Rank: Forum user 
|
I recently received a complaint from one of our sub-contracting labour staff that a site manager was refusing the aid of of the tele-handler on site (despite it being a contractual obligation for shared use, not to mention assist in his productivity) to move our stock 100M closer to the property to enable us to work. Our policy is transparent in stating I use the HSE's MAC to help assess the risks and I even go so far as to paraphrase their criteria in assessment including ground conditions. It isn't hard to see the obstreperous site manager has increased the risk to said operative - I intend to use diplomacy in stating his actions have brought me to review our own risk assessment and highlight a new hazard of Principal Contractor's management not being aware of creating new hazards, should this be ill received would we/ I/ the sub-contrctor have any protection under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998? Or is there something more applicable for companies rather than individuals in this case? My only experience of the PID Act is leading me to think it's on an individual basis - Thanks for reading
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Adale,
before going down the PID road (which in itself is unlikely to achieve results), I suggest that you discuss this with the site manager to discover his reason(s). He may have valid reasons for the refusing to share the telehandler. For example he may not be satisfied that the sub contractor is competent to operate it. There may be clauses in the company EL or PL insurance policy covering non employees operating plant / machinery. He may not be aware of the company policy agreeing to share the item: was he consulted?. Or it could be any one of a host of other issues that he has.
If he is just being stubborn, then perhaps you may need to take it further: especially as the issue is costing time by lost production.
PH2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I struggle to see any PID context here to be honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The client is a NHBC, the site manager has given us trouble for a while for little if any reasons at all. The client employs the driver, our staff rely on him and the site manager is aware of his company's arrangements in that sense. The protected disclosure is part of my thoughts on cover, it;s not unheard of for people to raise issues with H&S within larger companies and soon after have their services "no longer required". Some SME's may not be able to fund a lengthy legal proceeding against one of the country's biggest house builders. SO I was wondering if anyone had any practical experience of this in a similar scenario, does the PID Act offer any protection to organisations under a PC when raising issues or is it simply to protect employees under an employer. Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.