Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all
I have recently been speaking with a logisitics company that have concerns around health and safety for their staff and are looking to train their staff in a number of areas i.e. manual handling, site safety etc.
Scenario: the logisitics company are working on a host site providing distribution service of manufactured car parts produced on the site by the host company. The parts come to the dispatch centre section of the plant and are subsequently picked, packed and dispatched by the logisitics company The logisitics company has a health and safety guy that is performing risk assessments and is referring these to the host sites health and safety manager stating that there needs to be improvements made to the working environment that his logisitcs employees are working in e.g. workplace transport safety. Question....if the host site is not acting upon these recommendations for improvement and there was an accident as a direct result who would be responsible?.....the logistics company who is working on the companies' premises or the host company?....have obviously referred to HASAW etc but any advice gratefully received
thanks all
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gordon
If I understand your posting correctly then both companies would be responsible.
The logistic company's is allowing its employees to work in an environment that it has deemed unsafe so they re putting their staff at risk.
The Host company by having unsafe conditions within their premises is placing persons not in their employment at risk.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
My thought entirely Brian...however the logistics company are stating that if changes to the workplace need to be done i.e. repainting pedestrain walkways on FLT routes and mainitaining lighting within certain areas of the work environment then that is out of their hands as they are not authroised to make such physical changes....i guess it is a case of finance in that the logistics company cannot afford to halt services and the host company know that....would both parties be held ultimately responsible in this situation if there was an accident? if the logisitics company can prove through documented risk assessments that improvements should have been made by the host company and that it was their responsibility to do so would the logisitics company still be held accountable or is that a credible caes for mitigation...in a nutshell the logisitics company are saying that they are doing everything possible to look after their workers short of halting work altogether...thoughts?...hope this makes sense
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Gordon, I am having difficulty understanding your query ie 'host company'. I assume you mean the logistics company are not in charge of the premises and are in fact a contractor working on site?
The employer is the duty holder and is responsible for their staff and others who may be affected by the undertaking - s2 and 3 of HSWA apply. Risks should be identified by RA for employees, contractors and visitors with suitable controls implemented to mitigate those risks - Reg 3 MHSWR.
The general principle is - those who create risks should manage them. If the logistics company are a contractor working on site, then they should bring any uncontrolled risks to the attention of the occupier. At the same time the contractor should advise their employees of any unacceptable risks and take appropriate action to protect their employees. Whilst the liability rests predominately with the occupier in both criminal and civil law, there could be a joint liability under certain circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Ray
Sorry...yes the host company is the duty holder and the logistics company are a contractor working on site. I am in agreement with your point of view that ultimately both parties could be held accountable should an accident occur under HASWA and MHSWR
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Indeed, I should also have mentioned that the logistics company cannot expose its employees to known risks and transfer the liability to the premises owner. I appreciate it might be a difficult situation, which ideally should have been agreed in advance of the contractor working on site via a contract or lease.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks Ray / Brian
I appreciate your views
Gordon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gordon
As Ray says the company cannot transfer its liability and as you have said they could always remove their employees from the site. In deciding if that should be the correct course of action obviously you must assess the actual severity of the risk.
You state that one of the issues is workplace transport is well documented that in accidents between people and transport the person invariably receives more damage than the vehicle and sadly may often result in fatalities. God forbid that such an event should occur but if it did and an employee of the logistics company was killed on site I do not think a court would look favourable on the fact that they had warned to host site about the dangers but kept there staff on site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Absolutely right Brian
It is a clear cut case that the contractor withdraws their employees if they believe that they are exposing them directly to serious harm and the host company are the only party that can implement safe improvements; until such time that the host company "buys into the fact" that they have to abide by their legal obligations as stated in HSW Act and MHSWR and implementation occurs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gordon I agree with what has already been said and that both parties have a responsibility but the circumstances of any accident will determine who gets hit the most. As a stick you may wish to show the site H&S Manager two pieces of court action in September SHP 1) on page 14 under workplace transport a fine of £150k (this may also be on the website). 2) www.shponline.co.uk/in-court - worker crushed between skips. I am sure you will be able to find more instances under workplace transport where doing nothing eventually costs a company a lot more than actually doing something to make things safe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just to throw a spanner as it were.
Whilst I believe that the above is correct.
I would expect that the logistics company would not be working on site for much longer if they undertook their absolute legal duty in the manner they should.
This is the same issue as always crops up on construction sites with Principal Contractors, Sub Contractors, Sub-Sub Contractors etc.
The financial aspects will almost always over rule the H&S requirements.
The "smaller" company that is lower down the pecking order, the contractor, the subbie, etc. will always have to bow to commercial pressures else they will have no more business.
This is wrong, however, there seems no easy solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Paul
Agreed, there some similarities with construction site working where the PC is 'responsible' for site safety. However, the main difference is where the sub-contractor is working on the premises of the client, it should have been agreed in advance the system for raising and getting safety related issues sorted. I know from past experience this is easier said than done because commercial interests often take precedent.
The bottom line is, if it gets to a point where people are being exposed to serious risks then the employer must decide whether to pull his troops off site or take a chance nothing untoward occurs. In an ideal world the employer would choose the former...but don't hold your breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.