Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By john thos 147
Could people take a few secs to air the thoughts on the following?
We have several hundred risk assessments in the factory is it reasonable to put them all into folders which can be accessable to all employees all of the time in an office on the shop floor ( depot library so to speak)
many thanks
john p
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
What would you see as the benefit of doing so? Is it so that people can know what precautions to take, or so that they can criticise / suggest improvements to the assessments? Or just to show that the assessments have been done?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ScotsAM
It's certainly an idea but still you should ensure that employees understand the risk assessment and control measures and sign of to say as much once they view them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
sorry for bring dumb but i thought you had to display risk assessments. to critise would be good as in my view it would be constructive and obviously come from the people who do the jobs who have allreaddy inputted into the risk assessments.
they allreaddy know the precautions to take but like everything these days you have to dot the i's and cross the t'sotherwise you pay the price.
i thought it was a simple question but as usual cant get a simple andwer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
No, you don't have to display risk assessments - you have to inform people of their outcomes. Whether displaying the assessments is a good way to do this depends on their format, length etc. Usually there are better ways to convey the outcomes (like instruction manuals, signs, and so on).
So as you don't have to display them - what is the intended purpose of displaying them? Whether it is a sensible thing to do or not will depend (among other things) on the purpose - what do you want to get out of it?
I agree that criticism can be useful - that's why I wrote "suggest improvements" next to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
the idea is to display them so that people can read them and inform themselves. there are over 900 individual risk assessments there is no way i have the time nor the inclination to individually inform or in groups the contents of these RA's
The employees have SSW's which control the risks through procedures/ppe etc in.They are being displayed to simply inform,educate,the employee's and defend aginst the bloody obvious such as tripping over there own shaddow and then claiming because you didnt risk assess there shadow or which way the lighting casts. do you get my point. fed up with mamby pambying people. as i was told years ago there is no such thing as common sense in H&S, never a truer word spoken and thats at all levels
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian_P
Hi,
I agree you don't have to display ALL your Risk Assessments, however we have found displaying some of them is an advantage.
We have a A4 flippy chart thing in each of our depots which we display our "Top Ten" Risk assessments along with a translated (!) safe working practice.
These are updated regularly to reflect current trends, accidents etc. By doing this, people stop and ask questions and dare I say it, look at them - if only for a minute.....!
This isn't a replacement for other measures however, rather in addition to. Other, and arguably more effective, ways of communicating the outcome of a risk assessment include safety signs, safety meetings, training, newsletters, blah blah.
Best Regards,
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
If you want them to read the assessments, then I think that answers your question. Clearly they can't read them if they are not available to read. But are they in an easily understandable format? Will they want to read them? Will they have time to read them?
You will need to consider how to make clear which assessments are relevant to each person - presumably you don't expect them all to read 900 assessments.
However I don't see how it will serve the purpose of avoiding liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
new employees;
2 day induction (comprehenisve)
covering :
FLT awareness
slips trips falls
coshh
reporting accidents near misses
made aware not to use anything that they deem unsafe even if told to use by supervision ( stop work get H&S dept no come backs no discipplianries no fear etc.)
falls from heights
near misses
you name it its in it.
1 day manual handling (classroom)
4 days on the job manual handling(combined with normal job done by trainer for the job
signed off as competent Manual handling.
continues on the job training.
For example laser operator
up to 12 weeks covering all operational aspects including safety.
Trained Ad hoc when neccessary with ancillary equipment such as burning gear grinders.
not allowed to do burning grinding unless has completed H&S training (knowledge based) covering risks
All is documented and recorded in dedicated training forms.
we have notice boards all over the factory for all types of things ,six sigma,car share ,first aid, coshh assessments bords main boards are 8x4's 10 of.
Cant get the RA,s in polish/czech etc as haven't got a translator anymore ( i know Puwer says you should) SSW's are in polish and CZECH though.
