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 : 27 February 2002 19:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jan Moore I'd appreciate views on the provision of footwear for our catering staff in Brum. Many of our kitchens are older type ones with sound quarry tiled floors. Some years ago there were many slipping incidents and accidents. These have been reduced drastically by putting in place proper cleaning regimes with suitable cleaning materials. However there are still some instances and we are constantly reminded by the solicitors acting for claimants that there should be non slip floor surfaces laid. Looking realistically at the cost of this (several hundreds of thousands of pounds) I cannot believe this is the solution. Accidents I have investigated do not point to the tiled floor being the problem but it seems with the current no win no fee scenario that a possible damp tiled floor is the ideal suing tool.Solicitors automatically assume that kitchen and damp go together and I am sure suggest this to claimants who aren't going to argue if they will get a few quid. Other authorities have this problem and one chose to provide staff with safety 'non slip' shoes. They regret this very much. Should we resort to pressure from the unions to provide PPE (I really think this to be a mistake). We have always insisted that staff wear low heeled enclosed shoes but is this enough? We have some 3500 staff and the turnover of staff is quite high. Has anyone else been in this situation?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 February 2002 09:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor My view has been that, if the risk assessment shows a significant slipping risk: 1. shoes with slip-resisting soles should be provided as PPE; 2. that, if loads are carried that could harm the toes if dropped, the shoes should incorporate toe-protection; and 3. if hot liquids are carried the shoes should be fairly enclosing of the foot. The major suppliers of safety footwear include white shoes of this nature designed for use by kitchen staff and I would suggest that serious consideration should be given to supplying them. On the subject of the floor tiles, there obviously needs to be a written (and enforced) instruction to clear up spillages immediately and you may also need to check whether the air extraction systems are working adequately. There are treatments for floor tiles that are less expensive than replacing floors - which tend to divide between applied coatings and 'etching'. Unfortunately, as the slip-resistance increases so does the dirt-retention and so more vigorous or frequent cleaning may need to follow. You could consider getting one of the companies that offer these products to do a test area for you. One last thought; are you having regular 'deep cleaning' of the floors in addition to the normal daily routine?
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 February 2002 22:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper Jan, I have the same problem with around 2500 staff in LA kitchens and as I see it, it breaks down like this. I think you are correct in identifying it as a workplace issue. Not suitable flooring free from slippery surface. But the costs for all of our floors are a good demonstration of not reasonably practicable. This is also a long term solution that should be addressed when kitchens are revamped. Upgrading floors is not reasonably practicable and the suggestion of non-slip matting and such like sometime runs into problems with EHO's. Deep cleans are good, but when looking at our accidents we found a number of trends. 1. Spills were not always cleared up. This was more evident with kitchens with poor ventialtion and faulty equipment. Continous drips can't always be cleared up staright away. 2. Many accidents occured through wet cleaning after the shift. 3. Many accidents occured near steamers. This was interesting, if you have them. Door opens and a whole load of steams condenses and drips on the floor. Do you leave the door open to clean the spill before removing the contents? Most have a channel to take away such water but many were clogged up. We are also currently being found negligent for preventing a forseeable risk of injury in civil cases, at about £5000 per incident. We even lost a case where a women mopped the floor, put the mop away and then slipped on the patch she had just cleaned, breaking her arm! Anyway (I am now getting to the point), we have decided to progress the issue of slip resistant footwear on the following basis. When we stareted, our costs were to be around £40,000 + management time per year. We are currnetly being sued for £15,000 plus lost time etc. (As a comparison one floor change from quarry tile to a slip resistant surface would cost around £10,000 I think). We quickly decided to issue only to staff on quarry tile floor and then only to staff that work over 15 hours per week. This is pretty lame, but my excuse is reduced exposure to the risk. We have some people doing 30 minutes a day. This brings our costs to £12,500 pa In this way we target a vast bulk of people really at risk. The staff there the majority of the day at the sharp end. Our supplier has been helpful and will deliver directly to kitchens and the qualtiy and price of footwear was quite honestly a welcome suprise. We do have two big issues to overcome. Our high staff turnover and what happens when we only issues to some people. I have looked a lot into this issue and a lot of people go as close as possible in specifying PPE without acutally doing it so they don't have to pay for it. It is then unenforceable and no protection exists. I hope this gives you some help, if not email me otherwise I'll rant on and this will be the longest post on the forum!
