupling of flange joints and the operating of cold cutting equipment.
There is still much work to be done before this Faculty can be approved by endorsement i.e. Government bodies ; Oil and Gas Industry ; Trade Associations ; Trade Unions, ect. , furthermore, the legality of the deployment of these Specialist Multi-Task Operatives will have to be clarified.
So back to the Question, is it legal?...
Well that's for the Wigs at the bar to deliberate on, however , in the event of a reportable incident occurring and you find yourself before the Beak, in your defence it may be prudent to demonstrate a degree of mitigation by providing key operatives with a Scaffolding appreciation course.
Scenario (A)
A Fitter dismantles a Scaffold Structure during which damage to property or a tort against the person occurs , what is the legal outcome ?.
Scenario (B)
A Fitter Dismantles a Scaffold Structure , the company policy forbids this practice, he is disciplined (Fired). Fitter takes Company to tribunial for unfair dismissal , what is the legal outcome.
A double edged sword...whats your take on it?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
There is no law that says only scaffolders can work on scaffold but reg 13 (1) of MHSW says an employer shall in entrusting tasks to his employees take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety.
That reg alone in all the regs we have uses "capability" as the deciding factor and not competence. Hence the employer must be sure the fitters are capable - if they are capable then law is satisfied.
If they are less than capable then other safeguards apply such as supervision or use of others such as contractors who are capable. Risk assessment if used fully should determine which competences and which physical and mental attributes are required of those who are entrusted with the task.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Richard,
There is no law that says that only Scaffold's can work on Scaffold, However, C.I.T.B. and N.A.S.C. have spent a considerable amount of time, effort and expense to develop and implement competency based training programs which aimed to enhance the Health and Safety of the Industry and enrich the capability of the Scaffold Erector.
I must accept the content of the regs quote above, However, to give an employer free rain to deem an employee "capable" to execute a task a dangerous thing... by what measure dose an employer adopt to ascertain "capability...apart from training.
Best regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
Garry,
Please look at the regs and what I wrote again. The law places an obligation on the employer to ensure that capable persons are entrusted with tasks. There is no free rein about it. However how that employer measures "capability" is for him to decide (and in the event of an incident or HSE visit) to justify. Some do it by means of certificates which we all know is not always reliable, some by experience and others such as the armed forces or fire service by observation over a period of years in action plus training and simulated exercises etc.ompetence is a very much overworked word and is not udnerstood by many in H&S -- in fact
the only regulations that require the person to be "competent" are those in respect of duties requiring sound judgement such as inspection, advice or risk assessment. Workers are required to be capable and employers are required to provide appropriate training, supervision, instructions and information. The obligation is on the employer to choose the right person for the task under all circumstances that might be encountered such as emeregncies and not on the person to prove their competence.
Where certificates and training alone are relied on then capability might well be lacking and lack of capability leads to accidents. In a crisis who would you want stood next to you someone who was competent or someone who was capable.
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Richard,
Thanks for your reply it has certainly clarified and helped me to distinguish between capable and competent.
However, I still find myself on the horns of a dilemma. In regard to Scaffolding Operations.
Scenario, A Scaffolder has worked for a Scaffolding Firm for 30 years and has a thorough knowledge of all aspects of the Industry and has the capabilities to erect the permutations, configurations and correlations required to erect a Scaffold to B.S.1139.
The Scaffolder is made redundant, he has not got a CISRS card issued by the Construction Industry Scaffolders record Scheme.
He applies for a Job...he gets refused a start because he has no CISRC card...is this discrimination ? against the Scaffolder...
Richard, im not nit picking , id value your thoughts ...in other words is a CISRS card worth the paper its written on, or is this a money making scam by C.I.T.B. and N.A.S.C.
Regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
I guess something is as valuable as the person valuing it thinks it is, be that the old watch you found in the shed or a certificate.
Clients are often ignorant of what is worthwhile but sometimes so are workers and I have been saddened over the years by workers leaving the construction industry who have been good workers but who are scared of training and assessment.
Is one certificate better than another, is experience better than going on a course - I guess it all depends. If an accident occurs the employer will in criminal law and in civil law have to show the worker was capable of doing the job safely or the guy next to him was etc. Sometimes the test is given in law such as a licence for that vehicle and a blood alcohol level that is not too high. Sometimes the test is one of "reasonableness". However when looking for job the worker has to have the right cards to play - sometimes that is experience, some times it is certificates and sometimes having the right attitude, or a face that fits or nothing that disqualifies them such as a criminal record for a job in accounts or a spinal injury for a job as a roofer. My advice to employers would be to get the best person they can based on capability not just on certificates (capability cannot be forged or bought in a pub)and my advice to workers is to future proof and get all the right certs as you go along.(we call that CPD in H&S roles)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By patrick carr
Hi all,
Some interesting views, on dismantling scaffolding. I have been a scaffolder for 30 yrs, a advanced scaffolder for the last 6 yrs,all scaffolders must have a valid cisrs card to enable them to carry out scaffolding operations, that does not entitle them to be fitters or welders or any other trade that looks easy, rember Yosser Hughes "gis a job, i can do that"?
