Current Situation

We have a central walkway that divides the warehouse and is frequently used by members moving between different areas. However, its design includes numerous blind spots, making it difficult for truck drivers to see approaching pedestrians. Additionally, the walkway intersects with high-traffic zones, increasing the likelihood of accidents. The route appears to be used mainly to get from one PFU board to the other.

Proposed Changes

Closure of the Central Walkway: The central walkway will be closed to pedestrian traffic. Members will be encouraged to use the perimeter walkway, which is designed to be the safest route around the warehouse.

The proposed changes aim to significantly reduce the hazards associated with the central walkway in our warehouse. By closing this walkway and implementing the recommended improvements, we can enhance the safety of our working environment in compliance with the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and other relevant UK health and safety legislation.

Resposes (from the MD!)

How does the team navigate from the logistics PFU board to the Dispatch board.

No short barriers we have blue lines that needs discipline.

If the walkway from the canteen though is a high visibility area how are the hi Vis vests going to be controlled by logistics for the daily Karawane, as I do not want everyone wearing high vis vests in production like previously.

In summary then

According to the MD, we need a walkway through the centre of the warehouse so that the Karawane team can get to the flip chart outside of warehouse office.

We don’t agree to use barriers as we rely on using blue floor tape and discipline.

We don’t agree to more persons that is necessary wearing hi viz vests.

If any of this makes sense to you, please let me know, personally I am scratching my head.

I’ve always said that if you add ‘your honour’ at the end of these statement it may help to get some perspective – after all these statement are the basis of your defence for not following the hierarchy of control.

Edited to prevent word blindness

Edited by user 31 January 2025 14:15:09(UTC)  | Reason: edited to prevent headaches for readers

Strange formatting is this something from or to Chat GPT?

You have however missed the blindingly obvious preventative measure - eliminate the hazard.

In one employment we deployed area boards and would then have a walkround each one until someone suggested putting the boards on wheels and taking them to a safe location so that we weren't unecessarily passing through and standing in a traffic environment.

Given how technology has advanced it may be found to be completely unecessary to move the board by taking or projecting an image in a safer location.

Absolutely correct - that was the purpose of the proposal. Remove the hazard! However the company seem reluctant to change their ways. 

It's a nonsence to suggest the putting blue lines on the floor is prefereable to a fixed barrier!

All to access a flipchart...

Actually the piece that was mailed out was from Introduction to Summary. The rest of the text was for your benefit to help you understand my conundrum. The issue here is that this business is entiely quality driven  they didnt even have safety manager or safety rep for over 6 months. It shouldn't be that hard to convince an MD of a manufacturing business that strips of tape on the floor are not barriers and that in this way pedestrians are not segregated! 

OK, the shortened version is easier to read.

The MD is apparently asking how the proposal is compatible with some routine practices that happen in the warehouse.

I would just take that at face value.

Having identified that the proposal interferes somehow with these practices, then my next plan would be to work out a way in which the function of these practices (I am guessing some kind of quality function) can be achieved under the proposal.   So if the issue is that a customary daily meeting would be unable to happen, then I would establish what the function of that meeting is and how it could be achieved in some other way that the proposal doesn't interfere with.  Simplest case might be to hold the meeting somewhere else (but depending on the function of the meeting that might not be possible and some more imaginative solution might be needed).

And if it can't be, then my next plan after that would be to modify the proposal so that it becomes compatible with whatever it is that is required.

It's not enough just to say that this is required for safety.  You need to address the problems that the proposal is seen to create.