Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By micklecats
Some opinons are welcome please if you have the time:
A couple of guys here have impaired vision.
Does an employer have to take special precautions to protect a partially sighted or hearing impaired person from further eye or hearing impairment, over and above those affected complying with normal company policy?
In other words, if eye protection is mandatory only in certain areas or at certain times, should we ensure any people with sensory impairment are protected over and above the requirements of the policies? For instance in all operational areas, rather than just some?
Risk assessments are all in place, though specific RA's for the individuals, when done, may show they need extra protection? And does that fit in with discriminatory law?
(just thinking back to the old test case from my NEBOSH days about the one eyed man who lost the remaining eye - special circumstances increased the risk (loss off the one good eye results in total loss of sight).
My plan was to consult with the guys concerned to explain, then issue with suitable EN166 PPE in a style of their choice, obtain their buy-in and get them to sign up formally to wearing the protection whenever they are in any operational area.
Can I do this?
Are there better ways?
I want to make sure they are protected but don't want to end up being done for breaching discrimination laws.
Ideas please, cheers!
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Juan Carlos Arias
Paris v stepney borough council 1951 - you owe an extra duty of care to them - you seem to be doing the right thing. In my opinion if you discuss it with the people involved and they understand you are interested in their protection, i don't see why it would develop in a discriminatory case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By micklecats
Thanks for that, just wanted to check I was not going to end up being in trouble for not being PC.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Mick
I am sure that previous threads on this forum have said that discrimination on health and safety grounds is allowed.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By steven bentham
Micklecats
So following this logic, if you employ staff who have suffered hearing loss do they wear hearing protection all the time?
Just wondered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By micklecats
Don't ask me - I was the one who asked the question in the first place!
But, having said that, as I would be looking at the enforcement of eye protection where there is 'any' risk, rather then none, the same would go for noise hazards too; if there were low noise levels there would be tangible risk only and the wearing of hearing protection would not be required, even if hearing impaired.
That's my take on it anyway - everything should be risk based in this function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By micklecats
Those with noise induced hearing loss or other hearing impairment are subject to more frequent health surviellance and also exclusion from areas of very high noise levels under certain circumstances, again it depends upon the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By water67.
Why would hearing impaired people wear ear protection "all the time" Surely only in areas marked as requiring ear protection just same as anyone else..- work area at a level that can cause damage.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Thompson CMIOSH
The use of hearing protection when not required may cause other risks to be exaggerated, eg lack of peripheral awareness, poor communication failure to hear warning signals etc.
Effective risk assessment is the key why try to protect from a problem that is not there.
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.