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
MB1  
#1 Posted : 10 June 2011 09:43:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MB1

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-sco-05211.htm This may be a good topic to discuss as to responsibilities with regards to H&S, in this case the supervisor was found guilty and not the employer!
Heather Collins  
#2 Posted : 10 June 2011 09:59:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Heather Collins

Interesting one. The foreman was charged under S7 and the employing company weren't charged at all even though the prosecuting inspector said “The team had been told at the beginning of the job to use trench boxes to protect themselves. Although the team’s employers should have supervised them more closely, as foreman Mr Parry had a duty to take reasonable care of the safety of his team." So inadequate supervision but no prosecution of the employer. I note they have gone into liquidation - could this be a factor? Sympathies as ever to the family of the victim in this needless tragedy.
DNW  
#3 Posted : 10 June 2011 11:07:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DNW

I'm not sure how this sits with me. I look at it from two angles. Trench boxes were on site but was the Foreman trained in installing them. Was there appropriate lifting equipment on site to position them. Was the Foreman under pressure to get the job done. Had the company actually assessed the Foremans competence, from my experience jobs of this type are usually to given to someone on recommendation or on the basis of who you know, not what you know. If it is clear that all the above criteria were in place and the foreman was basically cutting corners then it can only be a good thing, I for one will use this case in future training. OK the fine was paltry considering a man died but the stigma of being held responsible for the death of a co-worker would surely make most think twice before choosing the easy option.
Ron Hunter  
#4 Posted : 10 June 2011 13:04:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

None of that reverses the tragedy and loss of life, however if we can make others sit up and take notice, perhaps some good can come of this. As others say, the level of fine is neither here nor there. The Supervisor may have witnessed the event and the subsequent rescue attempts and he will have had a long uncomfortable experience leading up to and during these criminal proceedings. There are many images there which will be with him for the rest of his life. The fine is paltry, but he now has a criminal record. You could ask your own people to consider if the fine had been higher where they might have found the money to pay. He is now essentially black-listed for credit purposes and his future career prospects on hold for some considerable time. All things to hammer home if using this as an example........
TDS1984  
#5 Posted : 10 June 2011 13:38:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TDS1984

Useful in any supervisor/manager training scenario, I would think, despite the relevance to construction of this tragic case.
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.