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
Monopoly  
#1 Posted : 04 July 2018 09:30:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

I understand that there are certain statutory fire safety checks that need to be carried out and recorded preferably in the fire log book i.e. 

Six-monthly tests and checks

  • A competent person should test and maintain the fire-detection and warning system.

Annual tests and checks

  • The emergency lighting and all fire fighting equipment, fire alarms and other installed systems should be tested and maintained by a competent person. 
  • All structural fire protection and elements of fire compartmentation should be inspected and any remedial action carried out.”

We have a building manager who is refusing to carry out the weekly check and monthly checks identified in the fire log book as these are not statutory. My question is: If a fire inspector were to visit could they enforce the requirement for us to carry out these checks?

Thanks

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 04 July 2018 09:37:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If it is a clear, and legitimate (i.e. not illegal), management instruction to conduct the weekly & monthly checks this is a matter for your disciplinary procedure - most places failure to follow a legitimate management instruction falls under Gross Miss-conduct.

If you only want to run to absolute minimums as listed in statute then change your log book

Edited by user 04 July 2018 09:37:59(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 04 July 2018 09:37:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If it is a clear, and legitimate (i.e. not illegal), management instruction to conduct the weekly & monthly checks this is a matter for your disciplinary procedure - most places failure to follow a legitimate management instruction falls under Gross Miss-conduct.

If you only want to run to absolute minimums as listed in statute then change your log book

Edited by user 04 July 2018 09:37:59(UTC)  | Reason: FFS

Kate  
#4 Posted : 04 July 2018 09:49:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

Consider this, it's not a statutory requirement to employ that person.  So if you are only going to do what is a statutory requirement ...

You really shouldn't be relying on an enforcement agency to get individuals to do what they are supposed to be doing!

Edited by user 04 July 2018 09:53:09(UTC)  | Reason: added second para

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
Elfin Davy 09 on 04/07/2018(UTC)
Elfin Davy 09  
#5 Posted : 04 July 2018 09:51:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Elfin Davy 09

Ask your insurers what their thought are.  It's often a stipulation of the policy that these regular (but "non-statutory") checks are carried out in order to mitigate potential losses. 

My guess is that your building manager will be doing checks next week...

chris42  
#6 Posted : 04 July 2018 10:04:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

If you have a fire risk assessment from a competent person that is calling for these checks, then it would be tricky to explain why they are not being done. The statutory checks will not tell you if an emergency light suddenly stops charging (for potentially quite a few months) or if a fire door / final exit door sticks in winter etc.

O'Donnell54548  
#7 Posted : 04 July 2018 10:39:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
O'Donnell54548

Not a statutory duty but, as a measurement of compliance with your statutory duties with regards to 'regular checks' of fire safety equipment your local enforcement officer will refer to the appropriate BS. 

I would expect that checks would form part of the Building Managers job description, so not a H&S question more one for his manager to address.         

Ian Bell2  
#8 Posted : 04 July 2018 10:46:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

As others have said, this is a discipline matter.

The given time periods come from British Standards.

Section 17 of the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order covers maintenance - the recording of such checks is part of your company statutory obligations to maintain fire safety systems etc.

If the company deem such time periods are what they need to follow to show compliance with s17 of RRFSO then that is ok.

It seems to be a straightforward case, if he is refusing to comply/do his job for no good reason.

A Kurdziel  
#9 Posted : 04 July 2018 10:55:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

It is the basic requirement of any sort of corporate governance-“Boss says jump”: you say “how high”. People need to understand that they are employed to do a job not just to fulfil statutory requirements (not that there are that many actual statutory requirements).  Why are they refusing to do this fairly basic task?

Monopoly  
#10 Posted : 04 July 2018 11:48:38(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

Thanks for the replies guys.

He's refusing to do the checks because we've had cuts in the number of building managers, so that they are spread more thinly and have had to prioristise their workloads better. My argument that is that this is a priority because it's health and safety. 

I've had a quick look at BS 5266 and found:

Monthly emergency lighting tests

All emergency lighting systems must be tested monthly. The test is a short functional test in accordance with BS EN 50172:2004 / BS 5266-8:2004.

The period of simulated failure should be sufficient for the purpose of this test while minimising damage to the system components, e.g. lamps. During this period, all luminaires and signs shall be checked to ensure that they are present, clean and functioning correctly.

A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 04 July 2018 13:31:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Surely they cannot be allowed to set their own priorities?  It is their manager who decides where their priorities lie and as you said it probably makes sense to have Fire Safety fairly high on the list.

