Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David.G.C
A project management Company acting as Principal Contractor-
Site activity - refurbishment to 2nd &3rd Floors, PC employees A sub-contractor under contract to undertake the strip out element of the works consisting of the removal of floor coverings ceiling tiles and general waste –method statement produced detailing the works to be transferred down the stairs along a corridor across a car park then finally into a skip.
In the interest of manual handling there would be adequate space to site a skip to accommodate a chute from the floor levels in order to significantly reduce the risk of injury when transferring the materials.
This had not been mentioned in the method Statement provided and therefore would suggest that the risk assessment was not suitable and sufficient for the intended works.
Would the PC have a “duty of Care” to advise the contractor and ensure all necessary control measures are taken to reduce the risk of injury to his employees and implement those measures accordingly?
What are your views for cases like and similar to this?
Who decides what activities are to be performed and how they are to be carried out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tim
David
From what you have written there are a number of possible breaches of legislation regarding this task, and I think that it would be hard to justify the method used in the event of an accident.
The PC has a responsibility to check and evaluate the method statements and specify amendments if required. Also the contractor has a duty of care under section 2(1).
The top of the manual handling hierarchy is avoidance,then use of mechanical means.
If manual lifting cannot be avoided reduce the risk by only lifting essentials and providing training, organisation measures and improved workplace conditions an assessment of the task is also required.
I assume a manual handling assessment has not been completed?
Even if using a chute, a manual handling assessment is still likely to be required to move items to the chute.
The chute and skip should be covered and segregated from normal work routes and away from COSHH and other areas where fire may be an issue, it should also be positioned for safe access for delivery and removal when full.
You also mention movement to a car park, this implies mixing vehicles and people, you might want to have a look at Reg 15 (traffic routes) and 17 (Vehicles) of the Construction Regs which are both likely to apply here.
Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Make sure the Asbestos Survey is up to date!
Yes PC must ensure sub-contractors are competent - this competency includes proper understanding and application via good/best practice of relevant legislation. Some dialogue usually required to determine best practicable means, e.g. chutes, use of internal lifts, external telehandling etc, as well as timing of the job (would a weekend be best?) etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
David.
Agree with all the above.
In addition, there may have been rstrictions that prevented other methods being employed at ground and first floor levels!!
Did you check this out also?
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.