IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Safe staff access to building in snow and ice
Rank: Forum user 
|
Whilst listening to the farming programme this morning it reported that the company that predicted the severe winter this year is also predicting similar for 2011. This set me thinking - how we protect our staff when they are accessing our offices in snowy and icy conditions
Looking at our policies and procedures we don’t have one covering this eventuality so I’m writing to ask if you have one and if you would be prepared to share it with me?
Many thanks in anticipation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Mark IOSH did a Webinar on this very subject - I think it was in March - this posting my prompt a response from and attendee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Should be part of your Business Continuity Plan. Oh, and was this the weather comapny that predicted solid snow-cover from late December until the end of March? 'Cos that's not quite hopw it was as I recall.
Me, I figure that since we have had more or less northerly winds for the last eighteen months there's no particular reason for them to suddenly shift, so this winter might well be colder than average, but we'll see when we get there.
However, severe weather should be included in your biusiness continuity plan. There's no need to write a policy as such, you need to do a RA and put controls in place,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I suggest ordering a good supply of rock salt in advance is all that is needed and to ensure there is someone to hand to distribute it - simples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What ever happened to common sense approach. Why is it that people will come out of the house on days when it is icy or snowy and complete a dynamic risk assessment, i.e.. Wear a warm coat, scrape ice off car windows, wear suitable footwear, drive slowly because roads are icy, or walk slowly to the bus stop or work because pavements are icy. Then they step one foot into work and fall over slipping on ice and then claim. Common sense all the way until they feel they can claim. What good is a R/A, what if your R/A says as a control measure clear snow and ice or grit, no grit available, no staff to clear the snow and ice. Last year we paid out over £7.000 but in the last couple of weeks run out and unable to purchase defending two cases that will in all probability go to court. We had even asked the gardeners to arrive in for 6.30 and leave early. We also had posters warning that ice and snow is slippy so take extra care.
A risk assessment in these circumstances is not worth the paper it is written on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am lead to believe that 2 organisations in the same industry with the same layout inclusive of car parks [sports centres] had the same outcome to the court cases against them where people had claimed that they fell. However 1 had gritted their car park where the other had not gritted their car park. Needless to say that the company that had gritted does not now grit as the MD says that they may as well save some £ by not gritting in tyhe first place and wait for the next case to come up
The point here is that you risk assess and stand by and your decision and actions from there on in. Thereafter take the consequences on the chin as there appears to be no right or wrong way in some circumstances
Where the walkways etc are completely inside a companies undertaking then the 'to grit or not to grit' decision may be different to another part of the same organisation e.g. say a general access car park at the front of a building
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
farrell wrote:What ever happened to common sense approach. Why is it that people will come out of the house on days when it is icy or snowy and complete a dynamic risk assessment, i.e.. Wear a warm coat, scrape ice off car windows, wear suitable footwear, drive slowly because roads are icy, or walk slowly to the bus stop or work because pavements are icy. Then they step one foot into work and fall over slipping on ice and then claim. Common sense all the way until they feel they can claim. What good is a R/A, what if your R/A says as a control measure clear snow and ice or grit, no grit available, no staff to clear the snow and ice. Last year we paid out over £7.000 but in the last couple of weeks run out and unable to purchase defending two cases that will in all probability go to court. We had even asked the gardeners to arrive in for 6.30 and leave early. We also had posters warning that ice and snow is slippy so take extra care.
quote]
Becuuse a great many people actually come out of their house on a snowy cold day and aren;t wearing sensible shoes or sensible clothes and they clear no more than a hole on their windscreen and they haven't a clue how to drive carefully (and all the electronics in cars and fat tyres make them less easy to drive in such conditions). And they don't pack emergency things in their car either.
The sad fact is that today people expect the world around them to be sanitised. It;s not just at work. Local councils get sued in winter too for not clearing and gritting every road and every pavement. Am I the only one who remebers that they didn;t do such things years ago (wlll not where I grew up).
It's public expectation that has changed. And the more we pander to that expectation and provide a sanitised environment the more they will expect that sanitised environment. Add to that we have developed a blame culture where someone other than ourselves always has to be at fault and it's a bad combination.
Where I'm contracting at the moment they are still dealing with last years claims and winter is nearly upon us again.
I see no solution. Grit and you're held to blame and don;t grit and you;re held to blame. No win.