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 04 July 2018 14:10:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Sounds like the typical tale of cost on a senior management spread sheet that has no column for business value.

Roundtuit  
#13 Posted : 04 July 2018 14:10:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Sounds like the typical tale of cost on a senior management spread sheet that has no column for business value.

Hsquared14  
#14 Posted : 04 July 2018 14:57:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

The weekly tests, monthly tests and annual tests are all requirements of BS5839 - as such they are all required to prove compliance with statutory duties therefore your Building Manager cannot A) Refuse to do them and B) Cannot claim that they are not statutory.  Light a fire under him and get him to do his job!!

thanks 1 user thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
KEITH ROWSON on 04/07/2018(UTC)
Monopoly  
#15 Posted : 04 July 2018 16:38:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Monopoly

Thanks guys 

This is all excellent ammunition for me to use. I have verbally spoken to this chap's managers and he agrees with me, and want me to send him a briefing. I will be extracting the relevant bits from the british standards.

Thanks again

aud  
#16 Posted : 05 July 2018 13:46:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

In my book, BS's are not legal requirements as such, strong recommendations or insurance company requirements, perhaps. This is 'regulation creep' I'm afraid. Also such standards, and the RRO, apply to the employer, not directy to individual managers as such - but . . .

If the company decide that they will do certain checks, comply with BS-whatever, or determine that employees are to do something a certain way, then it becomes company policy  (probably specifically H&S policy).

The H&S policy (H&SAWA mirrored) requires that employees follow their employer's procedures and rules.

These set out the company expectations of what is 'so far as is reasonably practicable'. Non-compliance could lead to vulnerability to an action against an employee under s7 (or RRO equivalent, forgotten which number).

The manager is in breach of company policy, and thus is putting the organisation at risk. It is not whether a regulation specifically says so, but that the company say so. That makes it 'the rule'. Obey or be disciplined, as the company cannot afford (legally) to overlook this known non-compliance either.

aud  
#17 Posted : 05 July 2018 13:49:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

Follow up to last post.

It is not for the safety practitioner to make individuals comply - send your briefing to his manager.

Messey  
#18 Posted : 09 July 2018 06:04:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

Its all very well talking about Article 17 of the FSO (maintenance) but what about Article 23:

This states that an employee must co-operate with any request from his employer where that equest is required for his employer to meet the statutory requirements of the Order.

The Courts would decide whether the request was reasonable, but asking an employee to carry out, or supervise maintenence work would seem to me to fall under Article 23.

I am not sure whther an employer could threaten legal action against the employee, but it does surely add weight to an argument favouring discipline up to dismissal. Taking no action would surely leave the employer (The Responsible Person) at risk of enforcement action themselves under Article 8​​​​​​​

_____________________________________________

Article 23 (part)

23.—(1) Every employee must, while at work—

(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer by or under any provision of this Order, co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with; 

Article 8

8.—(1) The responsible person must—

(a)take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety of any of his employees; and

(b)in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that the premises are safe.

Hsquared14  
#19 Posted : 09 July 2018 08:08:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Originally Posted by: aud Go to Quoted Post

In my book, BS's are not legal requirements as such, strong recommendations or insurance company requirements, perhaps. This is 'regulation creep' I'm afraid. Also such standards, and the RRO, apply to the employer, not directy to individual managers as such - but . . .

If the company decide that they will do certain checks, comply with BS-whatever, or determine that employees are to do something a certain way, then it becomes company policy  (probably specifically H&S policy).

The H&S policy (H&SAWA mirrored) requires that employees follow their employer's procedures and rules.

These set out the company expectations of what is 'so far as is reasonably practicable'. Non-compliance could lead to vulnerability to an action against an employee under s7 (or RRO equivalent, forgotten which number).

The manager is in breach of company policy, and thus is putting the organisation at risk. It is not whether a regulation specifically says so, but that the company say so. That makes it 'the rule'. Obey or be disciplined, as the company cannot afford (legally) to overlook this known non-compliance either.

I think you would be on a bit of a "sticky wicket" where British Standards are concerned, especially in relation to anything to do fire and fire alarm systems.  In fact you could find it tricky in relation to any legislation where a British Standard provides a detailed specification of the expected actions which are not defined in the legislation.  This isn't legislation creep its the self-policing, general approach that replaced the Factories Act.

Users browsing this topic
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.