Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
walker  
#1 Posted : 06 November 2013 11:22:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

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??
pete48  
#2 Posted : 06 November 2013 11:35:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Regina v Associated Octel? The first one that came to mind for me, p48
walker  
#3 Posted : 06 November 2013 11:38:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Thanks Pete I think I need to book my place in the old folks home
rodgerker  
#4 Posted : 06 November 2013 12:25:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker

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
walker  
#5 Posted : 06 November 2013 13:32:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

thanks Rodger One there (viasystems) I'd not seen before
Phil Grace  
#6 Posted : 06 November 2013 21:59:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
rodgerker  
#7 Posted : 07 November 2013 09:24:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker

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
Jake  
#8 Posted : 07 November 2013 09:29:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Jake

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...
rodgerker  
#9 Posted : 07 November 2013 11:25:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rodgerker

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
MikeKelly  
#10 Posted : 07 November 2013 12:09:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MikeKelly

HSE v Galamast-Bedford Magistrates court 1 Nov 2007. Courtesy of Mr G -Google
Phil Grace  
#11 Posted : 08 November 2013 09:52:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Phil Grace

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
RayRapp  
#12 Posted : 08 November 2013 10:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

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?!
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.