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

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Employees play football on premises during breaks. One employee dislocates knee during one session resulting in a number of days of work. Accident reported to HSE. HSE have stated that company should not allow employees to play football on the premises. There is more to it than this but I wanted to get some initial reactions first. 1) What legal requirements is there to stop employees playing football on company premises in their own time? 2) If there is a 'stopper' then will this also apply to others affected by the undertaking?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker I find it difficult to believe that HSE would say that. Unless its one of the wet behind the ears inspectors that they seem to employ these days.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob T Peter, Firstly I would like to ask whether there was a defect to the playing surface because if there wasn't and it was during a break then it is would not normally be regarded as a RIDDOR incident. This is similar to when (many years ago) I worked for a local authority. If someone got injured using a squash court for instance, there was no liability on the council unless there was a defect to the premises. Secondly, the HSE cannot tell you or anyone else for that matter, what they are allowed to do during breaks so long as it doesn't contravene any H&S legislation (and believe me the actual action of playing football doesn't fall into any H&S legislation!). Tell them to take a hike.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JPK Peter, I dont believe that the company has no responsibilty to report this if it happened in the lunch break, during free time!! As with construction sites, you can have all the fencing in the world up, but if a child gets onto the site after hours and injures themselves, then the HSE will crawl all over the Principle contractor for failing to prevent injury. Although it is not the responsability of the organisation to say what they can do on their lunch break, I think preventing playing football on the property would be a wise step. Obviously you haven't said where the accident took place, however safe access and egress for others may come into question. JPK
Admin  
#5 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Occupiers liability and defective premises Act spring to mind! Also vicarious liability and frolic of their own etc
Admin  
#6 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 Peter, fitness for purpose? Is this a properly designed football playing area? Of course not. Have you allowed this activity? Yes. Is this type of injury reasonably foreseeable? Yes given: the surface? the area? employees who may or may not be fit enough to be playing football? Yes it is. What about other employees or visitors, any dangers for them? Whether you let them play football or not is up to you, but if you allow employees to use your premises and facilities for purposes other than those for which they were designed then you may find it difficult to separate yourself from any negative consequences that arise. Killjoy or common sense?? Not that I want to start WW3 you understand!
Admin  
#7 Posted : 01 December 2006 14:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice Hey Jim, We were all wet behind the ears at some point. I don't think HSE hold us in high regard either sometimes but they dont slag us off in public. We havent got the whole story. There could be other reasons why they've said that but then again, it doesnt seem to have been backed up with a notice of any sort - and for good reason. It's be kicked out of the tribunal.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 01 December 2006 16:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Thanks for the responses so far. I'd still like to keep a bit back for later (not to be devious but to try to get unbiased views first). The ground being used is a large concreted completely flat yard area with no defects, the accident occurred when the guy tried to turn with the ball. There are no problems concerning work activities whilst they are playing on their breaks, and there are no near neighbours. It is an all male game (because only males want to play) and age varies from 20 to 45. It is not organised in any way other than a couple of goals are formed by jackets. Think street football as a youngster and you have a good picture of it but without the traffic. There have never been any other injuries other than a scuffed knee or elbow.