Rank: Super forum user
|
Folks my memory is letting me down.
What was the case that looked at control of contractors
A company let a contractor loose at a shutdown to clean some tanks and then tried to say they had delegated responsibility
Oct -- summat??
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Regina v Associated Octel? The first one that came to mind for me,
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks Pete
I think I need to book my place in the old folks home
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Four more to look at:
R v Mara. 1986
R v Swann Hunter. 1982
Viasystems v Thermal Transfer. 2005
The Primark prosecution for the Bedford store in 2006.
All show different useful insights into what is required to remain compliant.
Rodger Ker
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
thanks Rodger
One there (viasystems) I'd not seen before
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Please can something supply a reference: Primark prosecution at their Bedford store? What were the circumstances? What was the result?
Can't seem to track down any details: Thanks in advance
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Primark Store, Bedford.
My information came from Safety Management magazine, December 2007.
Headline: "Poor management placed 15 workers at risk of inhaling asbestos".
G Ltd was carrying out a "soft strip" out of a store.
G was aware that there was asbestos present from the survey report.
Soft strip was to be only carpets, door frames and furniture.
G boss instructed his site workers to conduct a soft strip but failed to leave written instructions or copies of the asbestos survey on site.
They eventually removed one-third of the shop ceiling (AIB).
G fined £20,000 plus full HSE costs of £16,140
Rodger Ker
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
rodgerker wrote:Primark Store, Bedford.
My information came from Safety Management magazine, December 2007.
Headline: "Poor management placed 15 workers at risk of inhaling asbestos".
G Ltd was carrying out a "soft strip" out of a store.
G was aware that there was asbestos present from the survey report.
Soft strip was to be only carpets, door frames and furniture.
G boss instructed his site workers to conduct a soft strip but failed to leave written instructions or copies of the asbestos survey on site.
They eventually removed one-third of the shop ceiling (AIB).
G fined £20,000 plus full HSE costs of £16,140
Rodger Ker
I didn't know the detail either, so thanks Roger :-)
In light of the OP's question - what sanctions were laid against Primark? The fine against G Ltd (on its own) doesn't provide an example of client requiirements to contractors...
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
May I suggest a little lateral thinking is required.
While it is perfectly true that Primark were not prosecuted, they did receive a great deal of unwanted publicity from the event.
At that time I worked for a company that was doing similar work on store refurbishments for Primark, and their "contractor control" was somewhat lax.
When you throw into the equation the Marks and Spencer prosecution over asbestos removal/contractor control and management, it might be considered that Primark were fortunate.
This case and the others that I highlighted all, in different ways, indicate that "contractor control/management" is of vital importance and needs to addressed by all parties involved. The days of "you are the experts, just get on with it and let me know when you are finished" should be a thing of the distant past.
If you are a contractor and the client doesn't want to manage or control you, you will need to ensure that they are made to.
In making presentations on Contractor Control, to either contractors or clients, these examples usually bring about a lively debate and people mumble that we must do things differently in future.
(As they used to say in Hill Street Blues, "be careful out there!")
Rodger Ker
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
HSE v Galamast-Bedford Magistrates court 1 Nov 2007. Courtesy of Mr G -Google
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Another case that is worth considering is the fatal fall (from roof) of a contractor's employee. The site owner/operator, the client in the contract was prosecuted alongside the contractor. The esssence of the prosecution was that the firm failed to follow its own laid down procedures for contractor control.
Tullis Russell - Scottish papermakers.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Phil Grace wrote:Another case that is worth considering is the fatal fall (from roof) of a contractor's employee. The site owner/operator, the client in the contract was prosecuted alongside the contractor. The esssence of the prosecution was that the firm failed to follow its own laid down procedures for contractor control.
Tullis Russell - Scottish papermakers.
Phil
Phil, et al, I wonder how many times a 'client' has failed to follow its own procedures (or regulations) and there has not been a prosecution?!
|
|
|
|
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.