Rank: Super forum user 
|
All,
The following sentence has been lifted from CDM15 and was also in the previous CDM regs:
"Principal contractors do not have to undertake detailed supervision of contractors’ work".
Seems a fairly straightforward statement. However, the below is lifted from the HSE website following an accident 2 years ago which i investigated at the time (note i left the PC and the firm went under before the trial)....
"XXXXX (PC) failed to check the risk assessment prepared by XXXX (contractor), and it failed to check that XXXXX (site manager) was competent to carry out a suitable site safety induction and supervise work with a MEWP"
Thoughts...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Stern wrote:
"XXXXX (PC) failed to check the risk assessment prepared by XXXX (contractor), and it failed to check that XXXXX (site manager) was competent to carry out a suitable site safety induction and supervise work with a MEWP"
Thoughts...?
Stern, I think it means that the PC failed to ensure that the site manager was a competent site supervisor ?
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It really comes down to how you interpret 'close supervision'. That said, in the example you have provided I would not describe that as close supervision anyway, it's doing basic checks and tasks which the PC ought to carry out.
For me, close supervision is about monitoring the sub-contractor on site and after all the induction etc have been provided by the PC. Provided reasonable checks have been made when procuring the subbie this in itself should provide some mitigation if things went awry.
Finally, it's often difficult to pre-empt how the HSE will view any non-compliance partly because each case will be judged upon the individual circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
RayRapp /John W,
The case was still underway when i left the company but in my opinion we, as PC, did everything we could reasonably be expected to do yet we were still fined heavily. Our site manager, who had worked for us on and off for years in a self employed capacity was, to put it bluntly, hung out to dry by the HSE. It was clear from their interview technique that from day one they were out for blood.
So far as non-compliance goes, the following were in place so you guys be the judges:
-Subbie was vetted before hand (usual PQQ process) and had also worked (in a maintenance capacity) at the location for over a decade
-MEWP operator was IPAF trained
-IP was also IPAF trained
-Both operatives had been inducted by our SM
-MEWP had been inspected that morning
-MEWP had in date TE certs
-Permit to work at height was issued
-RAMS were in place from the subbie. Both operatives had been briefed by their supervisor and had signed
-Despite what the HSE have stated, the RAMS were checked (i still have a copy of the checklist!)
-Our Site manager had several years experience in construction, CSCS, SMSTS, First Aid...Everything you would expect.
The accident resulted because the operator of the MEWP wasn't looking where he was going and hit his colleague.
The RAMS never stated that the MEWP shouldn't be operated when the operator couldn't see where he was going or that somebody shouldn't stand in front of it at the time but, and lets be honest here, any RAMS could be picked apart like this if someone tries hard enough!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And here's the one that really got my blood boiling...
"It was also discovered XXXX (site manager) forged or fabricated site health and safety documents in an attempt to deflect responsibility".
Do you want to know what he did? After the incident (where someone was almost killed) and still in a state of shock he closed off the working at height permit.
It was just his signature box that he signed off which contained the following statement "Works above complete. This permit is now closed". It's not as if he forged the signature in the box the contractor had to sign.
Was it an odd thing to do? Perhaps. Was it a case of him "forging/fabricating paperwork in an attempt to deflect responsibility"? Absolutely not.
I guess what i'm getting at is that regardless of how hard we try, if the HSE want blood they'll get it which begs the question "Why bother"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Stern thanks for getting back, I expected this to be an interesting case.
From what you say the gang were properly trained, and the site manager was trained/qualified to be competent site supervisor.
Stern wrote:After the incident (where someone was almost killed) and still in a state of shock he closed off the working at height permit.
It was just his signature box that he signed off which contained the following statement "Works above complete. This permit is now closed". It's not as if he forged the signature in the box the contractor had to sign.
..... Was it a case of him "forging/fabricating paperwork in an attempt to deflect responsibility"? Absolutely not.
Well, it was wrong for him to do anything with the permit, the work wasn't finished if the MEWP was still on site....
Just a very unfortunate thing to do, and as I read it, seems HSE hung the case on that!
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi John,
You're right it was wrong for him to do it but it wasn't done, as they claim, in an attempt to deflect responsibility. It was done by somebody still in shock and not thinking straight having seen somebody almost killed a few hours prior. And even if he had done it deliberately, what would it have achieved? The task had ended, albeit in a less than favourable way so he went through the motions and closed the permit off.
He was fined as a person (rather than as a company) under Section 33 (1)(l) of the HASAWA (which was one i had to look up) which is...
It is an offence for a person ....intentionally to make a false entry in any register, book, notice or other document required by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions to be kept, served or given or, with intent to deceive, to make use of any such entry which he knows to be false.
As I said, we as a company, as well as he as an individual did, in our opinion, everything required of us both legally and morally yet the HSE still took us to the cleaners. What's the point of even trying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree the HSE were very harsh on the company.
I regularly read the HSE Press Release webpage, and usually there isn't sufficient detail in their summaries, but I often think there are cases where it seems the employee or injured person has been plain stupid but the employer has been told his training was insufficient.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.