Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John Pettley
I would like to know what to do if, when using a elevating platform and the companys employees, who are IPAF trained, attach themselves using a harness, and under the regulations offer a harness to a client who also wishes to go up in the elevating platform but refuses to use the harness.
What safe system can we put into place, in case the client has a accident due to the fact that they refused to use the harness?
Any ideas or help would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Charleston
John
My suggestion is to prepare a disclaimer that says your advice is to wear the PPE provided but as an independent person, they are entitled to their own decision. Make sure that a statement is made to the effect that the guest absolves your company from any liability in the event of an accident whilst using the ewp, and enforce signature of this before the person can go aloft.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Denis Hands
My response would be an unequivocal 'No harness, no ride'. I believe that the previous correspondent's suggestion of a witten disclaimer would not be worth the paper it was written on in the event of an accident. The central question in any subsequent investigation or court case would be 'What did you do to manage the risks?' If there is no risk, why do the machine operators wear harnesses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Harsley
I agree with Dennis, above, the same applies with regard to hard hats on construction sites. They are often provided for visitors, if they refuse to wear them then they do not gain access to the site. Refusal to comply with the safety requirements of the company should result in no access to the site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Mackie
I agree, no harness no ride, company policy should state clearly that all employees and visitors must wear the relevant PPE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Laurie
Couldn't agree more. The only instance I know of where PPE is optional is 85 - 90 dB!
Does anybody know of case law where a disclaimer has been accepted in a H&S context?
Laurie
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Garner
I agree with the above comments. If the visitor does not wish to be harnessed then he should not be allowed to ride the EWP. To let him do so and an accident occurs your company will be dealt with most severely.
Section 3 of HASAWA says it all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Harper
I agree with the above comments.
But a quick point, you should already have a system in place. By defining that harnesses are required a risk assessment must exist and perhaps a method statement.
Any client not wanting to wear a harness would have to produce their own risk assessment that, I might suggest, is reviewed by the operators of the platform.
I've tried this and in reality its a bit more diplomatic than refusing access, as they always end up copying my assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
If the accident happens, the HSE will want to know who was in control of the workplace at the time. If, as I strongly suspect, it was not the client, it would have been down to that person/company to have a safe system of work in operation. The disclaimer would be of very little help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.