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 : 02 July 2004 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel We have chemical (development and analysis) laboratories in which females work. We have the COSHH assessments in place for all the tasks, which indicate if procedures are followed no issues exist, chemical monitoring has also shown no issues. We have the appropriate LEV and PPE etc. We do not use any chemicals that indicate they are dangerous to the unborn child (or new mother) however we are having problems convincing certain ladies that this is the case, the fact that MSDS's do not say a chemical is harmful is not taken as being that it is not! The issue is also complicated by the fact that they say they know of companies where pregant workers are taken away from lab work. Is there any industry best practice in this area or does anybody have any advice on how we can progress this issue. We ideally would like to have a company wide approach which would be a starting point which sites would adapt according to their own circumstances. thanks in advance
Admin  
#2 Posted : 02 July 2004 11:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tracey Arnold I used to work in a lab and so long as the products we used were not harmful to the unborn baby then work in the lab was carried on. Pregnant women were only removed from the lab once they were a little large to be carrying out lab work safely. You should carry out a risk assessment for you pregnant ladies also and take into consideration the amount of time they have to stand at the bench etc.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 02 July 2004 11:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By james mackie Nigel, industry best practice is carry out a risk assessment. If not suitable for pregnant females or new mothers, then find alternative work for them. If it is found suitable for them to work there,brief the employees, provide them with information, instruction and training. If they do not want to work after this I would not pay them. Jim
Admin  
#4 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel thank you for your responses However, can i confirm risk assessments do exist and indicate no chemical hazards exist if procedures etc are followed. It is the fact that this fails to convince the person(s) involved especially as she claims to have friends who are lab based in other companies and that their standard procedure is to remove the person from the lab.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 02 July 2004 12:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rod Douglas James, I think you are wrong on the count, by saying if they do not want to do alternative work do not pay them...(I may be wrong) Risk Assessment for expectant mothers(As I see it) should be done in conjunction with the pregnant employee (She is the one carrying the child and knows her own capabilites). As an employer you should have conducted on receiving written notification from her that they are with child, a Risk Assessment specific to their job. If risks are identified you must take the following action: Action One: Temporarily adjust their working conditions and/or hours of work; or if it was not reasonable to do so, or would not avoid the risk then move on to: Action Two: Offer them suitable alternative work (At the same rate of pay) if available; or if that was not feasible, you must have to: Action Three: To suspend them from work on paid leave for as long as necessary to protect your health & safety and/or that of their child. There is no set limit to how much time you can take off. You are entitled to time off with pay to keep appointments for antenatal care made on the advice of your GP, midwife or health visitor. Apart from your first appointment they must provide, if requested an appointment card or some other document showing that an appointment has been made. This is definitely a case of the "Tail Wagging the Dog", you are risk assessing two people the employee and her unborn child, if she is telling you that she is uncomfortable doing such work then listening to her, because if you don't you are now placing undue stress on the expectant mother and the unborn child. (It will cost your company in the end) Pregnancy is not an illness and employers should not treat it as such. I may be wrong and I await with bated breath to be be slapped by someone who know's better. Aye, Rod
Admin  
#6 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rod Douglas No one else throwing in their two pennnies worth? Aye, Rod
Admin  
#7 Posted : 02 July 2004 13:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By james mackie Rod, I said I wouldn't pay them, don't know if I would be taken to court for it. The fact is that a lot of people think that when ladies become pregnant they can sit on their behinds all day wrapped in cotton wool. Some women even expect it!!! I agree they may have reduced and varied work hours but I think with the limited information given on this thread there is no need to stop the lady working in a risk controlled environment. Have a good one.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 02 July 2004 14:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Fraser Just a thought, but have you asked who the other Lab is and offered to contact their H&S professional for their advice? It might give you specific information you hadn't considered - or it might just confirm what we all know, that just 'cos it's called a Lab doesn't mean it does the same thing as you! And if nothing else, it is calling a bluff - if there is an unwillingness to offer the name of a company for what is after all a legitimate line of enquiry, then it may show up a wee white lie. However, there are those out there who put the wind up pregnant women (especially first timers) for whatever reason, benign & misguided or deliberate and malicious, so be aware of and challenge where sources of so-called "information" are originating on. You may find (as you have stated) that the bogeyman principle is being applied - just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it ISN'T harmful - proving a negative is impossible! If logic, weight of evidence and evbery avenue is not explored then this will remain a thorn in your flesh for a while - at least until term!
