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 : 30 August 2005 20:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Roy Male
Hello All



My company has moved its warehouse operation into a new and larger building. They have also purchased 5.25 metre high pallet racking which covers about 40% of the floor area on which we will be storing metal products. I carried out the risk assessment of picking in the rack area and one of the hazards I identified was the falling from height of one of our products and striking a person below. Therefore one of the risk controls was that all operators should wear a hard hat. However when I returned from holiday I was told by our new Operations Manager that he has instructed all the operators that they do not need to wear hard hats because it was not a legislative requirement. When I advised him of the hazard his only comment was for me to prove to him the requirement of wearing hard hats.



This decision I gathered was influenced by our new QA Manager who has come from the automotive industry and he stated that they did not wear hard hats in the narrow aisle racking in his previous company.



It should also be noted that seeking some specific information in the HSE Publication ‘Health and Safety in Retail and Wholesale Warehouses’ there is an image of a fork lift truck driver in the putting a pallet away in pallet racking not wearing a hard hat.



I would be grateful to receive your advice on the above situation.


Many thanks

Roy
Admin  
#2 Posted : 30 August 2005 20:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David J Bristow
Roy

Read the Regs - the boss can stipulate what he wants!!!!!!!!!!!! will they wear them or wont they


Regards



David B
Admin  
#3 Posted : 30 August 2005 22:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day

Hang on isn't PPE the last resort ? Why would loads fall off racking and why are they not secured to prevent this ? (or at least items that may fall of such as round or cylindrical items placed on ground or lower levels so that there is less distance to fall and subsequently less damage, both to persons and stock).
Admin  
#4 Posted : 30 August 2005 23:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Daniel
This is a very common practice although if you think about the likely scale of any impact the amount of protection offered by a hard hat may be limited - if the whole pallet comes off for example..... Seems to me it is only needed objectively where there is a risk of small items or lightweight ones falling from above. In most warehouses such loose items are stocked at the bottom level only. Footwear's the same - safety boots commonly specified but how often do feet get hurt anyway? In most cases stout general footwear is just as adequate. High vis jackets a better justification - being seen by the FLT driver etc.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 31 August 2005 09:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods
First thing you’ve got to look at is a loading system for the racking as mentioned in previous replies. Shrink-wrapping multiple items such as small boxes or cans will mitigate the chances of them falling.

There is also the workplace transport risk assessment to carry out (traffic related accidents are a priority enforcement issue for the HSE).

I visited literally hundreds of warehouses in the job I had previous to working in H+S and hard hats and safety footwear were a requirement before entering the vast majority of them.

I had dealings with a chap who worked for a large supermarket chain in a warehouse. A pallet came down from the third tier of some racking and struck his head. The hard hat almost certainly prevented serious head injuries but he was still left with damage to his neck muscles and a broken collarbone.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 31 August 2005 11:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gordon Thelwell
Hi Roy,

I agree with Robert and wish to expand:

Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace

(third individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)

regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (training) and/or
regulation 4 of the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 1992 (head protection)

The head protection should be to a standard giving at least 90J protection to both the top and sides of the head e.g. BSEN 1384:1997 or BS 6658:1985


Failing this argument, i always like to back it up, as i'm sure you do, with the financial aspect.

i.e.

How much would/will 1 claim cost? v Introducing head protection.

Why are you paying insurance when, in the instance, they would no doubt negate your claim due to not discharging the duty 'so far as is reasonably practible/ due diligence' then have the cheek to raise the premiums the year after, etc, etc.

Why not look on the HSE Prosection site under head protection.

Good luck.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 31 August 2005 12:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sean Cusack
As far as I can tell from the above, the hazard is metal items falling from the racking. How big are these items, and how often do they fall? What tasks are the people doing at the time when any potential metal item is likely to fall on them? Are the items just as likely to fall from the top level as from half-way up?

Will wearing helmets cause more inconvenience and hardship to the wearer (prompting them to remove their helmet when no-one is looking)? Have the workers been involved in the risk assessment process? You say you carried out the risk assessment, but did you involve other people as well, not just to get a broader assessment of the risks but also to allow for ownership at grass roots level?

From the information given it is impossible to tell whether or not providing helmets is the appropriate course of action. It may well be, but why have they never been specified in the past? It may be a new and larger building, but have the standard work practices remained the same?

As to the HSG76 operator not wearing a helmet, you will see that his reach truck has an overhead guard to protect him, and he is lifting large boxes which would kill him regardless of helmet.

Sorry this is more a series of questions than a specific answer, but it is impossible to make a definitive judgement without understanding the problem better.

Regards. Sean
Admin  
#8 Posted : 31 August 2005 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Talbot
Hi,

"one of the hazards I identified was the falling from height of one of our products and striking a person below"

1. This seems to indicate that items are picked by hand from the racking and there is a chance that a fumble would lead to it dropping, is that right?

2. It also indicates that people are expected to be passing below, is that right?

If both are right, hats are very sensible.

If 1. is right but not 2., who would it hit?

If 2. is right, try to prevent it - there should be a separation of pedestrians and traffic especially in large warehouses (we stop people walking under our window cleaners, who are far less risky really).

If 1. is wrong, and you mean a pallet might fall, hard hats are of dubious help, and you must make that working area an exclusion zone instead [if your drivers are well trained they would know that too, so I'm guessing that isn't the problem].

Having also worked in a steel castings stores, I know your biggest problem is going to be the manager walking about distracting the drivers.

Good luck.
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.