Rank: Super forum user 
|
A friend who runs his own company rang me and asked if there was a certain amount of over 3 day reportables you were allowed by the HSE?
He was hired by a contractor to carry out work on a site . This contractor was taken over by a MCG company who have now said his 2 X 3 day reportables is to many and he cannot work for them.
His 2 Accidents were investigated by the HSE and one classed as unavoidable and one certain measures were put in place and then deemed to be a SSOW.
He says the person who is stopping them working is not from the Safety Department but a buyer.
I feel he is being removed not for safety reasons but to allow another company in who has been used by the buyer before.
Am I right in thinking there is no set amount of accidents you are allowed but obviously companies at the tender stage can set a limit? Or should at least ask for details of the accidents to see if the problems identified are now resolved.
Regards Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There can't be a limit set by the HSE because if you were a one man band and had an over 3-day injury, 100% of your staff would have had a reportable injury! I'd be more inclined to beleive that either a figure has been set in the tender or the figure is so high it has worried the buyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Of course there's no arbitrary limit because - as Fennel said following the Kings Cross fire - accidents are a negative measure largely dependant on luck whereas what is required.....
Long story short - it sounds as if you've got a jobsworth buyer following rigid and inflexible rules that were written by a numpty. The numpty may or may not have been a "safety person". Such situations are far far too common.
There are apparently major clients in the USofA who would remove contractors from their approved supplier list if even a single accident was reported. Is it any wonder that some organisations hide their accidents? Is the new owner of your client based in the USofA?
Not a lot your friend can do except adopt a cynical and jaundiced view of the world, where nothing will surprise him anymore. It sounds as if you could offer him help in this with speculation on the possible ulterior motives behind the buyers decision. I tend to believe in cock-up rather than conspiracy, but there are other belief systems out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think both Smurf and Steve make good points.
I for one have never really felt all that comfortable with using accident figures as being a particulalry reliable method of determining safety performance. Time and again I am asked to benchmark against other authorities to see how our performance compares. Sorry, but while there is a place for stats etc they are not for me the panacea. For the most part comparing the stats, which are in the main related to OUTCOMES seems to me to be rather a blunt instrument full of inconsistencies and often the comparison of 'apples with pears'.
Ok so we all know what an over 3 day injury is, but get this one. I have someone who had an accident that was for the sake of the HSE statistics shows up as being nothing more than a reportable over 3 day injury. The reality for this chap is that he was off work for months, suffered a significant and for the time being at least 'life changing' injury and he has now been medically retired. Now, compare that with an over 3 day injury in which the person return to work after 5 days off and is back to 100% fitness.
Even so using the 2 examples that I have, I have fallen into my own trap of talking about the outcome of the accident, which in the one case was significant. But hopefully some of you will see my point, yes stats have a place (I suppose) but they often compare apples with pears and only really dealing with outcomes and tell a very small part of the story and are IMVHO not a particulalry reliable indicator (have I already said that?)
Right then just off to get my PPE on and wait for the fall out!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Alex, as indicated in your posting, this may well be a case of H&S being incorrectly blamed for a business decision, in which case your friend may well wish to refer to the initial terms of engagement. However, if the buyer does not want to buy there may be little that can be retrieved without resorting to legal means. That may be counterproductive or may be a way around the buyer's preference for employing his friend.
This seems to me to be a business decision for your friend.
Previous posters have given their opinions on counting failures which I largely share.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks for your comments.
I have told him to go through the contract documentation which is possibly his only way ahead.
I was sure there was no set figures from the HSE only what companies may introduce themselves.
Regards Alex
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.