Ok, so you have found a safety issue which needs fixing - lets say that risk assessments haven't been done by a particular manager. You have asked nicely, you have pointed out legal obligations, you have tried to persuade, tried to cajole, tried being 'matey', tried being stern, tried to understand his reasons for not doing it, you have held up the manager against his peers and showed him to be lacking, you have escalated the failure to his boss, raised it in safety meetings, raised it to board level, tried to 'use' the unions to help you get it done and throughout you have documented the proverbial out of it....and it still doesn't happen....... What proportion of you are happy to leave it alone after that and 1) hope nothing bad happens 2) do it yourself - at the risk of setting a dangerous precendent or 3) accept the fact that if something does go wrong, you have all the proof you need in court to say it was the managers fault, you did your best your honour, couldn't reasonably have done more, he was a bad man etc. etc.. Or do you worry that despite this, the injured person of course will remain injured, it wasn't his fault and it could have been prevented by the manager. And maybe you might even feel an obligation to save the manager from himself? I'm interested to know how far you as a safety professional think you need to go to achieve what I would consider 'basic legal compliance'? Thoughts? Stu

Stu Taking the broader view and not getting caught up in the details of the example, useful as it is my view would be as follows. I have only 1 priority in my role and that is to do everything I can to make sure that people are safe. I do this for my employer but I have also felt compelled to intervene where I see serious at risk behaviours or activities for which I have no actual responsibility - even if I end up getting the bird! Having investigated one workplace fatality in the past (fortunately not my company) was one too many in my lifetime. Anytime I come across the sort of issue you describe I need only take a few quite minutes and remember the conversation with the deceased's family as to how he died while trying to support them. So, I would do absolutely anything needed to eliminate or reduce the risk - proportionate to its significance! I know that seems relatively easy to say but I am being genuine. The approach has got me into some problems in the past, but at least I slept well knowing that I had some effect in reducing the risks. Thankfully I work for an organisation that genuinely do not compromise on safety which means that I rarely face such problems in my current role. Hope this is helpful. Jonty

I would do the risk assessment as you suggest but I would also highlight the reasons I had done it with the person's manager, the EHS committee etc. It may set a precendent but the naming and shaming aspect should also show everyone that they will be highlighted even further as a poor manager. At least then if somethng goes wrong you have done your best. The second best iption is, as you have suggested, keeping all thepaperwork and notes of caloling etc. to ensure the right person is named on the prosecution.

I encountered a similar situation a few years ago, I started to copy in on my emails the company MD who of course as a responsibility to ensure health and safety is competently managed within the company. I keep emphasising the need to comply legally and the possible outcome especially the culpability effect. I would not feel comfortable in leaving it alone in the hope that nothing may happen. It worked eventually. By the way the manager in question no longer works for us !!!!

Many thanks to all for some quite diverse replies. This is a case of an individual manager, long serving (40+ years) and very effective indeed from a production perspective, but who prioritises H&S very low on his (and his teams) radar. His factory 'does' H&S it when there is no production left to do, which is rare. He doesn't do the RA's himself, just needs to delegate them out to his supervisors and chase if not completed etc. There is a 'low to moderate' risk to employees in that we may be missing some control measures for some of the less risky jobs, but the highest risks are well controlled. There is however significant risk of FIFI costs and increased claims (because of course we can't defend either without adequate up to date RA's). With regard to making sure all parties within the org are aware of the consequences - yes, done and double done! I suspect the upper management / directors are afraid to rock the boat with him however as he is so pivotal to output. Times and purses are tight for all at the moment and the board approach to H&S is much more reactive than I would like it to be - when something goes wrong they are all over it like a rash...... Jonty - I take your point and it's a very compelling one. Luckily for the company (but not for my sanity!), I get more determined the more I am fobbed off, so will keep going till they do what I want them to do. Luckily, this chap is an isolated case and generally I have no similar problems anywhere else. Stu

“here is a 'low to moderate' risk to employees in that we may be missing some control measures for some of the less risky jobs, but the highest risks are well controlled” “He is so pivotal to output. Times and purses are tight for all at the moment” Stu, the above is the real world. I would suggest your judgement of significant for FIFI costs is exaggerated in a situation where highest risks are controlled. Do not go any further , leave the man alone your bit is done.

I have to (strangely) agree with Ian. Playing devils advocate, if you are so sure about your opinion that a risk assessment is required then put the details of the 'safety issue' to the forum. Currently the lack of details means we cannot possible comment on whether you are right or wrong. The fact that everyone else has refused to back you raises some eyebrows. To be contentious I would also point out that doing a risk assessment in it's own right does not save lives. Measures can be in place without a formal risk assessment ever having been done and yet a risk assessment may have been done but there be no additional safety measures put in place. Risk assessment is not the be all and end all. As to the question....you do as best you can within your position. To go against direct orders from your boss (whether you agree with them or not) is a matter for company disciplinary wouldn't you say. You are directly disobeying your boss. If you feel that strongly then keep pursuing your case. Or quit your job (but do you really think you will find the perfect company and perfect boss that does everything you say?) Personally I would do what I can and no more. Luckily I choose to be a consultant nowadays so that I don't have to put up with such things!!

Ok, ok, point taken, I'll lighten up on him!! But I must be missing something here - is risk assessing significant hazards not a legal requirement then? And are things which can cause minor / moderate considered insignificant by most practitioners? The manager in question has about 170 work activities on his RA register, only 14% of which are currently risk assessed. The company target and expectation is 95% complete and up to date at any given time - the gap is large as I'm sure you would agree. I realise that an RA document doesn't save lives in of itself, but once the fatality / life changing injury risks are dealt wth, do we not spend a large amount of our time dealing with the lesser risks and trying to protect the employees from minor / moderate injury and at the same time protect our org from claims or low scale HSE interventions? And do we not need RA's to achieve this? Clairel - not sure what you mean by 'directly disobeying my boss' - which bit are you referring to? Anyway, as always it is fascinating to see the different approaches that people have to safety issues and the standards they expect in their workplaces - there is no 'right' answer, but I guess the popular consensus is a sensible way to go. As in the title of the thread, I was just interested to see how far others would go to get what they see as basic H&S compliance. Stu

“is risk assessing significant hazards not a legal requirement then?2 Yes of course but: “170 work activities on his RA register, only 14% of which are currently risk assessed” If you judge that these are legally required then you are well out of compliance. Surely you must have an overarching assessment that gives you confidence that there are not significant hazards lurking in these work activities. PS good to see Claire back.

I'm a great one for email correspondence. If the person concerned has responded negatively, elevate the problem to your boss, if he responds negatively, well at least you have a documented record of the facts.

Jeez. Considering a more streamlined way of doing it springs to mind.

Yes, it did not take long to beat you down. Seems like absence did not make the heart grow fonder! You have to try and rise above it all. You are entitled to state your opinion but surely realise the accuser was also being sarcastic and antagonistic.

Stop it! I'm welling up!

Well, thank you very much for not being sarcastic

Hair pulling, name calling, spitting, kicking and tantrums aside....what is the reason given by said Manager?

Hasn't got the time / his supervisors haven't got the time. Too much production at the moment (but production has been high for 18 months so not a temporary issue) . H&S activities are not a priority to him. Stu

3 - not so many in agreement then.

I agree with Jonty (post #3)....that's what we're in this profession for.