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 01 December 2006 16:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JPK Hmmm.... I would still look at Section 4 HASAWA, and deem that I would be responsible as they are on my premises.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 01 December 2006 17:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 Pete, it is organised by definition as it is a team game, do you mean it happens spontaneously? I stick with my previous comments. As the controller of premises you can choose to prevent people from taking these risks on your premises, if you don't then you accept the business risks of allowing it. For example, if the IP had technical support to show that a concrete surface is not suitable for playing football due to the risk of this type of injury. The IP claims they only played because they didn't want to be seen as a "girls blouse" by the all male group who made it plain that not joining in was not an option for me? Can we have the answer soon please, I have to go away this weekend.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 01 December 2006 18:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob T I will say once again categorically - if the guys want to play football in their breaktime then they can and the HSE CANNOT enforce any regulation upon you. Talking about section 4 or any other legislation is like trying to use a glove as a sock! In any case I have personally checked with the HSE in the past about the playing of games on our premises and as stated - unless there is a defect which could harm someone in normal use, you are not liable. The RIDDOR should not have been reported as such because the accident had no connection with work.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 01 December 2006 21:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim First point - If the IP was "at work" it is reportable. If on an organised break as part of the working day he was at work. If the IP was not at work then what was he - a visitor who was injured and visited hospital for treatment? If so it is reportable. The incident occurred in the workplace therefore risk assessment etc????? Second point - The best "Stopper" I ever saw play was Chopper Harris who played for Chelesea during the 60's. Noone got past him, mind you Tommy Smith wasn't bad either I remember him kicking Jimmy Greaves so hard he ended up in the Paddock at Anfield! Sorry to digress but couldn't help it. I believe the HSE Inspector must have been using his own opinion on games at work as there is no written prohibition of football at work. Inspectors are entitled to their opinion.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 01 December 2006 22:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart James Gornall Peter None Reportable Challenge the Inspector Employees in Break time ( accident not arising out of or in connection with work, end of story) I seem to remember a recent post from myself on this forum criticising several patronising comments from Bill Callaghan RE risk aversion. It was suggested that Health and Safety practitioners could be creating a risk averse culture Oh Dear Thousands of workplaces containing significant risk remain uninspected due to lack of HSE resource! Football at work issues part of HSE agenda worrying ? Incidentally I have absolutely no problem with the majority of individual HSE inspectors who generally do a difficult job very well I have a problem with the system Finally several worrying replies to the thread We wonder why large sections of the public don't take us seriously, nice ammunition for the bonkers conkers brigade
Admin  
#14 Posted : 01 December 2006 22:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dan dan Things to think about 1. Place of work but not at work 2. organised in a spontaneous way 3. Designated recreation area - not really 4. Employers duty of care of persons on their site - yes similiar occurance on one of our sites a few years ago where glaziers were having a kick about, one sustained a strained ankle, off work for 2 weeks as a result, the site safety officer reported it to the hse, but the gaffers of the glazing firm didnt. A consequent visit was made by our friends. A recommendation that a fit for purpose and segregated recreation area was allocated (if the guys wanted to "play")
