Risk Assessment

[kerry davies]

As an apprentice the first thing one was taught was basic housekeeping, keeping the workplace safe and tidy. "Larking about" was punishable by instant dismissal and failure to use safety equipment, machinery guarding or the right tool in the right manner would have same result. The main thing that undergoing five years of poorly paid apprenticeship led to was a proper appreciation of the skills and responsibilities of the chosen trade and pride in the job. Spending five years in a real-world working environment of repetitive practise allowed time for the experienced guys to weed out and/or teach the irresponsible and the downright dangerous.

Common sense is, like patience, something that needs this repeated practise and is not something innate in any human being, just watch a toddler learn about the world.

 

I can remember some horrific accidents and some dodgy safety practices from the sixties onward but in all the steelworks, chemical plants, manufacturing and processing factories in which I worked, the best safety systems and equipment available at the time were used as a matter of course. Good practice didn't start in 1974 with HASAWA, as Ynot rightly states, it became law which the cowboys had to follow. The systems and equipment have improved dramatically (MEWPs' etc.) since then but the five/six year apprenticeships have all but disappeared, and with them experiential learning.

Lack of on-the-job training, the "blame" culture (not my fault, somebody elses') and the shortcuts used to chase profit are, in my opinion, the reasons that we have these discussions.

Risk assessment IS simple common sense, but it requires experience of actually doing the job properly over and over again before it becomes simple or common or sense.

[paulears]

Risk Assessment does have the benefit that when carried out in a straightforward manner, it focuses attention on areas with potential issues. What happens where I am is that I sit down with the venue H&S person - and she signs mine and I sign hers. In many cases, they are the same, just worded differently - but in hers there was a mention of handrails on treads. I signed it off, but it made me think. I'd just signed for something I've seen, but not tried myself. So I went up the finale treads, like the turns do, and these are quite high. A set of treads going up to a 6 foot rostra, then another up to the top platform at about 12 feet. The combination of the slack in the rostra, with the treads on them meant they wobbled. Not dangerously, but uncomfortably wibbly. Add in the fact the handrails also have slack, as they fold away for storage, and I thought about what I'd signed off. So - I've had a new set of 12 foot single tread made that don't wobble - without the RA, they'd have been using potentially dangerous treads - now, with my name on it - I'm happy.

 

The paperwork IS a pain, but they do work.

[Ynot]

The paperwork IS a pain, but they do work.

But - as Kerry rightly says - it would NOT have worked had you not had the experience to realise there may be a problem and also the foresight to actually physically check it out...

 

That's YOUR common sense (based in experience) showing through.

 

A local authority goon with a 2-day training course may well not have even ventured past the first step in HIS checks, then signed off as visually OK.

[Paul J Need]

I think things have gone far too far. only the other day we were asked to supply a couple of steeldeck; hired to a function band for a xmas party in a hotel. The hotel insisted on a RA and method statement from us in order to be allowed to supply to the band.

 

I emailed our standard mission statement ( which says pretty much nothing about who we are, that we have a combined experience of over 100 years in the business) and our RA for when students come to the warehouse on work experience...( nothing to do about staging, risers falling off rises ( even thos this was a 12"))

 

We "passed" !!!!!!!

 

So to use a great word at this time of the day most of it is pure ###### ! :)

[Simon Lewis]

Perhaps it's time to concoct a spoof RA to send out to those entities who know enough to ask for an RA but do not have the nous to read or comprehend it?

 

e.g.

 

Hazard: electric shock whilst tailing in live

 

Control Measures: The nominated person (Mick the Driver) will stand on his leather jacket and operate the Black and Decker drill single handedly whilst drilling through the venue's copper busbars in order to bolt on the tails ahead of the pesky meter, fuse and RCD. The bolt will be left in place ('finger tight') in case we come back again.

 

Residual Risk: Mick hasn't died yet, therefore the residual risk is "Trivial".

 

(PS - this is joke folks... don't try this at home)

 

Simon

[kerry davies]

Of course you "passed" Paul. You have supplied an RA and method statement as per request and now you have to implement them. If you gave them bull then that is your problem and any come-backs are on you.

 

The hotel is not expected to know anything about your method statements or RA's, simply that you have them in place, you are contracted to provide a service which they cannot provide for themselves, which includes assessing the risk. The client does not need to have the nous to comprehend them, they have passed on that liability to the "expert contractor". If anything does go wrong then insurers, enforcement agencies and courts will look at any "inadequate" attempts to obey the laws on provision of risk assessment and take that into consideration.

I don't recommend appearing to take the p1$$ out of any judge with a humorous RA, they have been known take a dim view and call it contempt.

 

BTW the method statements on the Steeldeck websites are pretty good and dead easy to print out or forward.

http://www.steeldeck.com/assets/dl/steelde...afetymanual.pdf for the US site

OR: http://www.steeldeck.co.uk/set-up-instruction.htm

[paulears]

I think you missed the point Kerry - if I read Paul's post in the way he intended, the entire point is that the documents are asked for not because they are needed to ensure safety, but simply to put into the filing cabinet, in case an accident happens and they need to shift blame - NOT sort out before the accident happens. This I believe is the problem when risk is based around paper. As for the possible court implications, Paul's RA and method statement do not as I understand it, absolve the receiver from responsibility. If the job is carried out properly, then this would be the focus of any litigation - a poor job with daft paperwork would I'm sure be dealt with severely, however, a method statement that says very little should have been challenged - after all, after delivering the documents, somebody would need to check it had been carried out in line with the documentation, wouldn't they. So a silly RA should have been spotted.

