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
Rilchiam  
#1 Posted : 19 August 2015 20:42:10(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rilchiam

According to OHSAS 18001 clause 3.9, an "incident" can be a work-related event in which ill health (regardless of severity) occurred, or could have occurred.

Isn't that a bit too tough on employers? With that definition, even a running nose (if work related) would have to be recorded as an "incident". Can "(regardless of severity)" be omitted from the "incident" definition in the OHSAS 18001 introduction to employees in order to avoid misuse of OH&S regulations?
Invictus  
#2 Posted : 20 August 2015 08:37:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

There is a condition for runny noses, I think it is to dso with people who work with solvents.
Kate  
#3 Posted : 20 August 2015 08:49:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If the running nose is caused by work, why wouldn't you regard it as an incident? I would.

One of the issues with many health conditions is that they can start out small (eg runny nose and eyes) and if not investigated and acted on become much more serious (full-blown occupational asthma).
Kate  
#4 Posted : 20 August 2015 08:52:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Safety Smurf  
#5 Posted : 20 August 2015 09:26:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Is it Friday yet?
walker  
#6 Posted : 20 August 2015 10:26:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

"Common sense" (copyright The Daily Mail) would suggest not.

However those of us with working knowledge of substances hazardous to health might be alarmed if a the runny nose was work related.
Steve e ashton  
#7 Posted : 20 August 2015 12:33:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve e ashton

Allergic rhinitis is common, and there many allergens which could be present in some workplaces. Wood dust and flour for examples. Others may be less obvious, but many jobs can involve direct or indirect contact with cats and dogs, which are the most common causes of what can be a debilitating condition. Do not belittle or humorously? dismiss a 'runny nose' as insignificant if it persists or if several employees have it...
watcher  
#8 Posted : 20 August 2015 12:38:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

Rilchiam wrote:
According to OHSAS 18001 clause 3.9, an "incident" can be a work-related event in which ill health (regardless of severity) occurred, or could have occurred.

Isn't that a bit too tough on employers? With that definition, even a running nose (if work related) would have to be recorded as an "incident". Can "(regardless of severity)" be omitted from the "incident" definition in the OHSAS 18001 introduction to employees in order to avoid misuse of OH&S regulations?


Could you explain why you think this is misuse of regulations?
Rilchiam  
#9 Posted : 20 August 2015 21:38:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rilchiam

Watcher wrote:
Rilchiam wrote:
According to OHSAS 18001 clause 3.9, an "incident" can be a work-related event in which ill health (regardless of severity) occurred, or could have occurred.

Isn't that a bit too tough on employers? With that definition, even a running nose (if work related) would have to be recorded as an "incident". Can "(regardless of severity)" be omitted from the "incident" definition in the OHSAS 18001 introduction to employees in order to avoid misuse of OH&S regulations?


Could you explain why you think this is misuse of regulations?


Thanks to everybody for the responses. - To Watcher: You ask a very good question. No, I can't explain that, because my question "Isn't that a bit too tough on employers?" is the question of an employer who simply removed "(regardless of severity)" from the "incident" definition in references to OHSAS 18001:2007 in the OH&S management handbook of that employer. The OH&S manager simply wanted not do deal with "minor diseases". After a complaint about that omission by an employee of that company (who surprisingly read OHSAS 18002 after OHSAS 18001 was presented at a "all hands meeting") to the accreditation authority (the CAB didn't respond initially), the CAB had to ask the employer to put the "(regardless of severity)" back into the definition.

Seemingly you need unusually curious employees in order do secure compliance with work safety standards ;-)

Sadly, there will be no "(regardless of severity)" in ISO 45001. So we are back again to the old times where "minor diseases" could be prevented from being registered and evaluated. At least the above mentioned OH&S manager will be happy again. Also here ISO 45001 falls behind what was an improvement from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007. That improvement is gone.
Kate  
#10 Posted : 21 August 2015 08:37:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

We've been had!
boblewis  
#11 Posted : 21 August 2015 14:16:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

Rilchiam wrote:
Watcher wrote:
Rilchiam wrote:
According to OHSAS 18001 clause 3.9, an "incident" can be a work-related event in which ill health (regardless of severity) occurred, or could have occurred.

Isn't that a bit too tough on employers? With that definition, even a running nose (if work related) would have to be recorded as an "incident". Can "(regardless of severity)" be omitted from the "incident" definition in the OHSAS 18001 introduction to employees in order to avoid misuse of OH&S regulations?


