SAFETY MATTERS September 2014 Newsletter

Welcome to our Newsletter! Being Interviewed Under Caution .... Representatives of the construction industry are being invited to an event where they will be shown the process of being interviewed under caution. In a recent episode of Coronation Street offers a good example of how easily an accident may happen as a result of poor workmanship, inevitably leading to prosecution. Although this story line may or may not play out with a full criminal investigation; many accidents throughout the UK do lead to criminal investigation and prosecution. Working Well Together, a campaign to improve health and safety in the construction industry, has organised the half day event ‘Wrong Direction, Don't Fall For It' at Keele University in Staffordshire from 8.30am to 1pm on 19 September. Presented by HSE inspectors and lawyers, a director of a fictional company will be interviewed under Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) conditions in front of the audience. The scenario is an employee who has fallen from height through a fragile roof, with the HSE questioning Marc Taylor, the operations director for Dizzy Heights, before deciding whether or not to prosecute the company for safety breaches. The operations director will be cross-examined by a barrister before the barrister and the lawyer take questions from the floor. HSE inspector, Janice Dale, said: "Protecting the health and safety of employees and/or members of the public, who may be affected by construction activities, is an essential part of risk management and must be led by those at the top. "Failure to include health and safety as a business risk in key decisions can have catastrophic results. "Those who come along will be able to see first-hand what it is like for a representative of the company to face questioning under PACE conditions, and the implications for those involved." For more information, or to book a place, contact Anne Twigg at HSE on anne.twigg@hse.gsi.gov.uk. For our RoSPA Approved Training Course for Working At Height please CLICK HERE For our RoSPA Approved Training Course for Risk Assessment please CLICK HERE Consultation on draft Approved Code of Practice (ACOP): Safe work in confined spaces This consultative document seeks your views on the revised version of the Approved Code of Practice (L101) relating to the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997. The amendments proposed are designed to bring the document up to date with regulatory and other changes and to make the understanding and use of the document easier, particularly with clarifying the definition of a confined space. The amendments also accommodate suggestions made in the earlier consultation in September 2012. The proposed amendments will be of interest to those involved in work within confined spaces, those who employ or train such people and those that represent them. For further information on Reading and Responding to the Consultation Document CLICK HERE Six steps to minimising the impact of hazardous chemicals Many firms use hazardous chemicals in their production, manufacturing and maintenance process. They must be sure to implement a hierarchy of control measures to reduce the risk of harm to employees. COSHH SYMBOLS POSTER Wherever possible, the need for the hazardous chemical should be removed from the process. If it is not practical to remove the chemical, a less hazardous alternative should be sourced. When selecting a new product a thorough analysis of the material safety data sheet (MSDS) is required. Companies planning to substitute chemicals must consult with the operatives and managers as part of the decision-making process. A thorough investigation into the impact that changes will have on other parts of the business is vital to ensure the best alternative is selected. A controlled trial of the product is advised to insure it doesn't introduce any new hazards and does the job it's supposed to. Staff who are required to work with, or are exposed to, the hazardous chemical, should receive training on how to work with the product safely and understand the risk factors involved in doing so. Regular testing of a simulated incident should be undertaken. The final step in controlling hazardous chemicals is the use of personal protective equipment, like protective gloves, goggles and respirators to shield the wearer from the ill effects of any chemicals they are working with. Any review of hazardous chemicals should be made in conjunction with a broader review of working conditions, environment and the procedures already in place. Our latest COSHH Awareness poster depicting newest SYMBOLS Drug and substance addiction: a quick guide to dealing with addicted employees Drug addiction affects everyone, whether wealthy, educated, uneducated, homeless, employed and unemployed. In fact, most drug addicts are fully functioning members of the public. Approximately 75% of drug and substance abusers are full time employed adults, according to a survey by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Many employers are faced with the drug addiction problem among their workers. Most aspects of any workplace, especially the construction industry, call for accuracy, quick reflexes, and alertness. This is enough to answer the question: why look into drug and substance addiction at your workplace? Any deficiency