Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 11 April 2008 09:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By colin gibbs
we are a small engineering company subcontracted to a soap powder manufacturer.
at a recent safety meeting we were informed that it is our job to carry out "hand skin checks" of our workforce at our cost, I thought that under the HASAWA if the client creates the hazard they are responsible to ensure that all hazards related to them are controlled.
now they are also insisting that dust masks are to be face fitted at our cost
any advice would be gratefully accepted
Admin  
#2 Posted : 11 April 2008 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT
Colin

This is a standard auditing control of a contractor. You have the responsibility for your workforce not the client you are producing for.

Be pleased that they helped you identify two potential problem areas (for which you do have duties).

No client would wish to be included in any media report which read; "whilst producing xxxxxx for company A, many workers have experienced dermatitis and breathing difficulties which is likely to result in enforcement action against the manufacturing company, no one was available to comment from company A, but we understand the contract has now been terminated, and a new one put in place with an alternative manufacturer".

It comes down very much to assessment of the provider; just how do you decide on the capabilities and competencies/commitment of said provider without getting pro-actively involved as indeed they have shown here?

It is up to you as the employer to make certain everything is in place, in the situation in which you describe. If by chance your workforce are working in the clients premises and you are just subcontracting labour to work on their machines, with their products, then it is slightly different; I feel however from the content of your post this is probably not the case.

CFT
Admin  
#3 Posted : 11 April 2008 10:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Colin

MS24 is quite specific:
“. . . employers are required to arrange for employees to receive suitable health surveillance where there is exposure to a substance known to be associated with skin disease or adverse effects on the skin and where, under particular working conditions, there is a reasonable likelihood that the disease or effect may occur.”

There cannot be many workplaces where this would not apply, yet in my experience few actually have an effective skin health surveillance system in place. Certainly possible exposure to soap and soap dust would fall into this category.

As it happens my daughter, Helen, has just submitted her thesis for her PhD on techniques for skin health surveillance. I am sure that if you contacted her by phone (01386 832 311) she would be happy to talk to you about this.

Chris
Admin  
#4 Posted : 11 April 2008 11:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton
Your post suggests that your company tendered for work at a budget cost which did not include all the required health and safety precautions. Almost certainly, the tender documents would have highlighted the need for these precaurtions but your sales engineer (whoever) chose to ignore and did not price for it. The chickens are now coming home to roost.

Maybe when the contract is up for renewal, you will be able to raise your rates to reasonable levels. In the meantime - do it or lose the work.

Contractors who unfairly (and illegally) undercut their rivals by omitting vital provisions for H&S have been a bane of my life for many years.

Steve
Admin  
#5 Posted : 22 April 2008 16:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By colin gibbs
thanks for all your advice gratefully accepted
in response to Steve my company have been working for this manufacturer in excess of 15 years and only recently have they insisted on skin surveillance, as an incident occurred in one of their manufacturing plants overseas, and they have "as a precaution" carried out the skin checks of all their employees and are insisting we do the same, in our defence we do not undercut anyone this is a new cost that we will as a company have to bear i was merely asking for advice on who does what.
As our company has just received its 14th consecutive safety award from the British Safety Council I hardly think we omit anything when it comes to health and safety.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 22 April 2008 16:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Packham
Colin

As I said already, if you want to talk about skin health surveillance give us a call (01386 832 311)and I will be happy to see what I can do to help.

Chris
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.