Paul,

It's best practice as far as I know. Your friend was probably in breach of whatever training and or site rules were in place but I suspect it is not illegal.

As an aside, when working off a MEWP over water I would be quite concerned to see someone harnessed up - they should be in a life jacket.....

Jim

Ex,
He was not in breach of site rules, his line manager is quite happy with no harness!
Oh, I know the bit about water.
The "h & s" person was a member of the public in an area which was legally accessible to the public, but, fenced off from where the MEWP was.
The "h & s" person has annoyed and frightened him a lot!
Hence the phone call to me.
He was annoyed about having his picture taken too!

Requirements are in a BS Code of Practice (sorry the number escapes me). There's no absolute statutory requirement. No absolute requirement for restraint unless there is a risk of being ejected - i.e. by collision. Your friend should relax.

Who is his line Manager, He is quite happy with no Harness, clearly he knows nothing about the WAH Regs or MEWPs.

A point to note on MEWPs Boom type, the Anchor point is only rated for RESTRAINT by the Manufacturer.

A proper Risk Assessment by a competent person would identify the risk of falling or been catapulted out of the basket, or machine failure, hence a Full Body harness and restraint lanyard is required/recommended.

However your friend can rest, he has no chance of been prosecuted, the event has happened and the photo would mean nothing in a court, especially if he can not be clearly identified. Who, What and How would he be brought before a court, can the Independent HSE Officer tell you.

The point to note here is, your friend and his Manager did not assess the Hazard or identify the Risk and put control measures in place. Was your friend trained, I'm sure in the PUWER, more so reg 9 and LOLER regs there is some mention of Training, Information and Instruction. HASAWA 1974 section 2 says it all, plus there are probs a few more regs we could refer to, my point here is your friend works for a company that clearly does not care about the safety of their staff, and the Manager knows very little.

Just one more point, if your friend had fallen or been injured, the HSE would in court refer to the current regs and acops, and if proved your friend was a fault, he would be the one to face the music, ref HASAW section 7 & 8. But I suspect in this case the company is at fault, unless it does have clear procedures and risk assessments, then the line supervision is not following the companies rules etc.

I was not on site yesterday though, it was not me honestly, it is a friend I have who also works for a client of mine, though I do not work there in an H&S role.
I have told them they need to review their policy and get the guy a restraint harness.
It could be possible to be thrown from the basket in a slewing operation true.
The guy has a lot of experience and an IPAF card, though now expired & again, employer is not willing to update, however, much he has asked, the employer has not got him a restraint harness, they gave him a fall arrest harness with a long lanyard, but there would not have been any point in him wearing it he would have hit the floor before the lanyard got to full length.

The company is very lax on its MS/RA's etc, and they employ quite a few people, and have some areas of high risk.
He was working out of hours, alone.
They have recently had a totally unrelated HSE IN, this resulted in the removal of the MD & the Senior Mgr by the remainder of the board & the shareholders!

I appreciate that the requirement is there, I'm just trying to put together some ideas in my head at the moment.
The risks were assessed by him to a degree.
IF the MEWP is used in a vehicle movement area, a harness is worn, it's no use but he does wear it.
He has told his manager it is unsuitable, but there has been no action.
His manager uses the MEWP without training or a harness!
The previous senior manager there would regularly ride in the bucket of a front loader to gain access to heights! Unrelated to the HSE IN as well!
They have a very good accident record ironically! IN was not related to an accident.
Anyway, he felt the risk was very low.
No risk of vehicle collision, no others working in area, no vehicle movements.
He has had training and experience, he knows about harnesses, but the employer has provided the wrong one, and seemingly won't get a short lanyard for it.
He has to keep working else they will find a way to dismiss him, fact with many employers unfortunately.
The MEWP is well maintained, by the supplier and in good condition.
It is a boom type MEWP, and the controls are interlocked with a covered foot pedal, I know I've actually driven the machine!

Perhaps if this guy reports it to his employer, then they will do something about getting him the correct harness & renewing his IPAF card!
So it may turn out to be good news in the end.

I intended to add to that don't we as IOSH members agree to report situations like this as part of our professional conduct?

Ron

Collision is not the only cause of ejection - Sudden loss of ground when traversing is more common than many probably realise. This may be due to a variety of causes such as weak manhole covers through to ground failure and buried service ducts. Without fall rstraint the list of serious injuries would be much longer than it is.

Bob

Hi Paul, you may have already seen this but no harm in looking again.

The web page - http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc614.pdf - states :

This leaflet contains notes on good practice which are not compulsory but which you may find helpful in considering what you need to do.

So not statute law but it goes on to say:

The Law. If you own, hire or otherwise operate or control the equipment you have duties under health and safety law. Typical fall arrest legal provisions are (or will be) contained in the following pieces of legislation :

•Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998;
•Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998;
•Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992;
•Construction (Design and Management Regulations) 1994;
•Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996;
•Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
•The Work at Height Regulations, due in 2004.

