IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Management rejecting health and safety improvement recommendations;
Rank: Forum user 
|
Regarding some standard recommendations for improving L8 control on site. 1-I recommended at least two people on site get L8 management training.
(Legionella duties are currently conducted by Facilities who are not trained/competent, e.g., they don't know why they are flushing or how long is recommended, and they are not flushing all of the little-used outlets) 2-I recommended monthly temperature recording on tanks and outlets.
(Facilities were also apparently never told to take and record temperatures of outlets and tanks so they don't (there isn't even a thermometer/probe on site to take temperatures, so one will need to be purchased)).
3-I recommended quarterly cleaning or replacement of the mouldy limescaled dirty shower heads that have never been cleaned and currently present a hazard in and of themselves! 4-I also recommended sample testing of our water as this has never been done. (This being the only recommendation I'd be flexible on as a best practice recommendation, the others being higher priority. These reasonable and standard recommendations have been rejected by management because they relate to ACoP L8 and not to a specific regulation or legislation. stating "An ACoP isn't the law so we don't have to comply with it" Whilst technically accurate, it's not the continuous improvement and best practice goals and standards I'd expect a company to be aiming for. Am I being unreasonable in my recommendations? How can I implement a change in understanding and culture on this issue? This blocker is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the company saying 'safety first' and then doing the bare minimum as an afterthought instead. Suggestions and advice are appreciated. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
!. You could say that having raised the issues with your management, that it is ultimately their choice / responsibility to decide whether or not to follow your recommendations (its why they get paid more than you) 2. draw their attention to the following quote from L8 "Approved Code of Practice This Code has been approved by the Health and Safety Executive, with the consent of the Secretary of State. It gives practical advice on how to comply with the law. If you follow the advice you will be doing enough to comply with the law in respect of those specific matters on which the Code gives advice. You may use alternative methods to those set out in the Code in order to comply with the law. However, the Code has a special legal status. If you are prosecuted for breach of health and safety law, and it is proved that you did not follow the relevant provisions of the Code, you will need to show that you have complied with the law in some other way or a Court will find you at fault" and then ask them if they would like to reconsider their current stance - if not, then consider your position and polish up your CV
|
 2 users thanked pseudonym for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Self and Hasty Without checking exactly what L8 says it is important to remember that most of the becoming ever rarer ACOPs contain both text which is accorded the quasi-legal status of an ACOP but also "Guidance". So, your starting point is to work out which bits of your recommendations are about implementing what it says in words that DO have ACOP status and which are a result of the "Guidance". Then you can ask management to explain what they are doing or proposing to do to comply with the law when they don't want to do what it says in the ACOP bits of L8.
|
2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Nothing unreasonable there. I think this is very little to do with the status or contents of L8 and everything to do with recalcitrant and short-sighted management. Self and Hasty points out this instance is just the “tip of an iceberg”. But if it could be pushed through using a reminder of the old “guilty until proven innocent” line about complying with ACoPs combined with sharing a few instances (quite easy to Google) where the HSE have fallen on non-compliant sites like a ton of rectangular building things you might be able to let some daylight in. We’re all trying to be helpful but I think we’re also all thinking along the lines of pseudonym’s last line: “Been lovely working with you. All the best for the future. Bye.”
|
3 users thanked DH1962 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: DH1962  Nothing unreasonable there. I think this is very little to do with the status or contents of L8 and everything to do with recalcitrant and short-sighted management. Self and Hasty points out this instance is just the “tip of an iceberg”. But if it could be pushed through using a reminder of the old “guilty until proven innocent” line about complying with ACoPs combined with sharing a few instances (quite easy to Google) where the HSE have fallen on non-compliant sites like a ton of rectangular building things you might be able to let some daylight in. We’re all trying to be helpful but I think we’re also all thinking along the lines of pseudonym’s last line: “Been lovely working with you. All the best for the future. Bye.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: DH1962 We’re all trying to be helpful but I think we’re also all thinking along the lines of pseudonym’s last line: “Been lovely working with you. All the best for the future. Bye.”
