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
woody 34  
#1 Posted : 07 March 2016 18:50:36(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
woody 34

Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, is an employer responsible for fire crews when they are in their building. I am not referring to the risk from fires but what about other risks that fire crews have came across? Would fire crews be included in: "The risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking"
toe  
#2 Posted : 07 March 2016 19:37:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

I think the answer is yes. There is some case law (cant remember which one) about a fire person falling down a pit in a workshop and sustained an injury whilst fighting a fire. It was held that the employer should have covered up the pit after the shift had finished. This maybe contained in fire safety regulations see below. http://www.legislation.g...uk/asp/2005/5/section/59
woody 34  
#3 Posted : 08 March 2016 14:06:19(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
woody 34

Thanks Toe I am working on a project just now and one of the key drivers will be the MHSWR and the HASAWA. Without giving too much away, I will try and describe a hypothetical situation. A company does a risk assessment and states that its employees should consider using a piece of equipment as a control measure to reduce the risks to its personnel. The problem is that when they have carried out the initial risk assessment, they haven't actually assessed if they can use the equipment safely. My argument is that to say to its employees to consider using this equipment when no assessment has been done to see if it can be used safely would mean that they have not carried out a suitable and sufficient risk Assessment? My other argument is that this would not be classed as a Safe System of Work under the HASAWA? Any comments and opinions on this would be greatly appreciated.
Psycho  
#4 Posted : 08 March 2016 15:28:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Psycho

woody 34  
#5 Posted : 28 March 2016 15:44:42(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
woody 34

Thanks for your replies- it is greatly appreciated. I am looking specifically at the MHSW regs 1999 and am trying to get my head around the following: Section 3  Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of— (a) The risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and (b) The risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking. As a firefighter doing an inspection to gather information on a building under 7 2 (d),What if I highlight to a building owner a risk to fire crews within their premises in the event of a fire? Under section 3 (b) of the MHSWR, would this make the building owner liable if they ignored the information they received?
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 28 March 2016 21:21:32(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Woody With respect, I think you are getting your law a bit muddled. So, this is how I see the scenario you have painted. An employer has a duty pursuant to s3 HSWA to anyone not an employee who may be affected by the undertaking i.e. the business. This includes firemen or nay other blue light personnel. Furthermore, as per MHSWR the employer has a duty to conduct suitable and sufficient risk assessments and record the significant findings if they employ five or more...this assessment should include the risk to non-employees as well employees. There is also a civil law duty of care pursuant to OLA 1957 as amended as a means of redress following an injury. I suspect the real issue is how culpable would a proprietor/landlord be if having been given prior information of a serious risk which could affect others like firemen in the course of their duty. Ultimately it is for the authorities to decide if their is a case and for the court to decide if they are guilty or not. Each case will be judged on its own particular circumstances. If the failure resulted in a fatality then there is also the option of gross negligent manslaughter or corporate manslaughter indictment, the latter being more unlikely. Now go and inform the 'building owner' before someone gets hurt :)
woody 34  
#7 Posted : 29 March 2016 18:25:37(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
woody 34

RayRapp Thanks for your response and your analogy describes the situation perfectly. The problem arises when you highlight the issues to your boss and follow it up with legislation that you think strengthens your case and he says- "So what?" I will try one more time and then look at an alternative approach. Thanks again for your views and opinions.
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.