Admin  
#15 Posted : 01 December 2006 23:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete48 I am not sure that we have been told yet by Peter Leese in exactly what form the HSE communicated about not playing football. We have been shouting at each other about reporting under RIDDOR for ages so no difference there then. I wonder whether the HSE do as well, they seem to have differing views as well, judging by the two contradicting responses alleged in this thread. In my previous posts I chose to consider the civil aspects. To outline my opinion on RIDDOR, I would have reported this under RIDDOR for the same reasons as Dan Dan. If and when challenged about the activity by the HSE, I would have asked for clarification about what the context of any communication was. Are they using their statutory powers and under what duty must I prevent or stop this activity, or are they just giving their opinion. I guess Peter has done the same thing but posted this thread to prompt discussion and draw out a range of views that he may be able to use in his situation. (whatever it actually is.) That is one reason why I argue against the view expressed above that this is another trivial thread that reflects badly on us. The subject may appear puerile at first read but the context is not. We are sharing views and opinions about interpretation of regulations and law; not instructing others how to go about their lives. That we do this in an open forum is, I think, to our credit, not our detriment.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 01 December 2006 23:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By coleman LETTER OF BUSINESS PROPOSAL. we are leading exporters of Mobile phones / apple ipods/laptops/television/mp3/gprs and games. all brand new and comes in there company box original with complete accessories. we sell them in bulk and in small quantities. here is the list of product that we have in stock: contact Email: (zelectronicsltd@yahoo.com) WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING IN STOCK FOR SALE QTEK: Qtek 9600 =$280 Qtek 8310 =$200 Qtek 8300 =$210 Qtek 9100 =$240 Qtek 8100 =$250 Qtek s110 =$210 Qtek s100 =$200 Qtek 9090 =$210 Qtek 8020 =$200 Qtek 8010 =$180 Qtek 2020i=$240 Qtek 2020 =$250 Qtek 8080 =$130 Qtek 8060 =$160 Qtek 1010 =$150 Qtek 7070 =$250 NOKIA: NOKIA 6230 for........$130usd NOKIA 6230i for........$140usd NOKIA 6260 For........$130usd NOKIA 9300 For........$130usd NOKIA 9500 For........$140usd NOKIA 6230 for........$130usd NOKIA 8800 For........$180usd NOKIA 6680 For........$110usd NOKIA 6682 For........$120usd NOKIA 7650 For........$130usd NOKIA E61 for.........$155usd NOKIA E60 for.........$150usd NOKIA E70 for.........$160usd NOKIA N70 For.........$160usd NOKIA N80 For.........$170usd NOKIA N90 For.........$180usd NOKIA N91 For.........$190usd NOKIA N92 For.........$200usd NOKIA N93 FOR.........$220usd NOKIA N95 FOR...........$300USD MOTOROLA: MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 for........$130usd MOTOROLA RAZOR V6 FOR........$140usd MOTOROLA SLVR L7 For........$140usd MOTOROLA SLVR V8 For........$140usd MOTOROLA A1000 For...........$150usd MOTOROLA MPX 220 For........ $120usd MOTOROLA MPX 300 For........ $140usd SONY ERICSSON: SONY ERICSSON K700i For......$130usd SONY ERICSSON k750i For......$140usd SONY ERICSSON W800i For......$150usd SONY ERICSSON W900i For......$160usd SONY ERICSSON S700i For.......$140usd SONY ERICSSON P900 For......$140usd SONY ERICSSON P910i For.......$150usd SONY ERICSSON Z1010 For.....$160usd NEXTEL: NEXTEL i870 AT JUST.....$120usd NEXTEL i860 AT JUST.....$100usd NEXTEL i930 AT JUST.....$140usd TREO: TREO 650 AT JUST .......$140usd TREO 700W AT JUST ......$160usd SIDEKICK: SIDEKICK II AT JUST.....$100usd SIDEKICK III AT JUST....$150usd APPLE IPOD: Apple iPod nano 2GB Black MP3 Player......$40usd Apple iPod Video 30GB Black MP3 Player...$60usd Apple iPod Video 60GB Black MP3 Player...$120usd Apple iPod Mini 4GB 18hour battery - Pink MP3 Player..$80usd Apple iPod nano 4GB Black MP3 Player.........