I understand the sentiment, but I feel I have been quitting too much on contracts whenever I'm hitting blockers from clients who just don't know any better.
This current company has the potential to do the right thing, and I think it's my responsibility to implement the required changes in attitudes and understanding to improve the health and safety culture. I don't want to 'flip the board' every time I'm not listened to.
It's draining hard work having to spoon-feed them every solution and argue the letter of the law on every single recommendation and having to go so heavy-handed with the scare stories of fines and imprisonment examples on every issue. It's counterproductive and tiring, but I think I may be able to improve it all here so I plan on sticking with it... they may decide I'm not a good fit because I'm doing more/recommending more/costing more than my predecessors, who appear to have done very little during their tenure. Thanks all for your input.
|
3 users thanked Self and Hasty for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
L8 is an ACoP, and you don’t need to follow it exactly but as people have pointed out you need to comply with the legal requirements behind the ACoP. What are those? It’s COSHH actually, more specifically managing biological agents such as Legionella. So if they don’t want to follow the ACoP what do they want to do to stay onside of the law? From what you are saying it seems to me that these managers know enough H&S law to understand what an ACoP is but have taken a fully conscious decision to ignore their legal duties. This will not go well in court.
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In my experience management management listens to the COST side of H&S and if you can make a solid case for what you want and the potential cost of not doing it may sway your argument. They will listen to the views of Insurance companies who may not like their stance and would love to refuse to pay out money to any potential claimants. Why not make your case in a presentation to all management stating the cost of following your guidance verses the cost of payouts to claimants if the indurances company refuses to pay the damages. You could perhaps make contact with the insurers and ask, hyperthetically of course, about such a hyperthetical claim and is the company insured against such an issue.
|
1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Not to be too much of a pedant but the recommendations you've described are not in the Approved Code of Practice, L8. They're in the accompanying technical guidance document, HSG274 Part 2. However, the ACoP is quite clear that one must undertake a suitable and sufficient legionella risk assessment, develop an appropriate written scheme of control and then implement said scheme with suitable competent staff and resources.
The standard that will be used, in Court as necessary, to assess the sufficiency of the risk assessment and the appropriateness of the written scheme will be HSG274 Part 2. These are measures that the regulator has deemed reasonable to implement in relation to the risk to the point where they've issued national guidance on the subject. Deviation is indeed possible as the legal requirements are goal setting but missing them out without evidence to support their lack of implementation is unlikely to carry the day as a legal argument - particularly when the risk assessor they appointed has actively advised otherwise.
|
2 users thanked Xavier123 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You have to remember Legionaires disease was so called after a bunch of people attended a meeting of the Philadelphia Legion in 1976. There were over 182 victims and and 29 died (mostly men). Perhaps you could ensure your managers are aware of the origin. It is not something to be glossed over. Edited by user 08 February 2024 10:45:27(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Xavier123 Not to be too much of a pedant but the recommendations you've described are not in the Approved Code of Practice, L8. They're in the accompanying technical guidance document, HSG274 Part 2.
Pedantry is required with health and safety! This is a good way of wording the argument, thank you.
|
1 user thanked Self and Hasty for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: firesafety101 You have to remember Legionaires disease was so called after a bunch of people attended a meeting of the Philadelphia Legion in 1976. There were over 182 victims and and 29 died (mostly men). Perhaps you could ensure your managers are aware of the origin. It is not something to be glossed over.
I'm pretty on the ball with legionnaires after spending a month in Narbonne hospital back in 2009 with Legionnaires and nearly died. Was the sickest I've ever been and would not recommend it, I often refer to the 'original' outbreak and my own personal decimation too when talking about the impact of it.
|
1 user thanked Self and Hasty for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Management rejecting health and safety improvement recommendations;
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.