Worker loses life after fall from roof

[Social Integrator]

A Birmingham maintenance company has been fined after a worker died as a result of falling from the roof of a five-storey building.

View the full article

 

[Andy™]

surely if they decided to set up outside the protected area, then have an accident due to being there and not inside, then then its their fault

 

[Andy™]

i have no idea of exactly what happened (obviously only part of the story is online), but maybe they didnt expect them to open the doors and go work outside on the roof...

and there is also this...

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work

i would say taking reasonable care would not be trying to get something back thats blown over the edge of the building...

 

[binky]

but if a safe working area was provided....

 

[Andy™]

& Unsupervised......

they shouldnt need to be 'supervised', if they were told to work inside and they went outside, then he's earned his darwin award.

one reason why i have no intention of employing anyone, too many people lacking a few brain cells...

 

[binky]

should have a nominated supervisor / sensible person.....

 

[Essex1]

This is a hard one as not very much information is provided. A risk assessment is not a get out of jail apcard for an employer.  It would be ridiculous for anyone to assess every risk on site prior to starting. Every modern set of RAMS will have a space for adding and altering parts of the RA. So just because an employer carries out a RA and the employee comes across an unforeseen risk does not mean that the employer is liable. The 'reasonable person' test comes into play. Would a 'reasonable person' have carried out works this way?  Mixing COSHH substances in a steel bath, on a roof, with rubble sacks holding the sheet down?  Of course not!  However; if the employer was asking his guys to carry out these works this would be a reasonable entry in to the RA. 

My opinion of this is that no RAMS were in place at all. Add to that no supervision and guys left to their own accord on a roof then I am sorry but the employer is liable. 

 

[Manator]

The problem is @Essex1 I find that any Rams is now more of an office exercise and never enforced in the workplace. I have been on sites were no toolbox talks are carried out, no instructions have been given for the safe use of tools and machinery. People have been allowed to use cherry pickers or scissor lifts without showing their licence, and even signing in and out not done properly.

What I do like about the Health and Safety Laws, is this; Even though an employer has a health and safety policy in place, and has written a specific method statement outlining the risks, he or she is still liable should anything go wrong. So for example saying you must wear gloves to carry out this task, if your employer is not there to make sure you do, then he is liable for any injury that may occur. Now many employers do not know this.

This was shown in a recent court case, where two consultants were employed and still the employer got charged and convicted.

 

[Essex1]

The problem is @Essex1 I find that any Rams is now more of an office exercise and never enforced in the workplace. I have been on sites were no toolbox talks are carried out, no instructions have been given for the safe use of tools and machinery. People have been allowed to use cherry pickers or scissor lifts without showing their licence, and even signing in and out not done properly.

What I do like about the Health and Safety Laws, is this; Even though an employer has a health and safety policy in place, and has written a specific method statement outlining the risks, he or she is still liable should anything go wrong. So for example saying you must wear gloves to carry out this task, if your employer is not there to make sure you do, then he is liable for any injury that may occur. Now many employers do not know this.

This was shown in a recent court case, where two consultants were employed and still the employer got charged and convicted.

I agree with your first half. Briefings before the days starts is vital. Nothing much just a run down  of what is to be done that day and the significant risks likely to be encountered. 

The second half is not correct. If a company has a policy that all staff when working must wear a hard hat and a member of staff decides they do not wish to do that and they are injured then as long as the company can prove that their staff were briefed and were aware of this policy then it is down to the employee.  

On the other hand if that policy is in place but everyone does not bother to wear one and it is common knowledge that it is not really enforced and no briefings are completed then it would be the employers responsibility. 

It it is not as clear cut as you state IMO. 

 

[Manator]

I would check that with an employment lawyer, many employers have been bitten by the very same beliefs.

 

[Essex1]

No need for a lawyer. If you instruct someone to do something. Make them sign to say they agree.  Then if they choose to do the opposite that is their responsibility. Not their employer. 

 

[Sidewinder]

Whilst I agree withthat statement Essex, I think that HSE, & the courts would not.

 

[steptoe]

I like the H&S rules in NZ, you basically sign a waiver that any accident is your own fault, and it is up to you to prove otherwise, pretty much the opposite of what happens here. 

 

[binky]

Whilst I agree withthat statement Essex, I think that HSE, & the courts would not.

Actually I think Essex might be correct in his matter, hence all the signd 'toolbox talks' we are suppossed to collect. What I suspect is that the company failed to provide suitable 'working at heights' training, and therefore shouldn't be left unsupervised, which has got me thinking about my own staff.....

 

[Sidewinder]

Binky,

ITIS.

Information

Training

Instruction

Supervision

Now with what yourself & Essex describe, you will stil be missing the last S.

So, if it happens, then you didn't supervise it well enough!

 

[Andy™]

what if one of them was supposed to be the supervisor? just how far do you go? unfortunately, you cannot watch all your employees all the time (if you could, then they wouldnt be needed in the first place)

 

[binky]

oh well back to lone working it is then and firk employing people there is no point. How would this apply to sub-contractor? I sub-contract scaffolding, we check he has the right tickets every year, insurance etc , beyond that it's his bona-fide operation.

 

[phil d]

People's perceptions of certain things can often cause problems,I was called in to a meeting on a site where there had been a "near miss" incident.during the meeting several issues where identified,the most shocking bit for me was one of the contractors was arguing with the HSE inspector telling him that the rules hew as referring to did not apply as it was an agricultural premises not a construction site.I must have spent an hour trying to explain to the guy that while in use it was classed as agricultural,due to the fact there was large scale building work going on it was to all intents and purposes a construction site.

They ended up asking me to be supervisor in charge of site safety,as I was the only one who'd done the relavent training,I quickly dodged that one,some of the people working there just either hadn't a clue or didn't care.