Admin  
#9 Posted : 02 July 2004 14:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Kinnison Yes, you conduct a risk assessment and you may find that no R40-5 etc are employed in the said lab. However, what is the level of occupancy, the nature of the work (amounts, state, process) and can that work change (i.e. a research environment)? (should be included in the RA)? If dichloromethane is regularly employed as a solvent (which is quite common) then there is a potential risk of exposure. In our chemistry laboratories, especially the synthetic labs, pregnant researchers are not permitted to work in the synthetic labs and take on desk based or light analytical duties in labs where risk of exposure is extremely low. We had a recent case where the lady in question was hired on a research contract which was impossible for her to fulfil. The university HAD to redeploy her in another role where the risks to her and her unborn child were significantly reduced.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 02 July 2004 14:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rod Douglas James, If you did not pay them you would lose at a Industrial Tribunal, simple as that... They could just go their Doctor and be signed off and you would have to pay them... No ifs or buts... Aye, Rod
Admin  
#11 Posted : 02 July 2004 14:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel Many thanks to those that have responded to this posting (and not started your own debate, I do not have all day to spend on this forum and is disappointing to log on and find a secondary debate going on) your comments have both confirmed and added to my own thoughts.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 02 July 2004 16:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch Nigel, I think the tone of your last posting is liable to mean that the next time you ask for help, other users of the forum will be more reluctant. However, a simple google search safety chemical laboratories pregnant will rapidly find you a list of not only those chemicals where the safety data sheet will flag up a problem, but also suspect teratogens. A good weekend to all including those who have expanded the original debate. Peter
Admin  
#13 Posted : 02 July 2004 16:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geof Definite sign of stess there Nigel in your last comment. I assume you are not pregnant - but you should be able to see the issues that stress brings up. Your risk assessment needs to take that into account - whether you agree or not. If I have widened the debate please accept my apologies, it was completely intentional. Geoff
Admin  
#14 Posted : 02 July 2004 17:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Hall I am the Health and Safety Officer for a fairly young pharmaceutical company - we had exactly the same issues with pregnant women. Our problem was not so much the materials being used (DCM, DMF) where the hazards were known, but the thousands of materials we were making and handling of which there is no known hazard data. Also, most of our chemists are fairly young so pregnancies are rare and usually the woman's first, meaning that the issues have to be handled carefully. We wrote a generic assessment taking into account the factors involved with pregnant women, e.g., chemicals used, manual lifting, tiredness, radiation risks, NMR usage, nausea especially in early pregnancy, stress, spillages and accidental contamination, worries about the actions of co-workers, etc. Additionally, every pregnant woman goes through an assessment with me and the line manager to look at the specific risks in that case. The most important factor has seemed to be the woman's state of mind and their own opinion. If they want to come out of the lab, it is extremely difficult to keep them in the lab. There is a risk that the extra worries and pressure may have an effect on the baby, also the mother may simply decide to take time off sick until the matter is resolved. Therefore, its far better to have a contented person who is not annoyed at the company, working to less than their normal productivity, than someone wo has taken a lot of time off and bears a grudge against the company. This also recognises that the woman's priority while pregnant is unlikely to be to their job - they will be far more concerned about their baby. Summary: we try and take a common sense approach, never saying that the lab is not a safe place, but taking as much account as possible of the woman's feelings and desires. It does also require the agreement and understanding of the line managers!
Admin  
#15 Posted : 02 July 2004 19:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Why do I have this niggling feeling that this is an industrial relations problem rather than a health and safety one? Laurie
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.