of the above qualities could interfere with both accuracy and work efficiency, which could then lead to serious workplace accidents. This not only translates into a serious drain on the employer's wallet as far as workplace accident claims goes, but also reduces productivity. Identification of employees notorious for drug and substance abuse is the first step to dealing with such addictions in your workplace. So how exactly do you point out these employees? Below are some of the red lights that you should watch out for: Repeated unpunctuality at work Mysterious or unauthorised non-appearances at work Prolonged breaks Evasion of supervisory interaction, particularly after lunch or breaks Regular accidents at or away from work Carelessness or sloppiness at work Poor grooming or own hygiene Strange weight gain or loss Changes in attitude for instance anxiety, short tempered behaviour, belligerent, mood swings or argumentative behaviour Clear financial problems. For instance, the employee regularly requesting for advance pay-check or borrowing cash from his co-employees Here are some few ways on how you can manage the drug addiction issue in the workplace. Implementation of the drug policy. This should be the first step to addressing the menace of drug addiction among employees in a workplace setting. A survey revealed that approximately one third of illegal drug users would not work for an employer that carries out random drug tests. Employee accountability. Every employee should be held accountable for their behaviour as well as performance at work. No worker should be allowed to give excuses for their bad behaviour, absenteeism, tardiness, or lack of performance. This means no more delegating an employee's work to other employees. Rehabilitation. Finally, you should offer employee assistance to seek drug rehabilitation. With adequate support and treatment, the employee should be able to get back to work more productive than before. ​For our Drug & Alcohol Awareness Course CLICK HERE HSE LAW POSTERS THE HSE have run out again!!! The HSE have run out of Law Posters AGAIN!! In February this year before the legal change over to the new style of poster was enforced the HSE embarrassingly ran out of Law Posters, delivery took until early April to get the posters manufactured and sent to us. Again literally 3 months later they have ran out of posters again expecting the manufacture and despatch of them by late Autumn!! No other business, but the government can work in such a way and not bankrupt themselves. Following this revelation we are again managing the last of our stock, and are currently reducing the number of posters that we can send out to, 20 per person or organisation. Although we do not expect to have such a rush for these posters this time round, it would be nice to feel that the government could be relied upon to have available the posters that they produce exclusively! Special Offer Price FROM only £18.00 plus VAT per person Asbestos Awareness Training course is a must for anyone working in the Building; Maintenance and Construction Industries, and as well as providing full awareness training, our online asbestos awareness training course is also suitable for use as Asbestos Awareness Refresher Training as recommended by the HSE. IN COURT Landlord fined for breaches to gas safety regulations Magistrates heard how a young family was left in potential danger for nearly four years after their landlord repeatedly failed to check the gas appliances in a property he rented to them. The landlord from Slough was fined £9,000 with costs totalling almost £4,000 after he failed to respond to HSE and local council notices. Mohammed Nawaz, 25, was prosecuted for two offences of breaching gas safety regulations and a further offence of failing to comply with an enforcement notice after an HSE investigation. HSE told Slough Magistrates' Court on 21 August that its investigation revealed that the gas appliances had not been maintained and checked so the family could be provided with a Landlord's gas safety record for the property. The court heard that as a landlord, Mr Nawaz had a legal duty to ensure the gas appliances in any properties he rented were checked every 12 months by a competent gas engineer. However, between June 2010 and February 2014, no such checks were carried out and no record was ever provided to the tenants at any point in four years' tenancy. When a Gas Safe Register engineer visited the property, a boiler was classed as ‘at risk' because of an inadequate seal around the flue and incorrectly-sized gas supply pipes to the boiler. Despite warnings and an enforcement notice from HSE, plus an abatement notice from the local council requiring him to comply with the law, Mr Nawaz failed to respond, continuing to expose the family to potential health risks. After the case, HSE inspector Karen Morris said: "Mohammed Nawaz failed to take seriously his duties and responsibilities as a landlord and the result was to put a family – including two children – at risk of significant harm. There is no excuse for landlords failing to ensure that gas appliances in rented properties are properly maintained and subject to annual safety checks. These are simple and inexpensive measures, but they are vital for the safety of the people living in the premises. HSE takes gas safety issues very seriously and we will take