Rank: New forum user 
|
Any ideas on what to do if the management team of an organisation identifies a risk from head injury from falling objects but refuses to instigate the use of hard hats? (the controls on risk assessments are left blank) They also will not allow internal trainers to discuss their use or wear them during training sessions. The company has had evidence of head injuries in the past. What can the trainers do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Prevent the objects falling? Prevent people being under the objects? What is the training about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The industry is transport and logistics, objects are planks of wood off of trailers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
So if the planks could hit heads could they also damage other parts so may be a higher level control is needed rather than PPE. As Kate says; why are people allowed under the falling objects?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I totally agree with the view the PPE may not totally ideal and that higher controls may be required but my concern is that no controls at all are in place higher or lower and that the management deems that even the minimum "hard hats" are not required. So what can the trainers do to get controls in place even at a minimum level
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is difficult without knowing the company structure / arrangements in place. A few avenues you could explore if applicable:-
- Workplace H&S committee.
- Trade union safety rep (you then have a 2 pronged approach to management).
- H&S officer. Vallance, not sure if this is you or are you their consultant?
- Speak to HR / FD about costs involved in lost time incidents. If you have any hard evidence from the previous head injury incidents to back this up, use it.
- Cite the need for worker consultation in preparing the risk assessment.
- Try to establish from management the reason for not going down the hard hat route. Is it image related, cost related or something else?
- Nip down to tesco, buy a couple of water melons and drop one of the planks on them from the trailer bed in front of the managers. A visual demo may help to get the message home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Love the melon idea Stevie!!! Hadn't thought of that one.
I am not their consultant or work for them othewise I think I would be more involved in banging a few heads together. But I am interested in what the workers can do to get management to consider their concerns more fully about having no controls in place when there is evidently is a risk. They used to have PPE provided and the training about loading and unloading included the use of this, but the trainers are no longer allowed to mention PPE or wear it themselves whilst doing the training but the risk assessment clearly highlights the need for controls but they management refuse add anything in the risk assessment or provide suitable alternative. The H&S officer is supporting the change to No PPE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ask the management team why they think hard hats are not necessary?
(The responses so far rather take it as a given that they are, but presumably there's a reason why management think they aren't.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Yes you are right the management do not think they are? I have suggested that to the trainers but what can they do if the organisation still refuses to include appropriate controls, management wont include controls on risk assessments etc. How can the trainers cover themselves if say worse case happened another accident happened and HSE was involved?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If hard hats are considered OTT, then you might like to consider 'bump caps' which for many industries and tasks are more practical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hiya again - are the planks of wood the load being shipped - or are you making reference to timber used to secure the load whilst in transit - I feel forum users have got it covered anyhow in not letting staff into the area if it’s the load.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't believe bump caps are appropriate for a risk relating to falling items - only for where the risk is bumping into things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
How high are the trailers? I work in the steel distrubution area and every trailer I have seen is no higher that chest height.
However we do use hard hat with chin straps but this is for people who have to access the vehicle beds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can you please give a breakdown of what they are loading and on to what type of trailer?
Thanks
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I appreciate all the comments regarding hardhats, bump caps etc but this is straying a little from my key issue which is what do the trainers do if there are no controls being specified on the risk assessment and the management seem reluctant to detail anything. How can the trainers who know that a control measure should be in place cover themselves if a prosecution should take place.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I would of thought (hoped) that any HSE investigation focus would be on why the management and the H&S Officer feel that their risk assessments qualify as suitable and sufficient without any control measures!! Following on from Stevie40s earlier post, it may be best for the trainers to get any safety committee or safety representatives to question the suitability with the management team.
On the flip side, could it be that we are doing the management a disservice. They may have decided that as PPE is last line of defence they need to remove the hazard and/ or person from the area and are just being slow at following it up..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Vallance26925
How do the trainers know that a control measure should be in place, have they conducted the Risk assessment.
The trainers are surly given the training material, so the content of the training session is governed, so how are they liable to prosecution?
What you are saying in effect is any person who gives a training course is liable to prosecution if any of the trainees have an accident that is slightly connected to the training session. Don't think so. If the relevant part of the training is in the course and is omitted then yes prosecute away. I know in my heart of hearts that what information I give in a course is relevant, and that half of it will be ignored as soon as operatives are working on site. Does that make me liable to the fact that they are not doing what they should be. You can lead a horse to water but you can not make it drink
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi,
If you are only looking at protecting the trainers, there are only two realistic outcomes.
1. Don't carry out the training.
2. Get it in writing before carrying out the training. (this would not be bullet proof mind you)
Neither solution is ideal and neither does anything to eliminate or mitigate the risk, thereby leaving workers exposed - far more important I believe than trainers trying to cover themselves!
Hope you find a solution
Regards
Clive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Thanks Clive this is my thoughts too, so now I need management to see it that way....:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.