Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just drafting our policy. It's as good as our first real crack at it. Doing the definitions at the mo' and would like to know your thoughts. I'm going round in circles with this one....
Guidance says:
"'Work' includes moving around at a place of work (except by a staircase in a permanent workplace) but not travel to or from a place of work. For instance, a sales assistant on a step ladder would be working at height, but we would not be inclined to apply the Regulations to a mounted police officer on patrol."
OK. I didn't like "by a staircase" because I read it as 'near a staircase' the first time. And we don't have any staff riding animals about the place. Here's my go....
‘Work’ includes moving around at a place of work (except via a staircase in a permanent workplace) but not travel to or from a place of work. For example, work from a stepladder is work at height but driving a [works] vehicle is not.
We do have groundsmen and security staff who drive tractors/vans occasionally, which could give rise to a fall from height.
Have I captured the spirit of the thing or am I disappearing up my own...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To some extent, from the evidence presented I think it depends who the readers are for your policy document.
If you are trying to give reasonably lengthy and precise definitions of key words and phrases etc, (indeed phrasing the whole document in such a manner) almost verging on the legal interpretation then I doubt your plant operators and other groundsmen etc will read your policy document or understand it.
In which case your policy may fail.
Your more senior managers in your organisation might read it if they have the time.
With out sounding derogatory, plant equipment operators etc tend not to be too 'academic', and don't like reading complicated / 'dry' documents .
Is the intention to also write a document in more simple word style?
As I'm sure you are aware, one of the considerations for writing technical documents is that you consider who the target audience/readers are, and to modify the writing and presentation style to suit (including the use of pictures, diagrams, graphs etc). No point in writing many words if diagrams would make your point better etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks, JJ.
Definitely trying to simplify the whole thing but I find that difficult when you come to definitions of what is and isn't covered by the policy. I'm going for black & white but this 'travelling' thing is bugging me because of the HSE's example.
To my mind, that mounted policemen is working atop the horse, not travelling to his place of work.
If we swap the plod for a groundsman and the horse for a tractor, WAH applies only when he's getting into and out of the vehicle? It's the kind of question the lads will ask me.
Not sure I'm making sense any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
SafetyAmateur,
I tend to view the mounted policeman scenario entirely opposite from you. The policeman is not "doing work" on the horse, he's riding a horse?
From a practical perspective, for an internal guidance document, I suggest you start with a context of those activities actually relevant to your Organisation. Issues of strict and legal definition should be of lesser importance.
There are but two important generic objectives your document has to support:
(a) that those designing, planning and managing tasks recognise the WAH hazard (falls and falling objects) and manage associated risks appropriately; and
(b) understanding of the meaning and applying the requirements of the WAHR specific heirarchy of control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've struggles with a couple of areas like this - if it helps you might want to consider the tractors and stuff as being covered under PUWER and not W@H - if your team are trained in the correct use of the equipment, including getting on and off, and the equipment is maintained to a suitable standard, including steps, then you should meet W@H needs as well.
Closest I came was a complaint that someone slipped climbing out of a land rover, apparently high heals were involved, changed requirements under using the 4x4s and it never came up again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In my view a policeman is "doing work" whilst he is on his horse and riding is just one thing he is doing for his employer e.g. he is observing, evaluating etc. But again we all need to think sensibly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks, All.
I'm particularly taken by Tomkins' approach. Might just be the best thing for my purposes.
Anyway, enough of that WAH stuff, tell me more of these high heels and 4x4s.
Thanks again.
PS: the policeman's status could be a Schroedinger's Cat
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.