$100USD GAME W/xbox 360 hard drive Xbox 360 wireless controller Xbox 360 faceplate Xbox 360 headset, Xbox 360 component hd-av cable, Xbox live silver membership (#xbox360pla) $260 per-unit buy 3 and take one free PLAY STATION: play station 1... $120 play station 2 ...$290 play station 3...$600 GARMIN 396...$150 Game boy latext edition......$110 CAR NAVIGATOR SYSTEMS Sony Nav-U Car Navigation System with 3.5" Color Touch::::::::::400USD Sony navu-u Car Navigation System (NVU70);::::::::::::::::::::::360USD New Navman iCN 550 in-Car Navigation System-Retail::::::::::::::240USD TomTom GO GPS Car Navigation System (US Maps Pre-Loaded)::::::::600USD Garmin StreetPilot c330 GPS Car Navigation System ::::::::::::::200USD GO GPS Car Navigation System (US Maps Pre-Loaded):::::::::::::::450USD Cobra GPSM-4500 In-Car Navigation System::::::::::::::::::::::::750USD iCN 635 In Car Navigation System GPS AA005333:::::::::::::::::::600USD 100023210 : GARMIN 010-00232-10 Street Pilot III Deluxe:::::::::600USD GPS BLUETOOTH RECEIVER GNS 5843 GPS RDS TMC Bluetooth Receiver:::::::::::::::::::::::::230USD Holux GPS Bluetooth Receiver, Dongle & DELORME Maps 06::::::::::120USD Pharos GPS Receiver with Bluetooth Wireless Technology::::::::::100usd Navman GPS 4410 Bluetooth Receiver::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::220usd TOMTOM Navigator 5 Wireless Bluetooth GPS:::::::::::::::::::::::260usd Garmin 010-00378-00 GPS-10 Bluetooth® Enabled GPS:::::::::::::::250usd MP3 All these are brand new, sealed in an original complete company box. and also we have the one of 128 Mega Bytes ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 512 Mega Bytes and so on............. Kanguru Solutions U2-KMP3-1G Kanguru MP3- 1GB::::::::::60usd San Disk SDMX1-1024-A18 SanDisk 1GB MP3 Player:::::::::70usd Kanguru Solutions U2-KMP3-1G Kanguru MP3- 1GB::::::::::60usd Kanguru MP3- 1GB:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::49usd Mymusix MP3 Player with 1GB Sandisk SD card::::::::::::48usd Samsung Nexus 50 XM Radio + MP3 (1GB) YP-X5Z:::::::::::190usd Kanguru Micro MP3 Pro / 1GB / FM Tuner / MP3 Player::::50usd MP3/Digital Player NANO MP3 1GB Creative:::::::::::::::50usd RCA RD-2317FM MP3 1Gb MP3 Player with FM Transmitter:::140usd All these are brand new, sealed in an original complete company box still at list but not be listed now. MP4 PORTABLE DVD/VCD/CD/MP3/MP4 Portable Player SE800:::::::::::::::50usd Epson P40000MSV 80GB MP4 Portable Media Player:::::::::250usd New MP4 Portable Digital Player 512MB w/FM M4B:::::::::55usd DVD Player, Portable, 7", MP4, Kodak:::::::::::::::::::45usd New MP4 Portable 1.5" LCD 512MB w/FM Blue Color M3B::::40usd Neuros Audio 442 Portable MP3 and MP4 Media Player:::::200usd EPSON - Epson p40000msv 80gb mp4 portable media player:450usd PANASONIC PLASMA TV Panasonic TH-37PHD8UK Plasma $350 Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma $600 Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Plasma $500 Panasonic TH-42PD50U EDTV $ 450 Panasonic TH-42PX50U Plasma $650 Panasonic TH-50PX50U Plasma $700 panasonic TH-65PHD8UK Plasma $900 SONY PLASMA TV SONY FWD-42PV1 Plasma Display $500 Sony PFM-42X1 Plasma Display $550 Sony FWD-50PX2 Plasma Display $700 PHILIPS PLASMA TV Philips 42PF7320A/37 Plasma TV $600 Philips 42PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $700 Philips 50PF7320A/37 Plasma HDTV $720 Philips 50PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $550 Philips 50PF9830A/37 Plasma HDTV $800 SAMSUNG PLASMA TV SAMSUNG HPP3761 Plasma TV $610 Samsung PPM42M5S Plasma Display $505 Samsung SPP4251 Plasma TV $700 Samsung PPM42M5H Plasma Display $550 Samsung HPR4252 Plasma $680 Samsung HPR4262 Plasma TV $450 Samsung HPR4272 Plasma $560 Samsung PPM50M5H Plasma Display $870 Samsung HPR5052 Plasma $670 Samsung HPR5072 Plasma $780 Samsung HPP5581 Plasma TV $780 Samsung PPM63H3Q Plasma Display $700 Samsung HPR6372 Plasma $820 HITACHI PLASMA TV Hitachi CMP4211u Plasma $850 Hitachi CMP4212u Plasma $350 Hitachi 42HDF52 Plasma HDTV $400 Hitachi 42HDT52 Plasma TV $440 Hitachi 55HDS52 Plasma HDTV $480 Hitachi 55HDT52 Plasma TV $650 Hitachi CMP-55HDM71 Plasma $420 AOC ENVISION PLASMA TV AOC Envision A42W64 Plasma $400 MAXENT PLASMA TV Maxent MX-42VM7 Plasma EDTV $370 Maxent MX-50X2 Plasma $300 NEC PLASMA TV NEC 42VP5 Plasma TV $400 NEC 42VM5HA Plasma TV $470 NEC 42VR5HA Plasma - Silver $300 NEC PX-42XM3A Plasma Display $500 NEC PX-42XM4A Plasma Display $450 NEC PX-42XR4A Plasma Display $550 NEC PX-50XM5A Plasma