Admin  
#4 Posted : 01 March 2002 09:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams I found the comments on the issue of PPE interesting, especially the issues around part time staff not being issued with appropriate PPE identified as required by a risk assessment. The issue of reduced exposure is interesting, but I was wondering how you had got the decision past unison and the GMB, as by not issuing the PPE you would appear to be discriminating against part time workers on health and safety grounds? Ashley
Admin  
#5 Posted : 05 March 2002 22:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Harper Ashley, PPE required by risk assessments is issued to staff. Not issuing PPE identified in a risk assessment is a no no. Please read postings carefully as I don't want people reading these things thinking I advocate identifying PPE in risk assessments and not issuing it. The point I was making to assist Jan, was to identify through risk assessment differing levels of risk. Money is tight enough without spending it where no benifit exists. I don't know if you have experince in LA catering, but many of our staff only come in to assist in putting up tables for 15 minutes a day or just to serve or supervise the kids. It sounds lame but its not discrimination. Its based upon sound facts around the accident rates of my employees and reduced exposure to risk. The position of blanket issue of PPE also throws up more problems. What happens to other people who come into the kitchens? Delivery men, visitors, school staff at tea break? Some small schools double as teacher rest rooms and we don't issue PPE again is this discrimination? As far as the unions go, they agree in principle to targetted PPE. After all they would prefer to see money spent properly and the issue looked at objectivley and approached in a cost effective manner with clear goals. In reality, though, the people on the ground do not agree. One of the main reasons is that the on site managers stated that they felt it difficult to know who was entitled to PPE and who wasn't and didn't want to make the mistake of not issuing. Hopefully this type of info is of use to Jan, but considering Unisons push on this issue, I can't help thinking that this thread should have sparked a bit more debate. Jan, if you are reading this, why were other authorities regreting the issue of this type of PPE?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 06 March 2002 11:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods Jan, Re your comment: “Solicitors automatically assume that kitchen and damp go together and I am sure suggest this to claimants who aren't going to argue if they will get a few quid”. My wife works for a large supermarket chain in the public restaurant. In the last couple of years there have been several very nasty slips. The injuries caused have included torn ligaments, a broken elbow, broken wrist, and a smashed kneecap leaving the person with the latter injury with a permanent limp. That person would willingly give back the compensation to be able to walk normally. The same goes for all the people suffering from workplace noise induced hearing loss that I deal with. I have not come across one person suffering from a GENUINE industrial injury who would rather have the money than their health. After many months of asking the company did what has been mentioned in one of the other responses to this thread, gave staff who worked over 15 hours safety footwear. The next person injured was a part time worker. You can imagine the out off court settlement they received and why it was out of court. I understand that the insurance company suggested that PPE be provided for everyone who works in the kitchen area. A suggestion that has since been rigorously implemented. To win compensation for these people the solicitors have had to prove that the company has been negligent in some way. This is not as one sided as you suggest. There is also a team of solicitors working for the insurance companies trying to prove the contrary. The insurance companies don’t just give away money willy-nilly. The solicitors for the claimants have to produce evidence and witness statements. In my experience as a union representative the management of some companies tend to suggest a scenario that witnesses might have seen. Especially if they want that much needed promotion or they haven’t been with the company for a full year. One last comment: The floors in my wife’s workplace are relatively new. The surface is tiled rather than a non-slip coating. To me this suggests a lack of thought or knowledge at the design and planning stage of the building. Maybe if consultation took place between the architects and the people who have experience of working in the planned environment then safety would become an intrinsic part of the building and the accidents above would not have happened.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 06 March 2002 12:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richard Peters This is obviously an area fraught with difficulty, not least the need to balance expenditure with benefit. However, on reading some of the responses regarding cost/benefit which included cost of litigation, my first thought was of Ford and the Pinto (I believe) with their cost/benefit analysis. Was not allegedly their argument that it was cheaper to suffer the consequences of litigation rather than to fix the problem? (I'm trying hard not to get sued here!) With regard to the comments about part time workers erecting tables and supervising children, would this not suggest that the children are also being exposed to the same hazard? In this case, using a hierarchal approach, surely the maximum benefit comes from removing the hazard at source? Also, if there are areas which are regularly used by delivery staff then the use of PPE could be made a requirement of the contract to supply. This is not unlike construction or hazardous industry where hard hats and safety shoes are required. While they need to be supplied at no cost to the employee, it is generally the employer who supplies the generic items with the client only suppliying the locally, or industry required, specialist PPE. Finally, I must agree with the comments regarding injury and payout. My wife and I have both been injured in car accidents through no fault of our own. The money is no compensation for continued pain and disability.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 06 March 2002 14:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian Dawson I thought Ians initial posting was fairly sound and showed the issue was being addressed rationally – up to the point where PPE was not being issued to part time staff. His 2nd posting would suggest he is referring to 2 different jobs. Surely the staff who spend 15 minutes putting up tables and supervising, work in the canteen rather than the kitchen. In the canteen slip resistant footware is surely not the solution – if it was other occupants (pupils) would also be exposed to unacceptable risk. Surely too it is not the kitchen which doubles as a teacher rest room but the canteen?
Admin  
#9 Posted : 06 March 2002 14:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Zyggy Turek The HSE are currently embarking on a series of national seminars on the subject of "Slips and Trips". The Seminar is an excellent day with input from the HSE Laboratory/RIBA/HSE Inspectors/GMB & an EHO. The day starts with a deeply moving account of the human cost of a slipping accident from a lady who actually had to have her leg amputated following a fall.I am certain that no amount of compensation could alter the fact that she is only able to wear a false limb for a maximum of two hours and that her life has changed for ever. As a final point, can we stop talking about "non-slip floors" and "non-slip footwear", as in my experience there is no such thing, only "anti-slip".
Admin  
#10 Posted : 06 March 2002 23:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jan Moore Many thanks for all who replied. Sorry I took a time to respond. As an erstwhile catering supervisor and kitchen assistant of 15 years, I know first hand of the pain and suffering caused by a fall in a kitchen. I still have the scars when I did my elbow in slipping on a blob of custard someone kindly left in a doorway!!!! I am certainly not knocking those who hurt themselves at work. What I was referring to is the increase in the amount of 'accidents' at work where staff say they have fallen or injured their back etc, claim full accident pay and take other part time jobs (heavy ones at that!.)and then leave after 18 months of claiming accident pay!. We have had to admit liability for a slip where a member of staff said she slipped on a drop of water because she wasn't trained in wringing out a dishcloth and left drips of water taking a cloth from A to B. Going back to the shoe issue! - One Authority regretted bitterly the issue of shoes to catering staff. One member of staff claimed that her right shoe was too tight and caused a blister which went septic causing weeks away from work. She sued and won. I have had etching done on four floors and this has worked wonders. Perhaps this might be the answer along with making sure that staff are cleaning the floors properly. Thanks again to all who provoked a debate! I think I'll channel my energies into the amount of asbestos in the kitchen ceilings and walls next.
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.