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

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
SHP Article
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
MB1  
#1 Posted : 14 October 2011 12:15:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MB1
http://www.shponline.co....nted-lift-truck-incident I scratched my head with the reference to the actual regulation breached... Should this had not been reg 17?
Back to top
m  
#2 Posted : 14 October 2011 12:31:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
m
17 would do it but 4.1 works too.
Back to top
HSSnail  
#3 Posted : 14 October 2011 12:32:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
HSSnail
Could it be that they used Reg 4 as a general none compliance with lots of the regs in Workplace(Health, Safety and Welfare) regulations rather that going for s number of different offences? As you say 17 is specifically about segregation. Or typo in article?
Back to top
peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 14 October 2011 13:07:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch
Reg 4 defines the duty and tells the employer to comply with Reg 17.
Back to top
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET