Rank: Super forum user 
|
Interesting article that came through recently from IOSH on Email link. About workers in a Northampton factory who had had 6 reports to the HSE for over 7 day absences as a result of back injuries.
It also noted that the HSE’s investigation showed more workers also had issues, but not had over 7 days off. The injuries to their backs were from lifting parts weighing between 14 and 21 Kg hundreds of times during each shift and Manual handling aids were either not provided or unsuitable.
This issue has been discussed on this site more than a few times, with the conclusion that such activities were Not reportable? And that the HSE are not interested.
Discuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Chris
From purely a health/injury perspective I would guess the volume of injuries would give rise for concern, regardless of RIDDOR. Trying to pre-empt what would or would not interest the HSE is problematical in itself.
In contrast, a recent case reported in SHP today highlights a serious incident which caused a fatality and a serious injury. The amount of injuries leading up to these over a sustained period which the HSE were aware begs the question - why the HSE did not enforce more robust action? Link below.
http://www.shponline.co....r-incidents-court-hears/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This subject is 'repetative'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray - yes, the volume would, but these should not have been reported therefore the HSE would not have known about the issue at this company.
Rightly the HSE took them to court for their failings to provide a proper safe system of work, but would not have known if they had not reported something they strictly didn’t have to. Ie reporting to be on the safe side.
The case about the Cows, is unusual, I always thought that ramblers going through a field of animals did so at their own risk. Will this pave the way for farmers to close down rights of way through fields for “Safety” reasons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree. On the face of it, these incidents aren't reportable because there is no 'accident', only an injury. However, I see no leap to say that the HSE or any enforcing authority wouldn't be interested. I suggest the prosecution shows otherwise. They may also have received information about the employer via a complaint etc. - not all intelligence about companies comes via RIDDOR reports. Still, very odd that a company thinks it knows enough about h&s to report under RIDDOR but not enough to figure out some apparently fundamental MH issues...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Invictus 
Yes the same story, the bit that got me was "More workers suffered back problems but were not off work for the seven days required for the incidents to be reportable." suggesting that if these baack problems were longer than severn days they would be reportable. But they are not, according to their own guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Press release not written by an inspector?
Otherwise a curious discrepancy. The guidance is comparatively explicit in this regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Reading between the lines the RIDDORS may not have been from reparative action but from a single identifiable act. E.g. Staff member try's to pick up box and puts back out and unable to move. It was the subsequent HSE inspection that identified the lack of lifting aids etc!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We've had this discussion before...but I would still argue that picking up a box isn't an accident. The injury is unintended but the event itself is not.
Thinking about it though, in this particular circumstance, the lack of effective work planning has been revealed - thus whilst the act may have been intended, it clearly should not have been had the work been properly assessed. This would differ from a situation where aids, task design etc. had been properly considered. Remains curious. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Brian – yes quite possibly Xavier123 – quite - but does that then lead us into a situation where we only have to report where we have decided we had not planned the work properly? This is of course one of the HSE’s deciding factors when considering if something is reportable anyway, but when applied to this, it seems to contradict their other guidance. Additionally they obviously felt they had planned properly, they would though wouldn’t they.
Stick foot out, aim down and fire
As noted perhaps the person writing the report is not an inspector and phrased it poorly, seems a bit of that about at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Correct. Duty is with the dutyholder to report, not for the HSE, LA, or any third party to make that decision for you. Although you will be judged concerning compliance by those fine folk!
In regards the failure to effectively plan or manage work being a contributory factor to an accident, it is therefore arguably an admission of possible breach - unlike some other circumstances of reporting under RIDDOR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.