enforcement action when necessary." Russell Kramer, chief executive of Gas Safe Register, commented: "When it comes to rented property, it is important that landlords know their duties and tenants know their rights. A landlord must be able to provide a gas safety record for the property, showing that the gas appliances have been safety-checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer in the last 12 months. Brothers jailed for asbestos exposure Two brothers have been jailed after they exposed workers to asbestos. At least seven workers, one aged just 17 at the time, are known to have been exposed to asbestos during refurbishment work at a former print works since February 2012. Neither Akram Hussain, 52, and Inam Hussain, 47, weren’t qualified or experienced in construction, demolition or refurbishment work, nor were they licensed to remove asbestos. Despite repeated visits from HSE inspectors and numerous enforcement notices warning them of their failings, the brothers continued to refurbish the building and disturb asbestos material – putting workers at risk. A prohibition notice was issued on 17 February 2012, stopping all work with, or liable to disturb, asbestos. A ‘direction to leave undisturbed' was also issued for the building until HSE had provided written confirmation that work could continue. Several lorry-loads of waste contaminated with asbestos were removed from the site and taken to an unlicensed waste disposal site in Stoke-on-Trent. Workers were also witnessed exiting the site covered in dust and not wearing the correct protective clothing. A further prohibition notice and an improvement notice were served on Akram Hussain on 25 February 2012. A separate prohibition notice was served on Inam Hussain on 18 May 2012 for the non-licensed removal of asbestos from the building. An asbestos survey was later carried out, but work inside the building continued to disturb materials containing asbestos. The court heard that HSE is aware of at a least seven workers being exposed to asbestos in the building. Many more could have been exposed during the course of the refurbishment project. Akram Hussain and Inam Hussain both pleaded guilty to safety breaches. Akram Hussain was given a custodial sentence of 22 months and was ordered to pay costs of £43,000. Inam Hussain was given a custodial sentence of 14 months. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lindsay Hope, said: "The Hussains have shown a willful disregard for the health and safety of workers and others. "Our investigation uncovered a catalogue of serious errors, safety failings and disregard of the laws around the safe and correct removal of asbestos. "This was an appalling case of failing to properly plan, manage and resource this project, which led to workers being exposed to risks to their health from asbestos." Director in court after inspection reveals lack of basic welfare HSE has said that the case of a building firm director, prosecuted after the health of workers was put at risk, should act as a warning to other companies and directors. Roland Couzens, 67, from Macclesfield, was prosecuted by HSE after it emerged bricklayers, plasterers and a roofer could have suffered skin burns or lead poisoning as there was no hot water to wash off dust and contaminants, despite the need for hot water being highlighted in the company's construction plan. Trafford Magistrates' Court heard on 22 August that Mr Couzens, a director at CSC Construction Ltd, had been overseeing a project to refurbish a row of Victorian terraced houses on Ashton Old Road in Openshaw between May and September 2013. The company, which has since gone into administration, had been stripping the houses bare before plastering them and fitting them with new kitchens and bathrooms. HSE carried out an inspection of the site on 4 September 2013 and found that one of the vacant properties was being used for the site office and to provide welfare facilities for the workers. However, there was no hot or warm water supply in either the kitchen or bathroom. The court was told that bricklayers and plasterers were put at risk of suffering skin burns as they were working with cement and plaster but could not use hot water to clean themselves. A roofer working with lead could also have suffered lead poisoning from residues on his skin. Mr Couzens admitted to visiting the site several times a week during the project but failing to provide a hot water supply until after the HSE inspection. Roland Couzens, of Sugar Lane in Rushton Spencer, near Macclesfield, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £3,102 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Matt Greenly, said: "There were around a dozen people working on the site every day so it's astonishing that they were without hot water for more than three months. Mr Couzens was brought in to oversee the project, including the health and safety of workers, but he failed to ensure this basic legal requirement was met. "The houses were taken back to brick before being completely renovated so there were large amounts of dust, as well as the risk of workers suffering skin burns or lead poisoning from the components in the building materials. "This case should act as a warning to companies and directors that we will not hesitate to prosecute if they do not act to ensure the health and safety of their employees."