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

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 : 28 November 2000 09:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ralph Ellington My employer is a medium sized District Council. We are currently reviewing the terms of reference of our safety committee. It has been suggested that the safety committee should only consider matters of direct relevance to the health and safety of employees. This would, for instance, rule out discussion on safety in children's' play areas. Do other employers similarly restrict the scope of their safety committees or not? I would appreciate feedback from anyone really but particularly from Local Authority safety officers. Many thanks, Ralph Ellington
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 November 2000 09:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Preston Reaches for well thumbed copy of his Brown Book... The SR&SC Regs indicate that safety reps are primarily interested in the employees they represent - there are a few paras that could have a broader interpretation but the main thrust of the regs is about the safety of employees. The guidance most relevant to your situation is the objectives and functions of safety committees and on the one hand it talks about employee safety - but on the other hand some of the functions (e.g. study of accident stats and examination of safety audits) might point to a broader remit. This section of the guidance also says that it's for the safety committee itself to (discuss and) agree on its objectives and terms of reference. In my authority we take a wide view (eg we recently spent some time discussing the risks created by illegal bottle digging on Council allotments - more of a public risk than an employee risk). This is surely the best way to approach things - we consult employee representatives because they have front-line experience of the work and its risks - both to themselves and to others. The consequence of this is that from time to time you might have to deal with a committee member with a particular hobby horse - not always one on the TU/employee side - but that can be dealt with by firm chairing and is anyway a small price to pay if the committee is helping to reduce risks across the full range of your authority's exposure.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 November 2000 10:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie Ralph While you must have some restrictions on matters for the SC (I have had complaints about graffiti brought up!), and your primary responsibility is to your employees, you must still consider your general duty of care. I have 21,000 visitors a year, and only 750 employees. As a local authority you must at least have a similar ratio. Whoever suggests that you ignore these visitors, whether they are visiting play parks, libraries, sports facilities or whatever, is taking a very blinkered view. As Mark suggests, it is for the committee to decide its Terms of Reference. While employers may have the final say, there must still be full consultation with the workforce, and it would be a brave employer (particularly in the public sector!) who ignored their views Laurie
Users browsing this topic
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.