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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 18 December 2001 08:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Uday
In the following episode the principal actors are as follows :
Owner / client is A.
Main Contractor is B.
Main Sub Contractor is C.
Sub Cont'or to sub cont'r is D.
Sub cont'r to sub cont'r is E.

On a particular project site radiography work was carried out by sub cont'r E with proper work permit etc obtained directly from A, instead of routing the requests thru D,C & B.What has happened in this case is MC B was not informed about this radiography by MSubC C to B all problems started.The simple problem was that the Main Contractor B was NOT informed and the work was carried out by the last sub contractor with work permit etc has ruffled Main contractor's feathers and rocked the boat. Therefore Main Sub contractor's Project Manager has issued a WARNING/Show cause letter to the Safety Officer asking him to explain the lapse in writing.
The question now is The sub contractors who were hired were hired by the Proj.Manager. Instructions to carry out the radiography was also given by the Proj.Manager.The Safety officer is in no way responsible and that there was NO safety violation at all....coz a valid work permit was available. Inspite of this the safety was blamed because things went wrong ( NOT informing ) the Main Contractor about the intention of the work.Instead of looking for the failure in the system and amend things from there they chose to issue a letter to Safety Officer. Is it wrong or right.Comments appreciated please.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 18 December 2001 09:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Firstly I am not clear on your location and therefore will A) Look at UK position and B) General Principles although there is a degree of overlap in thought.

A) The new CDM acop is now available (HSG 224)and the role of the client in issuing permits to contractors under the control of a Principal Contractor would imply a breach by the client of CDM. All must go through the Principal Contractor. The new acop is very helpful in clarifying the duties on the various parties.

B) A main contractor can only control a situation with regards to the safety of others if he knows what permits are operational in the area under his control. Why did the Subcontractor or his radiology specialist go straight to the client for a permit? Was the system for obtaining not clear or was it inconvenient to wait for the processing via the full route? I often find that specialist subcontractors who work regularly for a client often do this sort of thing because they know everybody concerned. The question is who short circuited the system, if there was one.

If there was not a system then B is responsible and one needs to be instituted. If there was a shortcut for speed/ease then the fault lies in the subcontr. relationships

Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 18 December 2001 09:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor
An important question to ask is 'Who was in control of the site at the time?'. If, as I suspect, it was a principal contractor (probably under CDM) then they should certainly have been involved in the issue on work permits - and anything else permitted to take place for that matter. It is important to sort out the issues of control, consultations, lines of command, etc prior to work commencing. As to whether there is any blame to be attached to a safety officer, this will depend upon the answer to a number of questions to which we do not have the answer - such as: 'Who is s/he employed by?; What role did s/he have in the contract?; Is s/he the client's appointed representative?; Did s/he know what was happening?; If so, what did s/he do about it?, etc, etc.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 18 December 2001 09:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Webber
All the thespians in this winter tale should know that the Principal Contractor is responsible for the co-ordination of safety during the construction phase ("oh no s/he isnt, OH YES S/HE IS")

It therefore follows that the client should not commission work on site without first obtaining the consent of the Principal contractor.

If the safety officer works for the Principal contractor and was party to the work in question, perhaps s/he should have brought this to the attention of the manager.

Have a look at HSG 224 p36-41 for more CDM info.

Kind regards

Richard

Admin  
#5 Posted : 18 December 2001 13:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Allan St.John Holt
You ought to say where this project is located! However, the CDM principles that have been outlined in earlier responses are also general good practice globally.

What you describe is not uncommon, and results entirely from a failure of the client (and the client's advisers) to anticipate likely work requirements alongside the contract and project and to set up proper control systems. In many cases this failure is compounded by general contractors who don't want to rock the boat by suggesting the client is incompetent, and by other contractors in the chain who are keen to be friends with everyone in the interests of more work! Also, project managers often have only a very hazy idea of how to manage anything at all, let alone safety. They often don't realise that safety can and has to be managed just like anything else. So when things go wrong, a scapegoat is the first thing looked for.

Depressing, isn't it?

Allan
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.