IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Over Zealous H&S Rep (my last friday thread)
Rank: Guest 
|
I have got a new job and have officially handed over all my work to the next in line H&S Rep, I have spoken to him on three occasions and explained that he needs to "pick his battles" I have built up a really good working relationship with our management team which looks like it will be destroyed before I leave next week, the new rep carried out a WPI earlier this week and wants hazard tape put around the base of all coat stands and photocopiers, he wants ceiling tiles replaced because there's a small piece missing around a central round pillar and best of all he wants a TV removed from a communications room in case it "explodes"! All of these faults are priority 1! The management team now realise how reasonable I have been and have requested a meeting with him because he is making a mountain out of a mole hill, the union have put out a an expression of interest for three new reps and he will be their mentor, management are at their wits end!
What examples have you got of either an over zealous rep or inspector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I had one who wanted a noise assessment done. We have a procedure in place that states that if any noise goes about 85dB(A) for any reason and for any duration, then ear defenders are mandatory in that area. We have noise tests completed on all areas about every 6 months and we have put up notices and have noise activated signs where the areas for mandated ear defenders are. But, no, he wanted a risk assessment to see if ear defenders were mandatory :O
Anyway, we did the noise assessment, plugged in all the figures and proved beyond all doubt that ear defenders were not mandatory. However, we still have the same procedure in place and we still make it mandatory for ear defenders to be worn in these areas - that was a waste of time and effort and no mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I came across a H&S person who felt that climbing in and out of a HGV cabin was work at height and demanded that harnesses and lanyards were worn!
Also was once required to write an emergency plan for the possibility that an aeroplane might crash onto a disused steelworks.
Countless others but those are the first two that spring to mind...
No wonder we have a bad rep. lol
Kay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Good luck in your new job Sean
What type of training/education has that person had to explode like this? Yes show your knowledge & competency but for goodness sake it appears the person has forgot what is significant and whats not!
I dont think he has endeared himself to management and I wish you luck in trying to smooth the water before you go.
ATB Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I came across a H&S person who felt that climbing in and out of a HGV cabin was work at height and demanded that harnesses and lanyards were worn!
Also was once required to write an emergency plan for the possibility that an aeroplane might crash onto a disused steelworks.
Countless others but those are the first two that spring to mind...
No wonder we have a bad rep. lol
Kay
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Kay wrote:I came across a H&S person who felt that climbing in and out of a HGV cabin was work at height and demanded that harnesses and lanyards were worn!
Also was once required to write an emergency plan for the possibility that an aeroplane might crash onto a disused steelworks.
Countless others but those are the first two that spring to mind...
No wonder we have a bad rep. lol
Kay
Is it me or there in echo in here?.....here?......here? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can readily think of a person from some years ago whose work included assessing premises and employers willing to provide placements for young adults who were unemployed. Unfortunately he had a 'tick-box mentality and didn't seem able to distinguish significant OS&H matters from trivial ones. In one case he rejected a placement in a small nursery comprising one ground floor room because it didn't contain a fire extinguisher. The likelihood of fire occurring in the room was very low and I think I heard that the room had 2 alternative external exits. Apparently, though the other matters on his check list got positive or non-applicable ticks, the negative tick about the fire extinguisher resulted in the outright rejection.
Sadly the person also happened to be a H&S rep. He stands out in my memory because most of the H&S reps I've encountered have been diligent, able to make sensible judgements about matters and would ask for second opinions where necessary.
Sean - All the best in your new role.
Also, I just hope that your inclusion of the words "friday thread" in the title above doesn't result in this thread being curtailed. The topic you've raised is far from frivolous and people unable to see the thread today or over the weekend ought to have a chance to add useful responses when they do see it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
sean wrote: the new rep carried out a WPI earlier this week and wants hazard tape put around the base of all coat stands and photocopiers, he wants ceiling tiles replaced because there's a small piece missing around a central round pillar and best of all he wants a TV removed from a communications room in case it "explodes"! All of these faults are priority 1! Is this an extract from the script for the new Ben Elton sitcom mentioned in another topic on this forum ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In my opinion that is the problem with some safety reps " pick you battles". kind of mentallity.
H&S is not a case of winning battles its about coaching educating and winning hearts and minds.
If you are going into battle you have the wrong mindset, its not us and them any more you know, we left that in the 70`s.
and if you have to "walk away" from said battle you really are out of your depth.
I am poacher turned gamekeper a fomer Trades Union appointed (ISTC) safey rep now european safety manager. So I know where I am coming from
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
To Hilary, im afraid he is correct and you are wrong, one cant just write a piece of paper making hearing defenders mandatory without a suitable and sufficient Noise Risk Assessment.