 

A stupid risk assessment could not be called contempt - because when completed, no court action had been instigated, and could not therefore be considered in this way - no doubt the judge would take a poor view of it, and the writer and receiver would both have to defend their action - but if the job was the cause of an accident, then this is what the court will deal with.

 

Irony and other subtleties don't work well in print.

[Roderick]

I believe both Kerry and Paulears are right, albeit with a different approach.

Sadly OH&S is still seen as a 'paper' solution, not an actual effective system to prevent injuries or accidents. Too many people focus on "how will we do in court" rather than looking at ways to do things safely, without compromising the job and, in our industry, artistic integrity.

Paperwork should only be a reflection of a company's internal safety systems, not the core. To be truly successful we must work on a safety culture where doing a job safely is an integral part of the job, not an add-on that can be applied when challenged. But until people can look past paperwork and see why these systems are in place, that will be a struggle.

Too many people rely on "paperwork collectors" without reading or understanding what they are stuffing in their filing cabinets. Too few production managers will actually review the method statements and see how they may affect others in the same workplace. My favourite is audio company vs catering. Simple example, the audio company is scheduled to do a system check at 3PM. They have all sorts of systems in place to protect the hearing of their staff, good. But the schedule also shows that the catering staff will be setting tables at 3PM, they have systems in place for manual handling but nothing for hearing protection....

Separately they are both fine, combined they cause a risk for the catering staff.

A production manager should have picked up on that and worked out how both these companies can deliver their services safely. It rarely happens, but they have budgeted for an additional filing cabinet.

[slipstream]

Just finished an arguement with a council about watersafety for an event - they propose supply us with lifejackets - completely the wrong spec for an unconcious person in the water (oh no their fine they have CE conformity) - they had no idea of the nature of the equipment available, or it's suitability for circumstances, they supplied their RA, which included the note that they had not assessed the risks involved lifting someone from the water - this on a site where they can have 200+ people on the water at one time. We gave up and supplied our own equipment , but they now have a whole new drawer in their filing cabinet filled.

 

It all gets a bit silly at times, Nature of Risk - falling from roof - control proceedures - no one is going on the roof. They never were but now we've written it down so it's safer.

 

Sam

[kerry davies]

Paulears is correct, it isn't contempt until it gets to court. RA's are legal documents and will be called upon as such in any court case. My feeling that a judge would frown on "spoof" legal documentation remains.

 

Agreed that there are a myriad examples of councils and others demanding RAs for work that is not going to happen but that is their problem, ours is to educate them. If "they" want a statement regarding WaH when there isn't any then a simple "No WaH" should suffice. If "they" come up with an inadequate RA then we should point this up by supplying our own better one, as Slipstream has done. "They" then have a chance to learn!

 

In Paul Js' case the hotel has passed on RA duties to the people doing the work; excellent. Pauls' website shows him to be a reputable specialist in this field with a credible client list and downloadable method statements. Any RA this client made for himself would not have the authority that this specialist contractor would bring. Paul has to do the RA and then follow it as he is employing the worker carrying out the task, even if that worker is Paul himself as a self-employed "freelance". What that client then does with the RA is their business. Paul has done his bit.

 

Some PM's may fail in their duty to provide holistic RAs' whilst resigning sub-contractors documentation to the filing cabinet, that again is their problem. The sub-contractor is the one doing the work and they should adhere to their own RA taking account of "those around you". If a PA company has made provision for its own workers for Noise at Work purposes then it should also have taken others into account "as far as is reasonably practicable". AFAIRP might simply be informing the PM, or those others, as to the risks they face.

 

In the end it is all about the attitude we, as individuals, have regarding Health and Safety at Work. Is killing one person a day at work acceptable, even if the UK is just about the safest in the EU? What is my own personal responsibility? Do I want this/my industry to be more than just sex'n'drugs'n'rock'n'roll? Can we afford what happened last night in Perm to happen here? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8396587.stm

This industry is very good at H&S because we are on the whole responsible people, let's keep it up.

[jimbo7744]

Hi Kerry,

 

Why exactly is it "their problem, ours is to educate them"?

Since when was the responsibility of the contractor to educate the authority that is requiring a RA and MS and overseeing the risk?

Surely if they are the enforcing authority, then they should be knowledgeable in the area they are inspecting and not require the contractor to educate them in their job?

 

Also how would a RA or MS have stopped the tragedy in Russia? Just because a RA and MS state a trained pyro technician will be present and in-charge, pyro's are appropriate to the venue and the risk assessed etc etc, mean that the person using them actually is?

 

Surely it's better for the venue manager/tech manager/local authority to ask to speak to the person using the pyro, ask for proof of training and experience, than relying on a MS or RA, because if the worst does happen then that RA and MS are only good to apportion blame, not prevent it happening in the first place?

 

I understand your point of view to a degree, but a venue who just ask for a RA and MS but do not know how to understand and interpret them within the scope of work, agree with their content and monitor the work should be equally culpable should the brown stuff hit the fan, or not ask for them at all.

 

Jimbo