Oh and thanks Ian P your answer was extremely helpful so now i will keep the RA.s in a folder but i will also display the ones that can be used in conjunction with any accidents i.e if some one has a manual handling injury in an area i will put that one up along with a non relevant one ( does that make sense?)
many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
John
you have 900 ish risk assessments, therefore 900+ significant risks that need to be recorded?
Crumbs!!!!
I don't envy you and your task.....can't you simplify it in any way? There's no way anyone would be able to read all the RA's, can't you just make the relevant ones available and just brief those? What sector are you in?
900 eh?
Holmezy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
we have general ones for each area such as laser and then we have specific ones
such as:
manual handling
Guards
lifting equipment
entanglemet
struck by object
crushing
and so on sounds a lot but they become generic once you have identified the hazard as the controls are so much the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
OK - so there are 900+ assessments but a much smaller number of controls.
Doesn't it make more sense to communicate the controls rather than the assessments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By brian handman
i think that this is a good idea employees may have to sighn and say they have understood but is that always the case . it would be beneficial for the employee to be able to refer to the assessment when they have forgot what it says and need to know how to do the job safely . nowadays people sighn to say they have read and understood wether they have understood or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
all controls are cummunicated .
all employees no what the risks are how to control them etc this does not stop them having accidents.Always suprises me how many accidents take place within the first 40 - 60 mins of work.
We are simply trying to cover every scenario possibble and at the same time inform the employees of the risks etc but also protect from the spurious claims ( these have increased since we have made redundancies almost as if they are treated as endowment pokicies or TESSA's
i.e somebody has done manual handling training.
we have 8 FLT's
we have 3 electric pump trucks
we have 3 electric trolleys that lift and lower jib arms everywhere
mobile jib arms.
manual handling training says reccomended by HSE 25 kilo limit( top of my head)
I say only lift what you are capable of lifting if it feels heavy get assistance get flt etc etc.
someone then picks something up at over 45kg injures ( ahem ) themselves and its our bloody fault seriously does my head in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By NJS
the displaying of "several hunderd" rick assessments is surely just going to dilute the information displayed on each one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
i dont want them on display as such i want them available to whoever may want to see them then there can be no ambiguity over their existance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
900 risk assesments??? Seems to me you have used the wrong approach on risk assessments going by your list. The point is to look at the task and identify what risk are associated with the task and control those risk to ALARP. As pointed out you don't say what your industry is but to complete 900 or more risk assessments appears to me just doing risk assessments if thats what they are is just a paper exercise to justify the job. Any evidence to prove me wrong would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Not reasonable IMHO and of no real practicable value.
900+ Discrete & Significant Tasks/ Activities needing written Assessment ???? Nightmare!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By naveen duggal
Hi,
Congratulations to all, your views are valuable and to me the practical side of displaying risks assessments is good.
However, discussing with your team is preferred ( in toolbox talk or briefings or instructions) as to the necessary control measures, precautions, design stage or say planning to be implemented ,reviewing from time to time, task responsibility, how to do the job safely .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
Bob,
The company are in fabrications, the original manufacturer of the "Bailey Bridge"
I agree totally with your view but I get very concerned that many others take the view of the original poster. I often feel it would be interesting to see how many are in each "camp"
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
4x laser cutters
2x dry plasma
1 x wet plasma
i xtechnicut
5 xpress machines all differnt
lathe
pin drill
5x rotary drill all differnt
1x shaper
1x nibbler
1x drill shaper
1x miller
1x fly drill
1x band saw
2 x robot welders both differnt
1x audit
1x quality
7 production lines
1x audit 1x washing line
1xshotblasting
2x spraypainting
2x mobile elevating platforms both differnt
3x elctric pump truckss
8x FLT,s
3x HGV's
1 Joinery area ( not in use thank God)
3 x storage tanks boc
3xpaint storage ares
6x manipulators
?? welding jigs( Lots)
the above is off the top of my head
like i said we are doing one page RA's based on the hazards.
so for instance Drilling would be;
entanglement RA
manual handling RA
Hearing RA ( Generic all areas over threshholds)
Slips trips and falls RA again generic
Hit by moving objects
basically we have tried coming from a differnt angle than usual dont get me wrong we have overall Risk assesments that cover noise enviroment ergonomics etc, But i do not find them effective as they do not ID all risks.