Display $570 NEC PX-50XR5A Plasma Display $500 NEC PX-61XM3A Plasma Display $600 NEC PX-61XM4A Plasma Display $750 NEC PX-61XR4A Plasma Display $700 NEC PX-84VP5A Plasma Display $690 NEC PX-84VM5A Plasma Display $650 PIONEER PLASMA TV Pioneer pdp-424mv plasma TV -$1,800 Pioneer pdp-42a3hd plasma TV -$1,720 Pioneer pdp-434cmx plasma tv-$1,880 Pioneer pdp-43a5hd plasma tv-$1,800 Pioneer pdp-4360hd plasma TV -$1,700 Pioneer pdp-504cmx plasma tv-$1,800 Pioneer pdp-505cmx plasma TV -$1,670 Pioneer pdp-5060hd plasma tv-$1,890 note all product are brand new with complete accesories and comes in there original company box with 1year international warranty. we shipp via fedex corier company it takes just 28-48 hours to get to your doorstep. If this is of interest to you contact us by email....(zelectronicsltd@yahoo.com)
Admin  
#17 Posted : 02 December 2006 09:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Martyn Hendrie Where is a moderator when you need one?
Admin  
#18 Posted : 02 December 2006 10:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John L Hall Surely the forum is moderated to prevent this form of blatant advertising. If not, it should be ..... I was just getting interested in Peter's 'problem'.
Admin  
#19 Posted : 02 December 2006 11:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Mmmm. I thought I had the answers when I started the thread. To restrict it a little first of all I'm not looking for opinions on civil liability, just views taking the HSE request and the H&S statutory requirements into account. Secondly I advised the client to report the incident on the grounds it took place on the client premises and that although they were on a break, they are still under the control of the employer. I'm not looking for a discussion on this aspect, my belief as a consultant is that I do the best for the client and that over reporting is better than an omission that could bounce back. How all this can be attractive to someone selling consumer electronics - goodness knows!
Admin  
#20 Posted : 02 December 2006 13:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman moderators are not on duty 24/7 They have lives. It is very rare that we get spammed but on an open forum it can happen. I suggest that everyone replies to the spammer with massive multiple "orders" for phones. with fake e-mail addresses. That should tie them up for a while. Merv
Admin  
#21 Posted : 02 December 2006 13:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By JPK Hmmm a Nokia for that price! Interesting! I still maintain that the duty of care for persons on your site over rule the arguments against! The fact that as an organisation, you are not controlling what goes on within your premises would be the worry!
Admin  
#22 Posted : 02 December 2006 13:31:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By martin gray1 Hi Peter Had the same problem staff playing football in the yard with sillages around the yard with steel stocked in them. I could see someone running into the steel so banned football as the risk of injury seemed to high. I took the view that we had seen it going on and if nothing was done we could be seen as condoning it and therefore liable in some way. Took the easy route really and just banned it, easier when your GM as well. Old misery in the office
Admin  
#23 Posted : 02 December 2006 18:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Edward Shyer Hi All, Would strongly advise against opening the e-mail detailing the items for sale due to bugs, viruses, and trolls (no I am not any of these)and the mods not removing the posting it is possible that this posting could be one of these and they are seeking professional help to remove this. Merv, Good idea and one worth noting will log this in the memory bank? for future reference but not just yet.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 04 December 2006 10:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Don't respond to the spam at all unless you know how to hide the originating address of your own email, as one of the things spammers want is live email addys. John PS If they were 'not at work' the the accident wouldn't be reportable even though they had to go to hospital as accidents to members of the public are reportable if they 'arise out of work', not if they are in a workplace. On the whole though I might have reported this.