However in this scenario, look at the facts:
3'
10 x tubes
2 x boards
just move it, and cordon off with hazard tape, then inform the scaffolders before there shift starts on your actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
,Hi Patrick,
like yourself I have been a Scaffolder pre and post C.I.T.B., indeed this is my 36 th year before the mast. My CISRS credentials are still valid and I still surf the Steel on occasion.
In regard to the Bill of Quantities associated with the dismantlement of the Scaffolding Structure in question.
On the face of it the dimensions of the Structure and the Bill of Quantities involved may appear to be minuscule and I would expect a trained monkey to strip the Scaffold.On the other hand where is the cut off point, i.e. at what dimensions and volume of Scaffold component parts is it unacceptable for any Butcher, Baker or Candlestick maker to have a go.
The original post has revealed Organisational failings in the Arrangements contained within Company Policies one of which is the lack of commitment to Emergency cover Re-Scaffolding Ops or bonifide training for key personnel.
The Scaffold was dismantled because it impinged on Production, is this a good enough reason , where is this Organization's Safety Culture.
Fraternal regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Des Daly
Having worked in the scaffolding industry for thirty years I know that this was not an isolated incident - for some reason that I've never been able to get to the bottom of, other trades will remove scaffolding if it is in their way and scaffolders are not immediately available ( usually because site management does not want them on site at all times).
In all my years in scaffolding I have never heard of a scaffolder who interfered with electrics, plumbing etc. or was asked by supervision to do so...yet the same cannot be said of other trades.
As a safety adviser for the client on a £660 million LNG project I would not want people working on my site who ask untrained persons to dismantle scaffolds.
I would be asking to see a risk assessment for the work and be greatly concerned if competency as a control measure had not been included.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven n
I totally agree with Des, It is a common thing on engineering construction sites for a supervisor to tell you to 'whip your shifter out and move that handrail, the scaffs are too busy' and all too often the employee will do it to get the job done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Back to poor management culture then!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Des,
Like Steven, I totally agree with your comments,
The evolution of the Scaffolding Industry has made great advances since Master Mariner John Palmer ( one of the three founder members of N.A.S.C. ) lead his crew ashore to erect the Scaffolding to build Buckingham Palace in the Nineteenth Century.
During my career Both pre and post H.A.S.W.A. I have been witness and contributed to many Culture changes within the Scaffolding Industry and Associated Rigging and Lifting Operations. Indeed it is a tribute to the commitment and the professionalism of the Scaffolding Erectors, many have worked long and hard to establish a Safety Culture that is second to none World wide...I do not wish this Safety Culture to be undermined or devalued, By Organisations or their supervision directing operatives to have a "go".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Robert,
It is my view that Management has not explored every reasonably practicable avenue with regard to Scaffolding Operations.
The question of the legality of the task in is academic, the question is the level of commitment to Health and Safety concerns and the degree to go the extra mile to ensure parity with Scaffolding Safety Culture.
Do you think their is room for improvement in the Arrangements, if so what would you recommend ?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Garry
My personal view follows one of two lines. Either:
Ensure the site rules are followed at all times including any stated training requirements.
or
Abandon the site rules stating specific training but state that managers must ensure peole are competent to undertake the work. The manager then is responsible if something untoward happens.
Both paths mean ultimately moving to a culture where management is responsible for their actions.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Steven,
The unauthorised removal of Scaffolding component parts is one of the most lethal precursors which may be a contributory factor leading to partial/catastrophic collapse of a Structure or injury to a operative.
As you have intimated, production is cited in defence for the removal of the obstacle.
The request to remove Scaffolding component parts by Supervision should to be reported to line Management. Blue Book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven n
Gerry,
Back in my days as a steel erector my colleagues and I would often be asked to move a tube or toe board etc. As an ex basic scaffolder,with scaffolders permission,I would occasionally move things but I knew my limits, I wouldn't have even considered removing any tubes etc and would indeed report them to our management which would often lead to nothing.
It was situations like this that led me down the righteous, often thankless, path of health and safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven n
Sorry Garry not Gerry!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By patrick carr
hi all.
thanks for some interesring valid views,Garry,Des,Steven and Robert,i bet if the company concerned read all these views, it would be a case of "leave it till the scaffs come in".
regards paddy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Robert,
I concur, Management must demonstrate a meaning full commitment to Culture Step change strategies. Furthermore, an open door policy and a willingness to engage in joint consultation with all concerned with operational procedures may go some way in enhancing Health and Safety Policy.
The addition of further responsibilities may deliver a shot across the bow of Captains of Industry. To dangle the sword of Damocles over their heads may remind those less diligent decision makers of the onset of Corporate Manslaughter proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Steven,
I to was a spider man and walked the steel,
My first job was with a Steel Erecting Firm in Aberdeen. Started 1970 made redundant 1972 then went Scaffold erecting with SGB... In then days Safety was never heard of eh, I to entered the world of H&S via the Trade Union, however my specialism is Scaffolding, rigging and rope access.
Fraternal regards, Garry...
Gerry is my Irish uncles name
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Salutations Patrick,
Sorry Paddy...accidentally put Steven on my last post ...a momentary laps in concentration, just shows one cannot legislate against human error eh LOL.
Fraternal regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.