AND NO IT WAS NOT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. undertaking said asseessment, though as you describe it Im not so sure it would fit the category of suitable and sufficient.
And I find your comments to be quite distasteful towards an employees legitimate enquiry into his health and well being, and does nothing to promote good H&S in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sean - Another thought arising from your thread title: Will this forum be deprived of all inputs from you in future or just on Fridays?! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
jfw honestly this actually happened its not plagiarised from anywhere.
Graham I will probably and hopefully be too busy to post much from now on (hooray) its not the last you will hear from me, (stop booing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stevegrimes wrote:To Hilary, im afraid he is correct and you are wrong, one cant just write a piece of paper making hearing defenders mandatory without a suitable and sufficient Noise Risk Assessment.
AND NO IT WAS NOT A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME. undertaking said asseessment, though as you describe it Im not so sure it would fit the category of suitable and sufficient.
And I find your comments to be quite distasteful towards an employees legitimate enquiry into his health and well being, and does nothing to promote good H&S in the workplace. Steve, I think that where Hilary was coming from (although I do stand to be corrected), is that they do already carry out suitable and sufficient noise assessments, resulting tin ear defenders being mandatory in certain areas. The person concerned, quiered this - I'm assuming that they felt they were not mandatory, but advisory. Subsequent tests proved he/ she was right, but they kept with the policy anyway - thereby ensuring staff H, S and Welfare. Therefore, I struggle to see how this is distasteful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve #10 : This was one of those occasions that I actually sought advice from the HSE. They confirmed that the purpose of the risk assessment was to ascertain if ear defenders were required and that as I had already ascertained that they were and the employees were happy with the provisions in place, the risk assessment was superfluous to requirements.
It was an auditor, not an employee who requested this, the employees thought he was nuts and asked to retain the ear defenders even though the 14 day noise/time study we undertook ultimately stated these were unnecesssary.
I would never refuse to do a risk assessment requested by an employee - but perhaps I did not give you enough information, for this I apologise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Couple of quick examples over the years of dealing with hundreds of clients.
A colleague who asked for a noise risk assessment to be carried out on a snooker club. Those balls don't half make a racket as they descend into the pocket. This was a traditional club, not one of the modern American type pool halls.
The client whose excavator driver was red carded off site for drinking coke in the cab of his own vehicle. Reason - it was coke and therefore not healthy. Water would have been fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Once had a H&S person tell me I needed a risk assessment on an office door because someone might bend down just as the door was opened and get hit with it.
I think the term 'pick your battles' is ok, when I was a union rep we always oicked our battles, there was thoses that managemtn would change straight away, there was those that they would never change and thoses that they could be convinced that it was a good idea to change.
If you go out at the begiining showing a total mis understanding for H&S and it's aims and objectives you then end up in a situation that when real issues arrive no-one takes you serious and therefore if you are a rep. you no longer represent anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve grimes - you entitled to your opinion of course and it’s a public forum - I feel given the info provided you've gone in a bit hard there on Hilary.............
Additionally given the topic matter and your own confirmation you came from the rep position - perhaps you should have know better.
I too was a Safety Rep in heavy industry and now I also head up safety in an extremely large organisation, on the way I've learnt to get the facts before go off on one and start making uninformed assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This makes familiar and, of course, amusing reading.
But wait. What about these various H&S people getting it so wrong, making fools of themselves, and a nuisance to others?
Isn't this the portrait painted by so many reporters and others, against which you rail so forcefully? You sure can't have it both ways!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
stevegrimes wrote:
And I find your comments to be quite distasteful towards an employees legitimate enquiry into his health and well being, and does nothing to promote good H&S in the workplace.
Blimey! thats a very high horse to jump on, based on virtually no facts at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As DP asserts at #17, it's important to get the facts and avoid making assumptions. We all need to remember that this forum has inherent limitations as to the extent and nature of information which can be posted on it. Mindful of this, I try to avoid ambiguity or being dogmatic regarding my own posts and therefore sometimes struggle with brevity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
To get back to the poster, I thought Kay's example about the cabin being working at height is a great example.
Are we talking about reps or are we talking about H&S people in general. It would be great if this was kept to safety reps, but it also applies to consutants, auditors and health and safety officers, advisors etc.
I once had a consutant tell me that someone was to be considered working at height if he was not on the ground floor but any other level in a building (meaning if you walk upstairs you are now working at height).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Someone who used to be a Union rep, making assumptions based on little or no evidence, shocker....