What a depressing thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Totally agree with you Clairel - you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. What good is any risk assessment if people can't use an element of common sense in their every day activities. I remember as a child getting a clip around the ear for walking in to lamp posts because I wasn't watching where i was going and listening to the adult chat!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
What is it with you lot? Do you honestly think that the majority of people in the UK go out in the winter to work wearing flip flops, or high heels, get into their expensive cars and drive blindly all the way to work, just to slip up and make a claim?
Produce evidence to back up your claims, I can tell you that my workplace last year didn't grit, and no claims were made against the employer, yes there were a few slips and trips including myself, but luckily enough no broken bones.
I do not believe that the general public deliberately get themselves hurt just to make a claim, lets be fair if they needed cash that badly why do something that could take two years before receiving a payment (if any)?
So please show the evidence before tarring us all with the same brush.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sean, No one said that people were deliberately hurting themselves on ice just that they expect to blame someone else if they do.
What evidence that people don't dress appropriately? I only have to step outside my front door and see my neighbours going to work when it's snowing! Not flip flops but high heels and court shoes, yes. Obviously not the everyone dresses inappropriately but a large number do.
Lucky for you no claims. Where I am currently we deal with the public on our premises on a large scale and claims come thick and fast.
And if you don't think people deliberately put in a claim then you live in a santised world. Theeer are people who make qa living out of it. They go round and lie down and make a claim that they fell. Can't prove otherswise. They know where the camera black spots are and they know that it;s impossible to prove they havent hurt their back.It's a fact.
But by far the greatest number of claims is those that don;t take care and then blame someone else.
I can't give you details becuase they are confidential obviously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think people are getting away from the point here with dynamic Ra's and such. If it is a work place then a RA should be put in place and in turn a safe system, this will mean making staff available to grit, ensuring these staff have the correct PPE and equipment and have received training from a competent person. If after doing all this someone still falls over the company has the right to claim contributory negligence as they have done what is reasonably practicable. To do nothing at all is to fail in our DUTY OF CARE and a 100% claim is certain.
As H&S professionals we should at all times advocate safe systems and not get caught up in the politics of it all. We are here to do the best job we can and if we allow negativity to seep into our own thought process we may as well find another profession.
Rant over, sorry if I have upset anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No apology needed as it was a minor rant compared to what most of us do!!
The point is though that in conditions like last year when snow was falling in large quantities over large periods of time and black ice was a real issue, when you have large and complex premises with public access it is not always possible to adequately control the state of the roads and pavements at all times. So what the company may see as them having done what was reasonable in the severe conditions the customer and lawyers have different ideas.
Of course we all have some negativity. Life is not perfect. No one thinks everythign to do with their work (in any profession) is all sunshine and light. This forum can allow us to discuss such things.
This scenario is a compex one. I think the discussions oin this thread have been valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The matter of clearing or making safer access/egress to/from premises is less complicated compared to the commute to and from work where employers etc have no control.
Your preparedness would depend upon what your business continuity plan is--for some, the practicable option could be to work from home, for others, to invest in grit spreading and snow clearing equipment.
We have a very large site, and based on this years experience, we have invested in:-
-a fork lift truck (1) plough and (2) scoop attachment--as we already have FLT's . We explored the possibility of a nearby farmer clearing our site roads, but that did not materialise
-a higher capacity salt spreader that is towed by a very small quad vehicle that our grounds maintenance contractor has on site
-additional inventory of grit
-slip on "Shoe Chains" for the FM team that is expected to clear the snow of most critical areas.
However, we normally advice our employees to heed the travel and weather advisories and if the advisory is to avoid travelling in extreme weather/road conditions, we reinforce the advisories by requesting employees not to travel. However, we are not a front line service provider and business critical functions can be home based!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
sean wrote:What is it with you lot? Do you honestly think that the majority of people in the UK go out in the winter to work wearing flip flops, or high heels, get into their expensive cars and drive blindly all the way to work, just to slip up and make a claim?
Produce evidence to back up your claims, I can tell you that my workplace last year didn't grit, and no claims were made against the employer, yes there were a few slips and trips including myself, but luckily enough no broken bones.
I do not believe that the general public deliberately get themselves hurt just to make a claim, lets be fair if they needed cash that badly why do something that could take two years before receiving a payment (if any)?
So please show the evidence before tarring us all with the same brush.
I do not have to supply evidence I was merely making an observation that people will make thier way to work and fall over when they get there after travelling sometimes for miles. Obviously that is not going to be everyone, some will be genuine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=ConnorMc]I think people are getting away from the point here with dynamic Ra's and such. If it is a work place then a RA should be put in place and in turn a safe system, this will mean making staff available to grit, ensuring these staff have the correct PPE and equipment and have received training from a competent person. If after doing all this someone still falls over the company has the right to claim contributory negligence as they have done what is reasonably practicable. To do nothing at all is to fail in our DUTY OF CARE and a 100% claim is certain.
