Hi all,
Hi Paul,
Yes, i agree with what you say about EAWR and "Anyone working in a place of employment MUST under EAWR be an instructed person" yes, but instructed in what... and what about providing against accidents.....Nobody electrocutes themselves deliberately....
The EAWR regs say;
Persons to be competent to prevent danger and injury
16. No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work.
Now, this is all very well, but what about the protection of other persons not engaged in such work activities, and provisions for the effect of accidents etc.
I will explain what i mean.
Bert Scroggins is a welder working in a fab shop. His employer has done all he can to make sure that Bert knows what he is doing, besides, Bert is a qualified tradesman. Now, it could be argued that plugging in an ordinary 13A plug is hardly an activity where "technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger" but, notwithstanding this, Bert's employer has decided that he will, in the interests of safety, tell his staff that before they are to plug in a plug of say a power tool, a grinder perhaps, that they must visually inspect the tool, cable and plug to make sure it is not damaged before plugging it in. Besides, all the tools are pat tested, and they are all 110v ones powered by suitable transformers too. The employer, and Bert the welder, have done all they can to prevent danger and all laws, electrical and otherwise, have been complied with.
Bert's boss employs a labourer, Fred. All Fred does is sweep up and lug things about, nothing where "technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger" but even so, he has been on a manual handling course and all the rest of it too.
One day, Fred, is tidying up and is lugging a bit of plate about and he props it up against a wall. In doing so, purely by accident, he traps the flex leading to Berts radio against the wall, cuts it, is electrocuted and badly hurt as there was no RCD provision for the socket.
It all ends up in court; Counsel for Fred's employer point out that all laws have been complied with, and everyone had the required technical knowledge to do their own jobs safely, and therefore M'Lud, not our fault, as, "accidents will happen"
Counsel for Fred point out, that, having regards to "No person shall be engaged in any work activity where technical knowledge or experience is necessary to prevent danger or, where appropriate, injury, unless he possesses such knowledge or experience, or is under such degree of supervision as may be appropriate having regard to the nature of the work" there was no suggestion at all that Fred's employer had not taken all the measures they could to train their staff to carry out their tasks safely, and had thereby complied with the EAWR.
HOWEVER, it is the case that sockets are used to power things, things usually have cables or a flex connected to them, and therefore, it was therefore "reasonably forseeable" that a cable or flex might become damaged as a result of an accident, and someone get hurt. Therefore M'Lud, we contend that Freds employers were negligent in this respect, as regards provision for reasonably forseeable events.
SEND FOR THE ELECTRICIAN!!!!!!
The judge asks Mr Sparks why he did not fit an rcd to this socket?? Mr Sparks says that he felt it not necessary, as in the rules it says that "Socket outlets for use under the supervision of skilled or instructed persons, e.g. in some commercial or industrial locations" do not require an RCD.
The judge however, points out that Mr Sparks was not in a position to predict either who may, or may not, use the sockets, as it was out of his control, and besides, the operative word in the rules was "some" industrial locations, not all of them, and had he any contractual undertaking from his client as to who exactly, was going to use this socket, and what exactly, they were going to use it for?? In particular, had he any assurance from his client that the socket was not going to be used to power "mobile equipment with a current rating not exceeding 32A for use outdoors" because there is NO exception for sockets that might be used for this purpose having RCD protection, whether used in an "industrial or commercial" environment or otherwise.
So, unless one wants to take part in a test case where a judge is called upon to decide in what legal context a person is to be considered "skilled or instructed", best fit an RCD, unless of course, the owner of the property specifically states that he does not require one, and furthermore, is willing to accept liability for this decision, which is what i think Doc H is suggesting might be wise in post 21.
john.....
