I agree with at least one statement made - "Common sense should have prevailed". But applied to the workers: there is no point whatsoever in having a safe system of work, if they don't use it when it does not suit them. Maybe a harsh decision overall, but disciplinary action certainly.

score, they obviously put the public / themselves at considerable risk by doing this and not putting in place the necessary traffic management etc! This is exactly when and why accidents happen! 'only took a few minutes'...... it would only take a few minutes to pop up a ladder into a roof without the bother of all that harness and safety gear!

If they are enforcing it then I wish they would have a look at manhole survey contractors & utilities surveyors (the few minutes tasks such as looking into a manhole to take measurements or read meters) & their fantastic traffic management (read non existent) (cones wrong size, only three per team: one in mh, one maning winch, one taking notes, signs not set as Chapter8 requirements, etc...)!!!! But they are wearing full high vis with long sleeve & trousers...

I am sorry but I still think the actions taken are well over the top, its clear from the picture that they just put some tarmac on the damaged area, they didn't repair it they patched it up which would have taken seconds.... And yes seconds are all you need to have an accident but come on lorries parking half way up pavements causing obstruction is far worse etc... etc....

If they were returning from a job then they had all the equipment and people necessary. 30 secs this time, one minute the next, next 2 minutes, where should it stop. They have only been suspended at the moment, they may not lose their jobs. A simple disciplinary surly would have been appropriate to make the point.

ron, you are right that for any streetwork there is not a universal procedure (even though the ACoP Chap 8 might suggest this). Narrow estate roads, village high streets and dual carraigeways present different problems, so the safety zones and barriers I mentioned earlier cannot be used in every situation, and you are right that some quick jobs can be more suitably protected just by suitably positioning the works vehicle with a blue/white direction sign at the back. In such circumstances utility companies will expect the operators to make brief note in the job's written specific risk assesment template doc to explain why no barriers etc., and that comes on to the point that SP made "how seriously the company treats its management of Health and Safety" - you'll find utility companies and councils who have a history of incidents or traffic accidents will be very particular in how work is done and how it is recorded. I know two utility companies who are very nervous right now, with a recent conviction following a fatal accident where a car drove down a 'closed' road that was not sufficiently signed.

Sp900308 I agree, this can't be condoned, but I generally feel that where possible an opportunity to mend their ways should also be given (once). Obviously for gross misconduct, it's different. I was going to say we don't know the w"hole" story, but it's not Friday yet.

A reprimand would have sufficed in my opinion - after all, there were mitigating circumstances. If I suspended everyone at work who had not followed the rules to the letter I would end up with no one on site!