Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

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 : 26 February 2008 09:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ccbailey Dear all Can anyone think of a recent prosecution regarding lack of adequate welfare facilities that resulted in a substantial fine? Any help greatly appreciated.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 26 February 2008 11:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Are you refering to the Workplace, Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations in this thread? If so the penalties are generally drawn by the procecution under the H&S at Work Act.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 26 February 2008 11:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ccbailey I am looking for anything related to reg 21 (2) part c and d specifically, i am having a few issues with management not wishing to provide more adequate facilities in my opinion.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 26 February 2008 15:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer AS a quide the law says that where something shall be done as it does in Regulation 21 (2) it is a must do or you are in breach of the law. The specific clause you quote applies to washing facilities only therefore the requirements stated in clause 2 must be provided as a minimum, use table 1 of the approved code of practice to tell how many you need. Remember the term SHALL is absolute and therefore is legally binding on the employer.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 26 February 2008 16:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT 2006 £15,000 reduced on appeal to £10,000. Scroll down on link to see case details. http://stagesafe.co.uk/news/2007/february/ CFT
Admin  
#6 Posted : 26 February 2008 16:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By ccbailey CFT, Just what i asked for, thank you very much.
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.