Admin  
#25 Posted : 04 December 2006 11:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jane Blunt Hi All Just so that people joining this thread can understand what has happened - a large advert for sundry electronic goods appeared in this thread. This arrived while the moderators were enjoying their weekend, but it has now been removed (along with several other copies). Regards Jane Blunt
Admin  
#26 Posted : 04 December 2006 11:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs Peter, You are still holding something back and asking people to comment on an incomplete picture. Part of our profession's strength is that we normally form opinion when all the facts are known, after we have gathered them. So here it is: a request for the whole picture, and then you might get more useful answers. So far the answers given cannot be applied, as I would hope the responders would like to reconsider if you hold a pertinent fact (as I suspect you do).
Admin  
#27 Posted : 04 December 2006 12:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris. R. Are we not in danger of getting carried away here. Lets not allow us all to become members of the "bonkers conkers" brigade. I do appreciate the need for true and accurate reporting however lets not forget the good old "Volenti non fit injuria" and accept that some people need something to enable them to 'switch off'. If football is their way of enjoying their hard earned break them we may have to allow them. It may be better for us to provide a cleared area for the game to go on, then to have the men move off site to a more hazardous area (hopefully we ARE concerned about the men here and not just about claims and litigation).
Admin  
#28 Posted : 04 December 2006 12:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By waiks I would have thought that this fell into the realm of horseplay? It is not a work-related activity. If the grounds are not defective and therefore contributing to the incident I would have thought that this wasn't reportable. But we have had this argument about horseplay in the past. When I called up RIDDOR Reportline they said horseplay wasn't reportable so it's confusing when you have an inpsector that's telling you otherwise now.
Admin  
#29 Posted : 04 December 2006 12:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Tabs, I haven't held much back but I wanted to see if opinions were broadly in line with mine - I didn't want to influence the responses. 1) All is as said, a flat concrete surface, no traffic, employees on a break, there was no peer pressure to play. It's just a kick around, not organised other than someone saying 'how about a game'. The accident was reported as I believe it does come under RIDDOR. 2) Employees are banned from playing football on company premises with at least one notice in the rest room stating this. 3) The HSE phoned the client and said they were concerned the employer was allowing employees to play football on company premises. When told it was already banned, the HSE '..wanted to make sure the relevant staff members were reprimanded..'. Whilst I will not be taking this any further with the HSE, my opinion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with them. 4) It may be against company policy, but it is not up to the HSE to insist the offenders are punished. 5) If a flat concrete surface is not suitable for football, then neither is a school playground. 6) To me it is a furtherance of the risk averse nanny state. Note that this is the same HSE office who when looking at some asbestos cement being taken down in the same premises, said in a very loud voice for all employees to hear '... it only takes one fibre you know....'
Admin  
#30 Posted : 04 December 2006 13:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs I cannot comment on the inspector, obviously. With regards to the elements... 1. A flat concrete surface is possibly less likely to result in a twist injury than a firm grass surface being played on with the new 'blade studs' being used throughout the UK. 2. I cannot think of a single piece of legislation allowing an inspector to act as judge and jury to another person's employee. The very most he could do is slap a notice on the company, or initiate a prosecution of an individual ... though goodness only knows what for. 3. Unless the notice in the rest room (or other communications) clearly states that the ban is due to h&s considerations, it is yet further from the inspector's business. 4. I might mention to the client that any reprimand (no matter how informal) should be made under HR, not h&s approach, because this could come back and bite them in any future tribunal. 5. Obviously, if the inspector is correct, then all activities which are not strictly work-related must now cease. Hmm... wonder what Bill Callaghan would have to say on the matter?
Admin  
#31 Posted : 04 December 2006 14:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs Sorry, my numbers do not relate to the last posting. As for the "one fibre" who knows? I think we are still awaiting proof on that.