As H&S professionals we should at all times advocate safe systems and not get caught up in the politics of it all. We are here to do the best job we can and if we allow negativity to seep into our own thought process we may as well find another profession.
Rant over, sorry if I have upset anyone.
Dynamic R/A's have been there way before people decided that they needed to be written down. How do you prove that everyone who enters your site has read and understood the R/A's or do you just write them and then put them in a draw? Writing a R/A doesn't mean you've done something the point I was making it is dependant on the control measures in place, sometimes even the control measures you have written are not in your control i.e. Country running out of grit, like it did last year after we had earlier reports that the winter would be mild.
If you went around site we have 500+ employees and asked them what the risk assessment for their own tasks were not all the people would be able to tell you, ask them what the control measures are and less would be able to tell you, ask whose job is h&s and most say the h&s officers and we run course al, the time for all levels of staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure what an RA, dynamic or otherwise, has to do with wintry weather. Why must we default to an RA every time? The original thread asked about 'policies and procedures', not that I think these are really necessary. A bit of old fashioned common sense will suffice.
Gritting and clearing walkways is essentially just good practice. So, order in plenty of rock salt before winter sets in, make sure it is readily available and ensure people are available when needed - crack on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It needs to be part of your BCP, and an RA is needed. I agree to an extent with Ray's comment that RA can be over the top, however, where RA is necessary is where 'a bit of snow and ice' becomes a 13 foot drift in the drive. That was the situation we had at one of Hospices this year. At another workplace we have a drive which is over half a mile long through exposed farmland. You can easily imagine that there were some complexities in keeping that clear throughout January and February.
Some snow and ice is foreseeable; the benefit of RA in dealing with it is that just dumping some grit down might not be the best option. It's also foreseeable that occasional winters will be extreme, and that's where your BCP comes in.
Claire, where do you get the idea that people didn't sue for falling over when you were young? What you mean is that you didn't hear about people falling over when you were young. What we have now is a moral panic where 'claims culture' is a blacktop/redtop/rag mantra, rolled out whenever they have a celeb-free column inch to fill. It was always sunny when we were young, nobody ever got hurt falling out of trees, and nobody ever made any claims. I don't know what the prevalance of claims for falling over on ungritted roads was in the middle part of the 20th Century, and I suspect nobody does, really, though somebody will have done studies,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JWK - I didn't say people didn't sue for falling over when I was young I said that where I lived they didn't clear and grit every road and pavement like they try to do now.
But since you mention it I assume the incidence of claims was much lower then because they didn't have 'no win no fee' claims in those days.
Ray - polices and procedures for clearing roads and pavements are required when defending yourself against civil claims, that's what all those lawyers are demanding from us and and ours aren't water tight enough apparently becuase they don't stipulate exactly how often re gritting and snow clearning takes place (like we can write a procedure that would be able to do that!!!!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
jwk wrote:Oh, and was this the weather comapny that predicted solid snow-cover from late December until the end of March? 'Cos that's not quite hopw it was as I recall.
Maybe not where you are, but here it started on 17 December and the last snow (at low level) did not disappear until after 17 March .....
Colin (Shetland)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
There have always been no-win no fee claims in one way or another. When I started work in the early 70s most claims were financed by the very strong trade union movement at the time. If a claim was unsuccessful that was that. If successful then a nominal fee was deducted. By far the greatest number of ELI claims were financed by that route and as most of industry was heavily unionised at that time I would contend that no win no fee claims were commonplace. As a works convenor in the late 70s I can testify to the that fact.
I have zero time for those that continually bleat about the number of claims being made and justify their arguments by citing all those scrounging ne'er do wells who throw themselves to the ground at the earliest opportunity in order to make a spurious claim. An urban myth in my view. It's funny at details are never forthcoming. It's the same as the latest gem from the government about people on benefits having huge amounts of children. It sounds good when you use it to support an argument but in reality it's baseless.
As an aside if you want to reduce claims then reduce accidents by controlling the risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Well put pl53.
There has always been a system for people to claim.