I am aware of most hazarsds that the equipment poses so i assess the hazard independantly.
at least then i can say i am aware i have assessed this is waht we did these are the control measures we have in place.
As i stress many are generic or easily modified such as plasma laser technicuts the hazards are very similar Manual handling hit by moving objects noise basically some of them i only have to change the title .
I also have A PUWER assessment that covers a lot of things generally and is very comprehensive.
As is a manual handling RA that i use which assesses angles weights distances equipment again very good.Hopefully you can see from the above that we dont take them lightly and bare in mind that if something serious went wrong here it would take a huge chunk of Manchester with it so we tend not to do things for the sake of only to inprove the working conditions of our employees and ultimately keep them safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
If any of you actually want to see what we have done what we are doing etc then i will email you direct.
some of you may refer to previous psots where i was discussing the risk registar and this is the direction we have chosen to go
I sometimes imagine that there is a lot of people out there with big teams and resources who possibbly maybe dont actually get there hands dirty on the shop floor.
H&S is second to none and anyone can come here and see for themselves i never realised how chauvinistic H&S is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
John,
May I ask what your position is in your company?
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
"nowadays people sign to say they have read and understood whether they have understood or not"
Brian
I am disturbed - I thought this idea had been put to bed a long time ago. Any such signing is of no use whatever. I have discussed this with my regulatory authority (not HSE) and they are in complete agreement. At most, signing should acknowledge that the individual knows where relevant information and guides are, but not to know the whole lot!
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
If the employees already have the necessary information, then I don't see how displaying the risk assessments is going to either (a) prevent accidents or (b) help the company defend claims.
I'm not saying it's wrong to do it, just that I don't see a benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenneth Patrick
The HSE view:
Why are risk assessments important?
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) require employers to assess the risks of activities, introduce measures to control those risks and tell their employees about these measures.
i.e. it is the measures that count
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mor raphael
Hi John
I have always kept a file of risk assessments in each area along with the safe system of work for reference. The employees found it beneficial when they wwere asked for feedback. It's rather time consuming when they come up for review but I did have a few ad hoc visits from the HSE due to the high risks associated with our processes and it was certainly popular with the inspectors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
My position Is Human Resources and Safety Adviser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By afolabi ayodeji
what i will say is that, under normal circumstance will any safety practitioner will have to be displaying risk assessment because,we are practising safety and not subjecting ourselves,and properties to hazards or an un-safe act.The best thing is to disseminate informations to people on how they can safe-guard their lives by training,workshops,e.t.c
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By sylvia
900 pieces of paper - probably many (?) more than one side of A4.
This baffles me because the MHAS regs do not say a piece of paper has to be produced for every work situation or activity - not even close. The HSE continually remind us that we get too carried away with RA, we need to keep it simple and keep in mind that it is the control measures which are important, and clear communication of these are the critical element for employees.
Where did it all get so distorted that it escalated into all this bureaucracy?
It seems to me that if you look at the results of the 900 RAs, you will probably find much fewer than 900 control measures, as they will repeat and overlap, looking at the small elements of work each RA considers.
Working backwards from the controls, you could probably then combine the original RAs into groups of hazards or work situations quite easily. This would reduce the paperwork and make what you have more valid and useful.
Interesting contrast with the HSE example RAs for SMEs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
in the instances that we have had claims the first thing requested by solicitors isor clainmed by the solicitors is that you havent done a risk assessment.
I understand fully and believe in the comments above that you shouldnt have to RA everything but it seems in my view that you have to to be able to defend against spurious claims ( I also find it ridiculous that you have too.)
Take for instance manual handling RA's you do the training theory practical etc and then it seems that you have to RA's every MHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
JT, it is incredibly easy, on public forum such as this, to have your hard work judged and criticised from a distance and without any real assessment of the work or it's validity.
