Posted By David J Bristow
Hi Paul

You may wish to try the refernce section at your local library.

I have used the library in Hull and found it very good for this sort of research and the staff are most helpful.

Hope this helps.

Regards




David B

ps - can you email details of the Manpower case if you are succesful - thank you

Posted By Ian Minty
Here is some information that I have on the case mentioned above.

"Cain v Manpower Services Commission (MSC)
04/11/81 Workplace (Plum’s) offers one trainee slot
17/11/81 MSC representative Mr. D. visits Plum’s and is concerned about the use of the baling machine. However, he is assured that youngster’s would not be allowed to operate it. Category Y (three monthly inspection) allocated.

13/12/81 Trainee G.M. starts work.

15/02/82 MSC representative Mr. W. visit’s Plum’s by appointment. He talks with the sponsor but does not carry out an inspection.

16/02/82 G.M. visits Careers and talks about ‘being engaged in baling activities’.

01/03/82 MSC representative Mr. W. reports ‘trainee following scheme of work’ and reclassifies the placement as category X (bi-monthly inspection).

02/05/82 Next trainee T.M. visits Careers and refers to operating the ‘baling machine’.

29/11/82 Trainee D. Cain starts work at Plum’s.

20/12/82 D. Cain is killed while operating the baling machine.

21/12/82 MSC representatives Mr. D. Mr. M. visit Plum’s and immediately suspend the scheme.

22/12/82 Mr. D.’s report states: ‘Part of D. Cain’s work was to operate a 110 tonne baling press, unsupervised.


Past experience
To put the various responsibilities in context it is worth examining previous instances of young people on training schemes when an accident and subsequent court case took place.

A particularly illustrative case is Cain v. Manpower Services Commission (MSC), in which a YTS trainee was killed while operating a baling machine. The use of the machine as part of the trainee’s work had not been known to MSC, which had visited the workplace in the role of placement organiser and health and safety overseer. The work activity itself was not monitored, nor the trainee interviewed (see box above for sequence of events). Verbal assurances had been given by the employer that the trainee would not use the baling machine during the work experience period but this turned out not to be the case.

Trainees who had previously worked there had mentioned to careers officers that the baling machine was being used but this was not dealt with by the placement organiser, MSC. Although this case relates to a YTS trainee and not a schoolchild the lessons are the same; good communication, comprehensive record-keeping and careful observation of the workplace are paramount.

Unfortunately, this pattern continues to be repeated – recently in the case of a 14-year-old who died from asphyxiation in a grain silo during work experience on a farm. The farmer was prosecuted for failing to ensure the health and safety of one of his employees and fined £10,000 plus £15,000 costs. No blame was apportioned to the work experience co-ordinator but many believe that in a similar situation, the co-ordinator would be likely to blame themselves for the accident."

You could also refer to HSG 199 " Managing H&S on Work Experience - A Guide for organisers. The TEC's in England also have a guide on work experience and competencies.