As an aside we also have the criminal injuries compensation scheme in this country, and rightly so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Colin,
There was a song by the Charlatans which you may remember which went , 'Why does it always rain in me, is it because I lied when I was 17?' Mark Radcliffe's reply was, 'No, it's because you live in Scotland' And you live in Shetland and complain about snow? Joking aside, I know there was heavy snow all over the place, we had loads down here, but for most of the UK prognostications of solid snow-cover December to March were somewhat wide of the mark. Even the 13 foot drift at our Hospice only lasted a week or so.
pl53, agree entirely; if there were fewer accidents there would be fewer claims,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No-one said everyone who falls over is looking for a claim or that everyone falls over. The point was when does it stop becoming everyone elses job to protect you and when do you do what you can to protect yourself.
I don't believe that in this case putting together a policy and procedure, R/A, SSOW etc has a lot of benefit if you cannot adequately control the risks or the control is taken out of your hands, lack of grit, very cold conditions, This then creates other risks i.e. do you allow employees to work in minus 10 trying to clear pathways with shovels. Is putting up notices that there is snow and ice adequate?
We are all here to reduce risks and prevent accidents but all employees, contractors, visitors etc also have a role to play in this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I feel I may be missing something here. For those who feel a RA is not needed. In my view a risk assessment is the basis of identifying a hazard, then control measures can be put in place and safe systems identified.
If at some time in the future someone slips and bangs their head and a serious injury or fatality occurs, when the enforcing authority arrives they will want to see a paper record of how you where attempting to control the hazard / risk. If you follow the procedures set out in the course material (NEBOSH) then you will have the relevant paperwork in place.
We recently had a fatality at my work place that came within my remit so I know first hand what the local authority want to see when they turn up, luckily for my company I am fastidious when it comes to paperwork and control measures (and these are cascaded down to all staff relevent to thier individual duties). I dread to think of the consequences had I not been.
I understand that all sites are different but, and I may be niave here, I dont feel there is a risk too big to control. Yes the bigger the site the more difficult the task but surly that is when we come into our own and rise to the challenge. I have only been in the H&S profession for 5 years but have passed the relevent qualifications for my current position so maybe I am missing something and the more qualified and more experianced people here can teach me a lesson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No you aren't missing anything Connor, you are quite correct in your assertion that it is up to the employer to identify and control the risk, the bigger the employer, the more is expected. That is the whole point of reasonably practicable. It is also a fundamental duty for all employers to AFAIRP provide safe access and egress. What seems to be the main thrust of the argument here is that if you grit and someone gets hurt there is a claim, if you don't grit and someone gets hurt there is also a claim. The avoidance of claims is the overarching desire not the avoidance of injury. If people are going to make a claim anyway then we may as well allow those scurrilous ingrates to get hurt and save ourselves a bit of money. Of course if we grit properly in areas where pedestrians and vehicles might reasonably be expected to require access and egress and maintain that gritting then we might just eliminate these claims (all of which of course are entirely spurious and salf inflicted). Or is that too simple?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Farrell,
What I would say is that duties under HASAWA extend only SFARP, as you know, in civil law the concept of reasonable is applied. There is no absolute duty to keep drives etc free from ice and snow, as you say there are times when this is impossible, and it would be a defence to say that you had done what was reasonable. And yes, people do have some responsibility for their own actions, the argument seems to hings around the extent of this responsibility versus the duty of landowners and employers. I weigh that duty more highly than individual responsibility, as do the Courts. You seem to take the opposite view, fair enough,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
pl53, you posted while I was composing, so I can say now that I agree with you entirely,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JWM it was Travis no the Charlatans.
pl53 - your argukent only affects those employees that climed uhnder ELCi. We are not affected by ELCI claims as our employees are not getting hurt. It is mebers of the public and that is why the argument that no win no fee claims have increased the number of claims from the public is valid. I can also not give details of claims becuase they are on-going and also I am protected by confidentiality. If you don't believe what I say about members of the pubic putting in ridiculous claims, well that is your choice. But for those of working in public orientated indutries the ridiculous civil claim is an all too regular fact.
I am getting confused here becuase on the one hand some are saying that it is possible to grit and clear snow effectively and others are saying only SFARP.
It is not possible on our sites to have snow cleared from public access routes at all times. In harsh weather conditons it is just not posssible due to the nature of our sites. We do our best but it's not possible.