Could you explain why you think this is misuse of regulations?


Thanks to everybody for the responses. - To Watcher: You ask a very good question. No, I can't explain that, because my question "Isn't that a bit too tough on employers?" is the question of an employer who simply removed "(regardless of severity)" from the "incident" definition in references to OHSAS 18001:2007 in the OH&S management handbook of that employer. The OH&S manager simply wanted not do deal with "minor diseases". After a complaint about that omission by an employee of that company (who surprisingly read OHSAS 18002 after OHSAS 18001 was presented at a "all hands meeting") to the accreditation authority (the CAB didn't respond initially), the CAB had to ask the employer to put the "(regardless of severity)" back into the definition.

Seemingly you need unusually curious employees in order do secure compliance with work safety standards ;-)

Sadly, there will be no "(regardless of severity)" in ISO 45001. So we are back again to the old times where "minor diseases" could be prevented from being registered and evaluated. At least the above mentioned OH&S manager will be happy again. Also here ISO 45001 falls behind what was an improvement from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007. That improvement is gone.


Unfortunately the alteration of the OHSAS definition in the system now makes the system Non Compliant. The purpose of the clauses are to establish that no ill health is resulting from the work activities. To eliminate the "minor" is to ignore a potential source of evidence. No it is not tough on employers it is about a true social responsibility of employers for the sources of potential harm in the work they undertake.
Rilchiam  
#12 Posted : 21 August 2015 16:11:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rilchiam

boblewis wrote:
Unfortunately the alteration of the OHSAS definition in the system now makes the system Non Compliant. The purpose of the clauses are to establish that no ill health is resulting from the work activities. To eliminate the "minor" is to ignore a potential source of evidence. No it is not tough on employers it is about a true social responsibility of employers for the sources of potential harm in the work they undertake.
I fully agree. I am curious whether there has been any controversial discussion about this when preparing the committee drafts. How could this happen? Or did the "regardless of severity" of ill health just softly and suddenly vanish away?
boblewis  
#13 Posted : 23 August 2015 09:48:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
boblewis

The wording of the standard remains regardless of any attempt by an employer to subvert it. OHSAS is not a set of regulations and so I fail to understand what you are saying about abuse. The employee should be reporting events that may be work related and the employer should be investigating as required by the standards.
Rilchiam  
#14 Posted : 23 August 2015 11:03:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rilchiam

boblewis wrote:
The wording of the standard remains regardless of any attempt by an employer to subvert it. OHSAS is not a set of regulations and so I fail to understand what you are saying about abuse. The employee should be reporting events that may be work related and the employer should be investigating as required by the standards.
Sorry, I didn't express myself clear enough. I too think, that the wording stands. The employee should be reporting events that may be work related and the employer should be investigating as required by the standards. But in some cases that won't happen if the employees don't know about "regardless of severity", as they might themselves subjectively consider the severity of health or deseases possibly related to an incident as not being severe enough. They may be afraid of being criticized for reporting "a minor incident". In that case they would not report an incident which they should report.
RayRapp  
#15 Posted : 24 August 2015 08:19:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Reading this thread makes me glad I do not have to work with 18001...an incident could be just about anything in the workplace. The real question is whether you would investigate it or record it.

I'm sure a better example of a spurious 'incident' could have been provided, however if I came across a 'runny nose' in the workplace I would offer a Kleenex - strange perhaps, but there ya go.
chris42  
#16 Posted : 24 August 2015 10:32:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

You define in your system what you want an incident to be, they check you work to your procedures, that's it.

If someone reported to me their nose was irritated and runs whenever they go near some workplace substance then it would be investigated.

If they said they had a runny nose and their child had a cold, I would tell them to stay away from me. Possibly making a cross sign using fingers and backing away as I did so.
Rilchiam  
#17 Posted : 24 August 2015 19:49:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Rilchiam

RayRapp wrote:
... an incident could be just about anything in the workplace. ...
Not really. But even if that would be true: If the employees know that there is a reliable and transparent evaluation procedure (e.g. agreed between employer and works council) *after* incidents are reported, cases of frivolous incident reports will be quite rare. So don't be afraid to work with OHSAS 18001 :-)

Chris42 described, how it works. Deal with incidents pragmatically. Then minor incidents easily can be evaluated and filed. - And your PR department will be happy to tell the the public, that the company even - just in case - cares about minor incidents.
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.