Admin  
#32 Posted : 04 December 2006 14:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice Peter, Just one thought reading your thread. It seems the HSE inspector may be out of his jurisdiction - but why has the company banned football in the first place? It seems indicative of poor management of the company if staff are not complying. Have you tried talking to the inspector to find out his viewpoint? If there is no justification for it then you'd be within your rights to disagree. What's he going to do then? As for Nanny state - find out his reasoning before tarring the whole industry!
Admin  
#33 Posted : 04 December 2006 15:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese dd, it's interesting that you've interpreted the gender as male. Actually he is a she! Poor management mmmm. That's quite a wide statement based on the information I've given. In fact it is a very well run company.
Admin  
#34 Posted : 04 December 2006 16:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ddraigice Yes it is - but I can only go on the info given. Why has it been banned then? Obviously nobody takes this rule seriously and if rules are being made and broken, that is not good management.
Admin  
#35 Posted : 04 December 2006 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Allen I agree with the inspector on this. Once a company makes a rule it should enforce it. In this case the rule has been made, it has been breached, and someone has been injured needlessly. I would have said exactly the same thing when I was an inspector if I had been presented with this situation.
Admin  
#36 Posted : 04 December 2006 19:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob T Sometimes words fail me - when will the HSE, safety people et al stop trying to control peoples lives in their own time. If I want to play football with a lead shot on a mountain slope, in winter with a typhoon behind me - it's none of your business if I'm not actually at work. Control freakery in our profession causes more accidents by ensuring that perfectly normal people get so sick and tired of interfering busy bodies that they ignore real H&S. Why on earth do you think Jeremy Clarson is so popular. I'm off to do a handstand on a bed of nails and yes I am at work!
Admin  
#37 Posted : 04 December 2006 22:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By db Rob, You can't tar HSE and other safety professionals with "controlling peoples lives" by this one thread. It may be there are other issues that we are not being told or it could be a well meaning but ultimately ultra vires LA inspector (and we're all human and sometimes do silly things with the best of intentions). What else does HSE meddle in that they shouldnt? I've never seen anything other than work activities that cause pain, misery and suffering for employees, members of the public and their families. The usual complaint by people who actually come into contact with an investigation is that they dont do enough - usually due to lack of evidence or lack of HSE funds. As I see it, there's no issue here. There's no formal requirement to do anything this inspector says on the face of it. Talk to him (or her - sorry Peter for seeming to be a misogynist) and sort it out. If that doesnt work contact their line manager. Thats what any sensible person would do it seems to me - the fact that it's not being done leads me to believe that there are other issues. It just seems to be a daily mail type story to get people with Rob's views to have a go.
Admin  
#38 Posted : 04 December 2006 23:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Crim Too many flippant remarks here! If employees are banned from playing football on company premises why are they not disciplined. Weak management perhaps? HSE inspector may really be trying to help as he (and you can say he as it is a HSE issue), may really be a nice guy/gal? If management cannot enforce their own rules then they should remove the ban and just allow football to be played, but then report any injuries under RIDDOR. Its late and my glass is MT and needs to be re-filled.
Admin  
#39 Posted : 06 December 2006 08:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese Just to clear up one point the HSE contacted the client on receipt of the accident report because '....they were concerned the employer was allowing employees to play football on the employer premises...'. It was at that stage the HSE were told it was banned. And at that stage they said they wanted the 'players' reprimanded. As a sidenote, it is difficult for me to see how contributors can jump to the conclusion - on the evidence so far - that the company is guilty of poor and/or weak management. In this case they couldn't be more wrong. If we were all to be judged so harshly on just one failing I'd certainly be amongst those at the bottom of the pile. My tip to people new to safety is first of all to stand back to get a better view, and second - to never assume.
Admin  
#40 Posted : 06 December 2006 08:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Leese I'd like to start the thread again if I may, as I'd like some response to the questions! Employees play football on premises during breaks. One employee dislocates knee during one session resulting in a number of days of work. HSE have stated that company should not allow employees to play football on the premises. 1) What legal requirements is there to stop employees playing football on company premises in their own time? 2) If there is a 'stopper' then will this also apply to others affected by the undertaking?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
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.