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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Eddie W  
#1 Posted : 07 September 2013 07:36:16(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

I work on a site with considerable traffic hazards. We currently have PPR requirements of Hi-Viz jacket and trousers for all maintenance staff and contractors. The Principle Contractor (PC), under CDM, who undertakes general maintenance and organises occasional modifications to the site has instructed us that they and all contractors they engage will no longer wear the Hi-Viz trousers as they feel they are not necessary. I have given them various reasons why our RA states they need to be worn and without going into too much detail they have come back to me with 'as PC we can develop and enforce our own procedures'. Essentially what I am asking is under the CDM regs. can the PC enforce their own lower standards of PPE? And do we have to comply as they have informed me we do? Personally I cannot see that they can do this as I feel that they should comply with all existing site rules even if they are more stringent that their own. Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.
RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 07 September 2013 08:34:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Eddie The PC pursuant to the CDM Regs is responsible for site safety which includes mandating site rules and PPE requirements. So yes, the PC can dictate to you what PPE your personnel must wear on site. Notwithstanding this, it does seem a bit churlish for the PC to mandate a lower standard of PPE than your existing standard. I can only presume the PC does not wish to spend the money providing their own personnel with hi-vis trousers. Your options are to comply, argue the toss, or seek the intervention from the client. Good luck. Ray
Eddie W  
#3 Posted : 07 September 2013 10:05:02(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

Ray, Thank you for your reply. You have hit the nail on the head with your thoughts about cost as I do feel that is the only 'real' reason for the objection. Interestingly enough it was the same firm that upgraded the PPE requirements 4 years ago following an incident!! We will continue to represent our position and see if we can get them to see reason. Regards Eddie
achrn  
#4 Posted : 07 September 2013 21:16:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Eddie W wrote:
I work on a site with considerable traffic hazards. We currently have PPR requirements of Hi-Viz jacket and trousers for all maintenance staff and contractors.
Are you the PC's client, or a subcontractor? If you're the client, you can require whatever you like, just write it into the contract. If you're a subcontractor, the PC can't reasonably stop your operatives wearing hi-vis trousers. They surely aren't going to eject operatives from site for wearing too much hi-vis. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
paul.skyrme  
#5 Posted : 07 September 2013 21:44:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Eddie W wrote:
I work on a site with considerable traffic hazards. We currently have PPR requirements of Hi-Viz jacket and trousers for all maintenance staff and contractors. The Principle Contractor (PC), under CDM, who undertakes general maintenance and organises occasional modifications to the site has instructed us that they and all contractors they engage will no longer wear the Hi-Viz trousers as they feel they are not necessary. I have given them various reasons why our RA states they need to be worn and without going into too much detail they have come back to me with 'as PC we can develop and enforce our own procedures'. Essentially what I am asking is under the CDM regs. can the PC enforce their own lower standards of PPE? And do we have to comply as they have informed me we do? Personally I cannot see that they can do this as I feel that they should comply with all existing site rules even if they are more stringent that their own. Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.
Now I am curious why you have been unable to sort out your traffic hazards without resorting to the last line of defence. PPE? I can understand this being required on a public highway, but nowhere else. It just beggars belief that a site under the control of a single company cannot control the vehicle movements such that "whole body" hi-vis is not required. Those who mandate such things should try undertaking the work that is needed in this kit, not for a day, but for a week or more preferably longer before they start making such suggestions, because it is often nigh on impossible to comfortably wear the PPE required and undertake the tasks required at the output levels required by your employer. Perhaps this is one of the root causes of the issues that are seen where by "operatives" take risks and avoid PPE etc.? The reason, because it is unbearable for them to do their job?
Eddie W  
#6 Posted : 08 September 2013 10:53:42(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

achrn, The situation is a bit complicated. The sites I am talking about are Toll Plaza's on motorways. I work for the toll management company responsible for the management of the toll plazas. The PC is responsible for the major maintenance of the structures and plaza. Both of us report to the client. Both companies undertake general maintenance and minor repairs which are not classed as CDM works although any major works refurbishments/modifications will be. The situation I am trying to avoid is to have two standards of PPE depending on whether or not the work carried out is considered as coming under the CDM Regs., as this would be confusing to the staff of both companies and especially the plaza supervisors. You mentioned client, one of the reasons I started this thread is to gain a broader understanding of the powers of the PC ready for a meeting with the PC and Client next week. Cheers
Eddie W  
#7 Posted : 08 September 2013 11:10:35(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