Since when?

I never agreed to such a thing and I think I would be sacked if reported all my clients to the HSE.

Equally the HSE would hate me. I used to get sent photo's and as far as I was concerned it was a case of, well what do you want me to do about it?? A photo in itself is not evidence. And will you please not talk about 'shutting the company down' The HSE don't shut comanies down. They could only prohibit something in particular.

As to the original point, your 'friend' cannot be prosecuted by this expert as they are not warranted to do so. Equally they cannot get this perosn prosecuted. Th HSE don't work like that and neither does the law.

Safety issues aside the only person in breachj of any professional code of conduct here is the self confessed expert throwing round empty threats. Sack him instead.

As has already been stated, your friend cannot be prosecuted by a member of the public, common sense please!

You ask if there is statute law requiring the user of boom type to wear a harness, I'd say that is the wrong question to ask. As a super-forum-user clearly you know that the vast majority of control measures are down to risk assessment but the reality of the situation is that ACOPs / published guidance (HSE and other etc.) should be used when conducting the risk assessment. The Statute law would be HASAWA and the WAH Regs. I'd argue that the wearing of a harness in boom type MEWPS is not best practice but good practice and industry standard.

Should your friend wear a harness? Yes (unless operating over water as stated previously)
Does it make a difference if the work is relatively static? No
Should the responsible person update their WAH policy? Yes
If something went wrong, is enforcement action more likely with the present policy? Yes
Is there any real reason to not use a harness? No
Is the fact a random stranger brought this issue up the real issue here? No!

Theoretically this member of the public could instigate proceedings but they'd need the consent of the DPP. HSWA Section 38. Can't remember this ever happening.

Do you know what year your information was published, Ron. It appears to pre-date the W@H Regs 2005 which clearly states the following.
Reg 6(3) is the key duty in the WAHR. Namely, ‘every employer shall take suitable
and sufficient measures to prevent, SFAIRP, any person falling a distance liable to cause
personal injury’. Reg 6(3) will be the most commonly quoted breach in any enforcement
action because it is the key duty to prevent any fall. The term ‘any person’ means persons
at work and members of the public.

There is no duty, either professional or moral, to report to the HSE.

Beyond that circumstances dictate, as do personal opinions.

Walking down the street and seeing something - I don't care, they can do what they like, it's not within my work remit or my duty in life to protect everyone in the world.

Walking round a clients - I'll tell the client what they're doing wrong.

Working for a company - depends how much power I have to stop the unsafe act, so as a minimum report to relevant person.

But the list goes on.

I'm amazed how many people think they have a right or duty to inform the HSE. The HSE are not an emergency service and they do not want every Tom Dick or Harry telling them about every unsafe act happening in this country.

I'll make available information to the HSE if they ask me or if it's RIDDOR rpeortable etc. Other than that I'll leave them out of it. It's not going to do any good reporting it to them anyway. Just how much man power do you think they have?

I think we are in agreeance, Ron, as I stated "should"!

My main point is that a harness is inexpensive and shouldn't restrict the user's mobility (boom baskets are small anyway), I'm sure we'll all agree there is a risk of toppling regardless of task description (the likelihood of such an occurrence would clearly be dependant on task factors) therefore why would you not require one to be used to further reduce your risk exposure?



http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc614.pdf

Reprinted 08/06 so I assume after the introduction of the WAH Regs.

I just clicked on the link and it still says "Work @ Height Regs due in 2004" on page 4 so it must have been copied and reprinted, Jake.

Sorry I have not responded, I have a manic few days, working stupid hours so I can have a few days off in the way of a long Bank Holiday weekend for my birthday!
I hope that in a few days I can come back with responses & an update!
Changes have been made!

Further the poster does not mention working by water in his post in fact he is on stable ground and is asking if there is anything in law that states a harness should be worn. He states he knows about the water issue as did I and he further stated that the site were happy with no harnesses being worn, most would go for a harness except near water.

The first answer tells him there is nothing in law, but there are still a number of posts after this.


To comply with teh_boy can no-one else reply once in his opion the question has been answered..

I think you mean 1000 posts? I have 217..

Hmmm........ some more debate here then from another "Superuser". (I'm not that keen on the term either).

There is I think a somewhat inescapable logic and legal argument that, where we insist on use of harness and restraint (for what ever reason), we also need an emergency rescue plan.
Formulating such a plan to combat the time limited issues associated with suspension trauma often has it's own complications. I think it fair to say though that where an HSE Inspector sees restraint in use, we can reasonably expect them to ask about emergency rescue.........an aspect of WAHR compliance where compliance is not great.
Just a thought folks.