Rank: New forum user
|
I'm working with a client who has undertaken a noise level assessment in a manufacuring facility and implemented appropriate hearing protection and monitoring for the affected employees; as well as appointing an audiology specialist. The client is concerned that if an employee exposes themselves to high noise levels outside the workplace and that has a detrimental effect on their hearing, how should the company deal with this. Do any members have any suggestions ?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Other than ensuring on-going monitoring and the correct use of hearing protection (too often I see plugs balanced in ears to give the impression of conformance rather than correctly inserted in accordance with manufacturer instruction) your client could seek to reduce or eliminate the source of noise in the work place. Suitably commenced the monitoring questionnaire should have identified out of work activity with high noise levels - motor sports, shooting, concert going etc. - with a note of recommendation to use hearing protection in the leisure environment. The test will provide a base level (better if conducted pre-employment) against which any deterioration can be determined.
Even this omits known environmental exposures - hammer drills and road repair equipment, jet engines at the airport, the screaming child in the next seat
There are 168 hours in a week of which most employers get to control @ 40
|
 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Other than ensuring on-going monitoring and the correct use of hearing protection (too often I see plugs balanced in ears to give the impression of conformance rather than correctly inserted in accordance with manufacturer instruction) your client could seek to reduce or eliminate the source of noise in the work place. Suitably commenced the monitoring questionnaire should have identified out of work activity with high noise levels - motor sports, shooting, concert going etc. - with a note of recommendation to use hearing protection in the leisure environment. The test will provide a base level (better if conducted pre-employment) against which any deterioration can be determined.
Even this omits known environmental exposures - hammer drills and road repair equipment, jet engines at the airport, the screaming child in the next seat
There are 168 hours in a week of which most employers get to control @ 40
|
 6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Once worked with a guy who tried to get compensation for noise induced hearing loss, we had adiquate RAs in palce to show noise exposure was insignificant. Turened out he had been running a mobile disco for years! Case never even got to court. H&S does not give us the rights to look at lots of home activities, a hobbiest exposure to HAVs would be similar. Just ensure you have the workplace covered.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hello Just read this and noticed something the poster says: “I'm working with a client who has undertaken a noise level assessment in a manufacturing facility and implemented appropriate hearing protection and monitoring for the affected employees; as well as appointing an audiology specialist.” So, instead of reducing the level of workplace noise exposure they went straight to hearing protection, which means if the hearing protection is not being worn properly or is inadequate then it is possible for employees to be exposed at work that could cause hearing loss. Ideally the employer should be looking to reduce the overall noise levels in the workplace so that they can say any hearing loss is due to this person playing base in a Motorhead tribute act and not work related. That’s where the idea of noise questionnaire including non work activities would be useful. Of course people might lie and if they can’t control noise levels at work then have to strictly enforce hearing protection use and be able to evidence that if someone makes a claim.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I remember working for a company with a great occupational health team (doctor + 4 nurses).
There were some areas in the factory that were noisy We took on a new employee who had some hearing loss - he worked in another building which was quiet, regular noise surveys etc.
This employee left school at 16, worked in a foundry, then joined the army (artillery), worjed with NCB for a few months & hobbies included clay pigeon shooting!!!
After 1 year with us, his hearing had not worsened, but as an ex NCB employee he was encouraged to put a claim in for hearing loss with them (and all his employees)
We had a 100% defendable case - insurers opted to pay him >£4k !!! Finanically cheaper than going to court. At least the won the morality battle, even if we lost the legal and finacial war.
|
|
|
|
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.