Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jason McQueen
Morning All,
As engineers tools are covered under PUWER, we've been tasked with developing a system that ensures that they are fit for purpose, in good condition etc.
As we're all aware, the tools they use come in for some abuse during the life of the equipment and so its not unreasonable to expect that some of them could be in a dubious condition and still in use.
Obviously the system has to be workable so we were considering a monthly documented inspection with user training to visually inspect the equipment before use.
This raises the question of how do you define what is acceptable damage (i.e. doesnt affect the function of the equipment or present a risk) to that of unacceptable?
I was wondering if anyone else had such a program in place and if so, what problems experiences can you share?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
This seems way OTT to me Jason. If passenger carrying lifts only need a formal inspection every 6 months, how can will justify a monthly system for the contents of a toolbox, where the employee also has a part to play in reporting fault or defect?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Jason
As the previous post, this is a difficult area in practice. You could, for example, have an inventory for tools and ensure they are appropriately labelled and PAT certificated. However, basic tools such as a hammer should be examined by the user each time they use it. Not much else to go wrong is there?
The other difficult area is with contractors. Are you going to check all contractor's tools when they turn up on site -
I don't think so. Therefore there must be an element of self-policing, PUWER or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I do expect the user to ensure that their hand tools are in good condition and not a danger to themselves or others. Just as I would for a sling or a hoist. Or a FLT. But I count that as part of the professional attitude of a good tradesman.
However, as an auditor, internal or external, I do take a look in the tooldraw or box. But only AFTER having asked permission of the owner. (somehow I have the feeling that My toolbox is MINE and I don't like anyone else, even a mate, rooting around in it)
After thought : Home-made tools.
I quite often come across non-standard tools, like a ring spanner bent at right angles so as to get in an awkward corner. I don't automatically condemn them. A question or two about intended use, a quick look at a weld (professional or bodge) and then you can offer your opinion.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By george259
Jason,
As to whether you can or can't check engineers tools under PUWER, it's my understanding that the the employer does have a legal duty of care under PUWER "Suitability of work equipment"
4. - (1) Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adapted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided.(suitable for the purpose for which it is used being the the relevant phrase).
However I would question the frequency of checks you wish to implement! once or twice a year would be quite sufficient in my book, as long as you documented the checks you shouldn't have any problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Rose
Are we talking hand tools such as spanners, screwdrivers etc?
If so I can't help but feel someone has too much time on their hands!
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason McQueen
The reason it came about was as a result of an external audit (a large accredited organisation) and their requirements that:
"Routine checks of all hand tools should be undertaken to ensure the general condition does not pose a risk to the user(s), such as cracked handles, mushroomed chisels and worn screwdrivers. Hand held electrical tools must also be included and inspected to make sure that the casings are in good condition and that the integrity of cables and plugs is maintained"
I agree its a more than is required legally but we're aiming for more than just legal compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
From the perspective of an EL insurer....
Home made tools and specials have been mentioned as well as a desire to achieve more than basic legal compliance.
If a fitter had manufactured a "special" - as is often the case - it is quite possible that in the event of an accident and injury the employer could be sued for negligence. In allowing the use of specials an employer may well be exposing themselves to risk of being sued.
That is not to say they should be banned - I liked the suggestion of a quick once over to judge the quality/workmanship of the tool.
So, accepting that specials are made and used I think it is advisable that employers do carry out toolbox inspection.
Phil
PS We've had claims from use of both "specials" and standard tools such as hammer and cold chisel
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.