Paul, To answer your question the works are carried out on toll plazas when the motorways are live. We do have many other control measures in place, such as shutting lanes, coning off areas and requiring the use of blocking vehicles etc. However our experience has shown that dealing with 13million+ vehicles per year it is necessary to expect the unexpected. Therefore the use of hi-viz clothing is also included in our RA for undertaking maintenance activities. As an example we had 3 vehicles turn around, the other week, on a live motorway and drive against the flow of traffic, in a coned off area where operators were working, just because they went to the wrong lane and for some reason didn't want/or know to call for assistance. Fortunately in this instance no one was hurt but it does go to show the unpredictability of the public. As for your comments about the suitability of the PPE the trousers in question are no different to the work trousers worn when not working on the motorway other than they are yellow and have reflective bands. Cheers
paul.skyrme  
#8 Posted : 08 September 2013 11:47:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Eddie, As I said, on the public highway then I would always strongly recommend full head to toe, and I agree with that. As far as the idiots turning round on the motorway & using the coned off area, this is a perfect example of why. Can't you get these people prosecuted by the Police? As far as the suitability goes, I have a good friend whose company policy has changed to wearing these sorts of trousers, but they are not yellow Hi-Viz, they are an anti puncture type, and blue with the reflective stripes. However, he is also mandated to wear a boiler suit over the top. Management will not move on their decision, so he now physically struggles to undertake his work. Unbelievable, but his bosses etc. are intransigent, to the extent that he was told if he did not wear them underneath his boiler suit, he would be disciplined! Can't quite see how the hi-viz reflective stripes will help when covered with a boiler suit, which does not have reflective stripes! As they are puncture resistant, and his boiler suits, provided by the employer are not, it seems this is their reason. Will they change the boiler suits... No, they won't, so he has to suffer. I realise that this is not your situation, but, it is one of the reasons, for my comments about suitability of PPE!
Eddie W  
#9 Posted : 08 September 2013 18:23:20(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

Paul, Yes the police were involved and all such incidents are immediately reported. I agree the situation your friend is in seems to make no sense at all and I would question if the selected PPE is 'suitable and sufficient' if it physically affects his ability to do his job. I would love to see the RA on that one. As for my situation I will hope that the Client see sense and instructs the PC to adopt the higher rather than the minimum standard when undertaking work covered by the CDM Regs.
firesafety101  
#10 Posted : 08 September 2013 21:50:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

I've recently worked as safety manager for a PC at a toll tunnel in Merseyside, a 12 month project, the Client laid down their PPE rules before we started and we kept to their standard, not a problem at all.
achrn  
#11 Posted : 09 September 2013 08:43:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Eddie W wrote:
The situation I am trying to avoid is to have two standards of PPE depending on whether or not the work carried out is considered as coming under the CDM Regs., as this would be confusing to the staff of both companies and especially the plaza supervisors.
I can see the benefit of that, though if I've understood it correctly it wouldn't really be whether or not the work falls under CDM rather than whether or not it falls into the remit of one company rather than the other. Even if your operatives are working under the direction of the PC, I can't see a situation in which they'd be ejected from the operations under the PC's control for wearing too much hi-vis. So I think you will be left with a situation where the PPE worn depends somewhat upon who is controlling the work. If your assessment is that full hi-vis is required, then I think you'll be on very sticky ground if you water that down just because someone else's assessment is that it's not required. If your assessment is that full hi-vis is required (and from the description given, I'd tend to agree), then I think you can't do anything but continue that policy.
Eddie W  
#12 Posted : 09 September 2013 09:10:54(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Eddie W

achrn, I agree about watering down my assessment which is why I am surprised that the PC wants to try to enforce their lower standards at the plaza. If they are successful then the PPE worn will depend on the company you work for and the tasks you are undertaking, although all work is on the plaza with the same level of residual risk. As stated in the first post they are threatening that if I don't change the PPE requirements they will override me and enforce theirs!! However this will only be applicable to their staff and contractors and not my staff.
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 09 September 2013 10:44:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

The way I see it is there is no easy solution to this as two employers are working on the same area, each with their own rules. It is the Client's Plaza and they are happy to go along with the PPE rules you have in place up to now, but there is now a PC with their different rules. If there is a PC there will be a CDM Coordinator who needs to be involved in this issue as he/she is the link between Client and PC as far as communication, cooperation are concerned. Get the CDM C to speak to the Clint and to attend your meeting this week and speak to the Client. If there is no CDM C the PC cannot be a PC, in that case your rules should be obeyed.
Ron Hunter  
#14 Posted : 09 September 2013 12:20:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

You have to be very clear on the master/servant relationship here, i.e. who is in charge and who's workplace this is. There's no 'compartmented' CDM Project here and the PC is working in YOUR workplace - so YOUR rules apply. If I might draw a parallel with Railway works - any contractor attempting to diminish the standards established by the track owner would be off site very quickly!
achrn  
#15 Posted : 09 September 2013 14:04:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

ron hunter wrote:
You have to be very clear on the master/servant relationship here, i.e. who is in charge and who's workplace this is. There's no 'compartmented' CDM Project here and the PC is working in YOUR workplace - so YOUR rules apply.
Back at #6 in the thread Eddie W addresses this. If I've understood it correctly, the PC in question is not working for him, both his organisation and the PC are working for the same client on different contracts at the same geographic location. In that circumstance (I expect) neither one can mandate the PPE that the other requires their operatives to wear. If the client is happy with the lesser level of PPE then I don't see that Eddie W can do anything about it except reiterate to his workforce that they must still wear the same PPE as before even though others working alongside are in a lesser set. That is, it's not his workplace, and so it's not his rules that apply.
NickRoarty  
#16 Posted : 10 September 2013 18:17:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NickRoarty

Hi Eddie W, This isn't rocket science. When the other contractor is appointed as PC under CDM, his site rules will apply, end of. That said, he can dictate what PPE he requires you to wear within the areas under his control, BUT he cannot dictate that you cannot wear additional PPE if your company requires you to wear it. It is as simple as that.
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.