Your original question was-- is it acceptable to have a reference library for your employees somewhere where they can easily access any relevant documentation.
The simple and direct answer is--yes it is. Are you required to do so, no. Is it good practice and does it help? Not much in my experience. Like the company manuals, they tend to gather dust and be seen as coming out of the woodwork when things go wrong rather than useful documents that relate to every day activity. You can just as easily provide access to your primary records if it is requested.
I prefer the approach, that is increasingly common in many manufacturing environments, to have copies of the SSOW and often the underpinning risk assessment for individual machines/ work processes posted in the work area or alongside the individual machine. Employees can then easily refer to those when they need or they can be used during safe working audits to check compliance and understanding or in area team talks.
Thus, although, there may well be several hundreds of individual risk assessments/SSOW across a complex manufacturing environment, employees will only be involved with a few at any one time and can easily refer to them when required. For example, during training, on first use of a machine after a time away working in another area or coming back from holiday, follow up after an incident or accident etc.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gerry d
I agree that the control measures are what counts. I am sure that you could `work backwards` from these and be able to simplify and streamline them down from 900 (!). Doing 900 assessments must be a full time job in itself. Make sure the assessments are reviewed regularly to ensure they are relevant to a particular task (you should record this review as well even if there are no changes). We ensure each employee carrying out a particular task has understood the RA and has signed an acceptance/ record sheet to say so. The method of delivery is up to you but the employee must understand the risks and control measures, that is paramount. Having the RAs out there is a good idea as long as people know where they are and what purpose they serve. Just having them on display or held in a `reference` file is a total wate of time if no-one bothers to use them. Just keep it simple. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By john thos 147
Thanks for the replys Gerry and Pete both very helpful
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Decimomal
I was thinking about responding to this thread but then saw Petes contribution. What a sensible and measured response - good one Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter F
We display those assessments with significant risk of harm, along with the SSOW, and give tool box talks.
All other r/a's with which are less harmful are listed on the same board, asking the person to seek this information from the supervisor or manager. We only display the list with r/a's for the area, so each board could be different. This is explained to the people in the workshops when starting employment or training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saz G
Completely agree with Pete48.
This is exactly the kind of sensible, measured approach that we should all adopt with regards to risk assessment.
We too follow the same method. Maintain a central file for risk assessments and communicate the main findings with the personnel responsible for the task and then issue a SSW/SOP related to it, which is posted in a small flip folder on the wall at the location of the machine/task. This way, the information is 'drip-fed' as and when required (as assessments are reviewed for change in use/following an accident etc) and is available to all for reference. It is also part of our new starter 3 monthly induction period that they go through and sign off the main SOPs related to their job in stages.
This works very well and isn't bombarding personnel with too much information.
IMHO 900 risk assessments is extremely excessive and I agree with other posters that they could be scaled down and will cross over in many areas. The info in these RAs is not relevant to the staff on the shop floor, just the controls that are in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By dave burrage
John
Pete48 has given some great advice so i won't comment further on that part..just to add that in some environments where teams are working, the approach is to undertake a review of the relevant controls required for a particular activity prior to commencing the work. There are some real benefits to this approach including the ability to continuously improve and update the RA as this system also includes a facility to feedback to a central point any updates or improvements identified by the team.
Rgds Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Coshh Assessor
I don't think it is fair to criticise John for having 900 RAs - he has clearly explained that this is in order to respond when the insurer hopes for a specific RA in relation to an incident. If it is useful for this purpose then it is a reasonable way to do it! The issue is of how to communicate all these RAs internally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saz G
I don't think anyone is criticising, merely suggesting that they could be less onerus. We all have to demonstrate 'suitable and sufficient' risk assessments for the hazardous tasks that we carry out insurers and authorities alike, but there are much more hazardous industries and tasks than the ones mentioned above, and I am sure that they too would consider 900 excessive and agree that there is a more concise way of recording and communicating this information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.