Hi all,

I'm at my wits end with our HR dept. I need your advice!

We operate a warehouse and supply rolls of  1.5-2 meter wide x 30-meter long polyester material weighing on average 23kg but sometimes over 30kg depending on thickness.  The rolls get delivered loose in quantities of 100+ in the back of a wagon or container. Our warehouse unloads them into stillages for storage and sale. 

These deliveries occur 3/4 times per week and each wagon takes roughly an hour to unload depending on staff available to handball them. We have a small team of 6 in our warehouse but typically 2/3 staff unload the wagons depending on workload.

I hate this process. It's a manual handling nightmare especially as staff feel the item weight is individually manageable and can unload it faster by not performing a two-person lift as instructed. Over the last year, this has been compounded by staff shortages due to covid which I hate to admit necessitated individual lifts at times. Our MH policy states 25kg max weight for individual lifts but not total quantity or frequency etc.

Several WH team members have complained of musculoskeletal issues during the 3 years I have worked here and taken time off work to recover. Recently, an employee who had a historical diagnosed back complaint unrelated to work took 3 days off. In his RTW, he cited the unloading operation performed last week as the reason for his pain and absence. HR does not want to record this as a work-related injury. They feel that it's connected to his pre-existing injury and therefore not a "work accident". This despite me telling them that the event led to the injury!. 

Notwithstanding this current issue the company make no effort to limit exposure to MH despite my recommendations that they review the quantity, size and weight of the items, deliver them on pallets or in stillages, increase staff numbers for MH purposes or cap employee exposure every week. They are looking at FLT accessory lifting aids but this has very much been in development for several years and investment is abysmal.  

What are peoples thoughts concerning pre-existing conditions and the way we work with the employees concerned and also does anyone have any additional ideas to limit exposure?. 

TIA.

You are setting your employees up for significant health issues in later life, and the company for significant ill health claims.

Why does your policy conclude 25Kg?

Did someone look at indg43 and miss read the document?

That value is for a male carrying between elbow and knuckle height whilst stood up straight.

Reach out / up / down and the weight should be reduced

US Insurance companies are one of the few organisations who specify a maximum load for persons and these are arranged in tables to correct for gender, stature and all the other variables.

Do you have an FLT? There are many commercially available "podgers" (large metal spike) for lifting this type of material.

I would go back to the US about a maximum weight - when I was looking at manual handling for a US site we were setting up the maximum weight permitted was the equivalent of 18Kg for a fit 5'8" male

I'm certainly feeding this back but I suspect that it's deliberately set at this limit to facilitate the current roll size. in the meantime. I need to try and engineer a new way that the products are delivered i.e. palletised on in cages but this requires purchasing to re-negotiate with our suppliers and it could increase transportation costs which I fear will be an additional obstacle.

Edited by user 17 May 2021 13:51:50(UTC)  | Reason: spelling.

Originally Posted by: Kate

Have you considered doing a cost of accidents calculation which would demonstrate the financial cost of people being seriously injured?

I haven't produced anything at this point but that's probably an avenue I'll need to explore if I'm to convince them to take action. I at least monitor all LTI's

The OP said 1.5 - 2.0 m wide (not diameter) with 30 m of cloth wound on - podgers come in multiple lengths for this job a 2 m unit would be the more suitable choice.

Several WH team members have complained of musculoskeletal issues during the 3 years I have worked here and taken time off work to recover. Recently, an employee who had a historical diagnosed back complaint unrelated to work took 3 days off. In his RTW, he cited the unloading operation performed last week as the reason for his pain and absence. HR does not want to record this as a work-related injury. They feel that it's connected to his pre-existing injury and therefore not a "work accident". This despite me telling them that the event led to the injury!. 

I am confused by this statement? You state that the employee's back complaint is NOT work related, but the EVENT (unloading the rolls) led to the injury?? Surely the EVENT exasperated an exsisting medical condition but did not cause the condition and is therefore not a work related accident. It is in fact not an accident at all?

You also appear to indicate that the employees do not follow the SSW (two person lift) on a regular basis. Either by choice or staff shortages. Has this been investigated, and possible solutions put forward? If numbers have been cut, has the Manual Handling Risk Assessment been reviewed to reflect this?

With respect you appear to have made up your mind that the employer is at fault and unfortunately you have fallen into the role of you and the warehouse staff vs the employer. 

two things for me:

1. Back injuries are the most difficult thing to accurately diagnose

2. Opening the conversation up to a 'new' injury is claim worthy = why HR wouldn't want to agree with you...

My question to you is - in light of this current operation and injury when reviewing the risk assessment what part of the risk assessment or control measure did you change?

If your answer is nothing then stick with the possibility that this is related to a pre-existing injury which may be the root of the weakness and move on. 

Originally Posted by: OliverWallace

I am confused by this statement? You state that the employee's back complaint is NOT work related, but the EVENT (unloading the rolls) led to the injury?? Surely the EVENT exasperated an exsisting medical condition but did not cause the condition and is therefore not a work related accident. It is in fact not an accident at all?

This is where my perception of the incident differs from our HR dept. Despite a historical condition that was treated, he is fit and able (albeit in his mid/late 50's). The fact that the department is required to perform a highly strenuous MH operation with limited controls has lead to a "new injury" in the same area. HR are presuming its the same injury and dismissing it as non-work-related. Without a professional medical diagnosis, I can't see how they can draw that conclusion because poor manual handling practices knowingly permitted by the employer places them at increased likelihood of an accident. 

You also appear to indicate that the employees do not follow the SSW (two person lift) on a regular basis. Either by choice or staff shortages. Has this been investigated, and possible solutions put forward? If numbers have been cut, has the Manual Handling Risk Assessment been reviewed to reflect this? 

My most current risk assessment reflects the current state of affairs. I'd be remiss if I tried to cover that up and have a professional duty to document and report it. I try to enforce the two-man lift but I'm not always in that part of the site and they are currently without a manager, just a supervisor. They often feedback to me "if we don't get the wagon (un)loaded) we can't keep up / it'll leave unladen". I'm constantly reporting the issues to top management who are aware but silently do nothing because they know to act will require investment in equipment or resources. I get a lot of "we are planning......" Short-sighted. So yes, I am inclined to agree to the WH dept. 

My point is that the problem lies with staff refusing to follow the SSW. The two man lift would apper to be the most 'reasonably practicable' solution to the level of risk you have described, and that is where your focus should be directed.

 I try to enforce the two-man lift but I'm not always in that part of the site. It is not part of your role to manage this situation, that is currently the supervisor's role. If following the SSW causes a delay in unloading the wagon then that is something for management to address, not you or the supervisor. If you have assessed the task and identified the use of a two man lift to reduce the risk, so far as reasonably practicable, then it is the duty of the management to implement this control and the duty of the staff to follow this rule. 

I'm constantly reporting the issues to top management who are aware but silently do nothing because they know to act will require investment in equipment or resources. I get a lot of "we are planning...... Based on the description you have provided of the task I believe it would be difficult to convince any employer that there is a need for any substantial investment of equipment or resources beyond ensuring that the SSW is followed.