I have a problem. We are a plumbing, mechanical and electrical sub contractor working across a large number of sites. We employ external consultants to audit the sites that we work on. These reports are then actioned by the site teams for items under our control. Any items under the control of the principle contractor (i.e. walkways, access egress etc) are reported with recommendations for remedial actions. However, with some principle contractors (a minority) they steadfastly refuse to carry out any actions to mitigate against the risks (both costs and poor safety culture). In this situation we are put between a rock and a hard place. We have identified a hazard that exposes our employees to unacceptable risk (under our risk perception). We cannot however get the issue fixed as we not control the whole works. The obvious answer would be not work in these areas and/or leave site. If we did do this however then we would potentially lose that contract, get into a messy contractual legal fight, never work for that contractor again or impact on the works program. I have been asked to find out if we are potentially leaving us open to prosecution in the event of a accident by identifying hazards, informing the PC, then if nothing is done continuing to expose our operatives to this work. The inference is that if we don't do audits then we in essence we can plead ignorance to these hazards (not my idea, senior management!). If we do identify hazards then we do carry out as many actions as responsibly practicable to mitigate against the risks by informing personnel of the hazard, changing work practices etc, etc. But not impacting on the works program. For example we had one site that did not install (not one) pedestrian walkways around site. It was a mixed road with heavy plant and pedestrians. The principle contractor said they could not afford to put barriers up. We informed all our site operatives of the hazard, told them to walk round the perimeter of the site and to avoid times when plant was moving around site. We did not however leave site as we could not afford to lose the contract. The question is by identifying hazards and reporting them to the principle contractor do we increase or decrease the risk of prosecution in the event of an incident? Would the HSE think they did everything 'responsibly practicable' to mitigate against the risk? Or, think 'they knew about a hazard and still exposed there operatives to it'? ike I said, in a perfect would we would drop tools and stop works when these hazards are identified. The vast majority of our PC fix the issues when identified and encourage a proactive dialogue.

The question is by identifying hazards and reporting them to the principle contractor do we increase or decrease the risk of prosecution in the event of an incident? Would the HSE think they did everything 'responsibly practicable' to mitigate against the risk? Or, think 'they knew about a hazard and still exposed there operatives to it'? Like I said, in a perfect would we would drop tools and stop works when these hazards are identified. The vast majority of our PC fix the issues when identified and encourage a proactive dialogue.' It is not an uncommon problem in the construction industries. You are right to bring these hazards to the attention of the PC and the onus is on them to deal with them. From a legal perspective the PC is at fault -however, having identified them as an employer you have some responsibilities for your employees. It is very difficult to give a blanket answer on who the HSE would hold responsible because it will depend on the severity of the hazards and other factors. In the real world, short of pulling your guys off site there is not a lot more you can do. I suspect in terms of prosecution the PC would be the target. If you simply ignore unsafe practices, then you are as complicit as the PC. So, in my opinion you should continue to highlight these to the PC and at the same time you have insulated yourself from liability to some extent. In extreme situations you could bring it to the attention to the HSE, but you risk falling out with the PC if they suspect or find out it was you.

Possibly commercial suicide.... well maybe, remember the big construction companies and their banned list of personnel they wouldnt use. black balling people which I think they got done for. They may have learned their lesson from that but then again, maybe not. If you feel that strongly about it you may want to look into the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA). Or speaking to the HSE for advice without releasing any identifiable information to them. That is if their phone line service is still operational. My first post was also meant to say CDMC, :) typo.

Really, I didn't know that, I would imagine that there isn't any legislation to stop communication and coordination, Bob, can you justify where it says that "As a subcontractor you have NO RIGHT of access to the client and CDMC" or is it just an etiquette thing? I just think that it would be easier to have a 3rd person intermediate than everyone go to the HSE as a first port of call. Easier to try find a solution as a group rather than go in at the deep end first.

rockybalboa It is a matter of contract law really. You are contracted to the PC not the client and thus you do not have the right to talk to his principals. The situation is different if it is a management contract where all trades have an individual Trade Contract with the client including the PC. If people go off talking to all and sundry and give and receive information via such routes how is the PC to manage the works? Some may call it etiquette but to me it is good management and co-ordination in action - CDM requires precisely this to occur. Look after your own problems they are enough for one day, let the PC worry about his own issues. Bob

Are we missing a point here? The employer has a duty for the H&S of their employees. The employer must carry out a risk assessment and reduce hazards whenever practicable. Marc0808 do you do risk assessments and ensure your employees can work according to the requirements? If not and it is the PC being obstructive then tell them and hand a copy of the risk assessment. It could be that you as the employer should be providing the necessary safety arrangements for your employees, then take it all away once your side of the work has ended. Coordination, communication etc.