After starting this job and going through previous documents I found a Manual Handling Assessment for using a Mobile Phone and it wasn't even the old type 1980 brick style phones!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Once had a site safety person insist that our engineers working on a mobile access tower had to wear fall arrest harnesses whilst working over three metre high - when asked what the harnesses should be connected to - a strange silence descended and he promptly disappeared
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I used to work in a theatre and the local authoprity safety inspector came to sign off on a refurbishment. He stated that since the scenery flying equipment could be regarded as an open lift so everyone working in the theatre should wear safety footware and hard hats.
Our theatre manager said alright providinh he was willing to supply them to visiting ballet companies to dance in. He quickly revised his assessment.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How many of us wished we had the wisdom that we have now when we first started out all those years ago, fresh faced and keen as mustard from our NEBOSH NGC and set all to SAVE THE WORLD OVERNIGHT.
If I knew then what I know now I might just have made some of my mistakes earlier.
Oh, and I once met someone in our profession that had done a COSHH risk assessment on the drinking water coming from a tap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Betta Spenden wrote:
Oh, and I once met someone in our profession that had done a COSHH risk assessment on the drinking water coming from a tap.
Did the supplier provide a MSDS ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I have seen an MSDS for water:
Can be fatal if inhaled; in case of spillage, flush to waste with plenty of clean water, etc!!
I think someone was having a larf!!
LB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I've had a colleague that has insisted that all staff in a small, detached, double story office had to undertake a fire evacuation test blindfolded and crawling - to simulate trying to get out when all rooms we full of smoke.
Not sure why nobody thought that maybe a fire would have been noticed before all the rooms filled up with smoke? Perhaps they would be concentrating so hard on their work that they wouldn't notice smoke, fire alarms, heat etc. until they couldn't see their VDUs?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We occasionally buy water for laboratory use and, yes, it does come with an MSDS. You will be pleased to know that under haxards identification it states "Not a hazardous substance or preparation according to EC-directives 67/548/EEC or 1999/45/EC"
Most of the rest is quite sensible, but I am left wondering why the supplier has put in the S-phrase "avoid contact with skin and eyes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
sean wrote:the new rep carried out a WPI earlier this week and wants hazard tape put around the base of all coat stands and photocopiers, he wants ceiling tiles replaced because there's a small piece missing around a central round pillar and best of all he wants a TV removed from a communications room in case it "explodes"! All of these faults are priority 1!
What's wrong with that?? You'll be telling me next that you haven't strapped soft cushions to the corner edges of desks and that users don't wear retrofitted seat belts on their swivel chairs. Come on now. I certainly hope that you provide respiratory protection for use with taps, just in case any legionella bacteria are present in the water systems. I don't know. Some people just don't take H&S seriously enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Jane Blunt wrote:, but I am left wondering why the supplier has put in the S-phrase "avoid contact with skin and eyes".
Have you never stayed in the bath too long and ended up with skin like a prune or taken heed of Chris P's posts about dermatitis from long term contact with water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Have just joined a company who have a stapler risk assessment, unfortunatley I am not joking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You will probably not have realised that there are other ways in which water can be and is potentially lethal.
Pharmaceutical grade water is a prescription only medicine most often used for irrigation only. However, there are ampules of injectable water almost always used for the reconstitution of certain freeze-dried pharmaceuticals. Their preparation and use is tightly controlled; if they are substituted in error for an ampule of saline for injection the consequences can be particularly severe.
A vast amount of work has gone into the design of ampules and their labels for water and for saline ampules, to make these distinct in shape and label design, type face, colour layout etc, with additional restiction on availability in wards and clinics, to prevent the 'clinical misadventures' that used to be reported with depressing frequency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In another life, I was once asked by the Client for the COSHH assessment for a 2.4m * 1.2m * 25mm steel road plate
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
flysafe wrote:Have just joined a company who have a stapler risk assessment, unfortunatley I am not joking. Was it one of those electric staplers? We had one and it was a nasty piece of kit( left over from the 1970's)- it was only too easy for some muppet to staple their fingers with. I got rid of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
A Kurdziel wrote:flysafe wrote:Have just joined a company who have a stapler risk assessment, unfortunatley I am not joking. Was it one of those electric staplers? We had one and it was a nasty piece of kit( left over from the 1970's)- it was only too easy for some muppet to staple their fingers with. I got rid of it. No its for a normal small manual desk stapler!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
leggy bands- you can take someone's eye with those!
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Over Zealous H&S Rep (my last friday thread)
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.