Yes we protect employees and are not plagued by either employee accidents or employee cliams but members of the public, well thats' a different matter. Believe it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Travis, OK, fair enough. Claire, I agree, it has to be SFARP because a) that's what the law says and b) how can you grit e.g. a 13' snow drift? The weather is big, can be nasty and is not subject to control: employers can't be responsible for failing to control what can't be controlled, only for what they can do SFARP. So in short, do your RA, allocate resources against risk, do what you can, and have contingency arrangements (BCP) for when the weather gets out of control,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hope you are all going to provide your employees with water protection, o yes and don't forget the sun protection, hotter when it reflects, and dark glasses are good in the summer and winter as they take the glare of snow and chalk, try working out side and making it safe for people to work, no good shutting down sites as no work no pay.
you can not control the weather, 5 day forecasts are useful use them, do your best, SFARP, contributory negligence for improper foot wear
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
PL53 thank you for that as I thought I had the whole H&S thing wrong.
I understand that if you grit and someone gets hurt there is a claim so why grit. When that claim comes in though and is defended through SFAIRP can contributory negligence kick in due to the fact that all what could reasonably be done was done. I say this as I work on a big site and I am the only H&S professional here (a hard task at times influencing people) and I identify all access and egress routes. As part of my safe system I limit these access and egress points to a minimum and have grit / salt spread the previous night and again the following morning. We did not have 1 claim during the last bout of poor weather despite having hundreds of public conference attendees and our own staff on site. Am I just lucky or, as I feel it is good planning and pro active management that has saved us the expense of litigation.
For me, specific RAs are a must, everything that follows is good practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Claire, with respect, I don't know what industry you work in but it appears you are obsessed with litigation. Writing a policy or procedure for everything is, dare I say, a double edged sword. The more you put in, the more you have to do and the more likely that someone will not carry it out. Hence good ammunition me thinks for a silver tongued lawyer.
I have worked in various organisations and cannot recall ever seeing a RA, policy or procedure explicitly for wintry weather ie gritting. Gritting is common place in the railway industry, particularly on train station platforms. Now, going down the various stations you will find on a winters day some platforms gritted but not all, some poorly gritted and others very well gritted. Speak to the staff and ask them if they have seen an RA or Policy if you like a glazed look. How useful is your RA or Policy now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Are we really in the business of having to tell people that ice is slippy and snow is white and cold. I am not saying that it is not good practice to have a R/A for adverse weather conditions what I am saying is what is the value of it. Is it there to defend in possible claims or is it there as a working tool. If you take a piece of work equipment you should always be able to put in control measures that you are in control of i.e if it's electrical you can turn it off, lock it off, put notices up etc. With adverse weather you are in the hands of the gods (if you believe that sort of thing). Every year we have spent about £4000 on grit, with the consent of the gardeners they now come in early everything was in place but the weather was worse than at first expected, what good is a risk assessment that had control measures out of your control? The whole idea of a risk assessment is that you can control the risk.
Maybe were now that frightened that we take away individual responsibilities because we know if it goes to court then we will have to answer, but isn't there a time that things are a given, roads and pathways are frozen outside of work so maybe I should assume that they are frozen inside and I should take more care.
By the way we did have a plan and when we had no grit posters and notices were put up to warn people that we had been unable to grit and the reason why, it didn't stop people falling over, but then again nor would a risk assessment with control measures we couldn't control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
DP wrote:Mark IOSH did a Webinar on this very subject - I think it was in March - this posting my prompt a response from and attendee.
The very first comment but has anyone picked up on it? No. As one of the organisers of said webinar, excuse me while I weep. Has anyone mentioned the IOSH "gritgate" issue with the Daily Telegraph? No. Go see: http://www.iosh.co.uk/gr...grit_or_not_to_grit.aspx for the full story on the webinar, links to the presentations, the whole thing. Also if you bother to search this site using "grit" you will get stories like http://www.iosh.co.uk/ne...gate_online_debate.aspx.
I can sympathise with people who have problems researching topics that are new to them or stretch beyond their comfort zones and need some practical support, but to respond with acres of verbiage as above brings no clarity or support, let alone an authoritative steer for the enquirer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jim,
sorry thought this was a discussion forum. I have no problems researching anything at all but also feel as it states 'discussion forum' it also allows people to make comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Totally agree with Farrell here. As a discussion forum I feel this kind of online debate allows users to get an insight into other peoples views, discuss those views and make ones own mind up on how to move forward.
To be spoken to like a child for discussing views on a discussion forum defeats the object of the forum.
It must be wonderful to be so informed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It must be wonderful to be so in touch with the marvels of modern technology. A webinar on the subject no less. What's more a search facility. No need for discussion then. Hang on a sec though, didn't the (now needless) discussion digress a bit into other areas. Maybe we should ask the moderators for a "Search for Webinars" button rather than a discussion forum and save ourselves the "bother".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A bit unnecessary that Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Safe staff access to building in snow and ice
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.