Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: a guide for employers
Page 49
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
9. Summing up the series
by John Darker, AmBim
ALTHOUGH many transport managers yawn when the subject of health and safety of employees is introduced, the impact of the new legislation will, before long, have a considerable bearing on the costs of operations.
All forms of transport involve an element of risk both to passengers and goods and to those who drive or pilot the means of conveyance. Freight transport, by its nature, involves those handling, stowing and securing goods, and the many stores and warehouse personnel involved at the start or finish of any transport operation, in a degree of risk which can be materially reduced by prudent management.
The many new products in use in vehicle repair and maintenance workshops and the everincreasing range of chemical products which are now moved, both in bulk and in small units, by road, compel those concerned in management and supervision, as well as those who actually handle products as operatives, to do so as safely as possible.
The new Act imposes many extra general duties on employers, it does not remove, cancel or affect any existing legislation such as the Factories Act or the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. Five million people hitherto not covered by legislative rules on health and safety are covered for the first time They include workers employed in the housing, washing and minor running repairs of vehicles, and even cloakroom, left luggage room and other attendants and cleaners. Activities such as collection and disposal of refuse, yard maintenance, even window cleaning are covered for the first time.
Inevitably, since safety is a more dramatic subject than health, the greatest stress has been placed In my recent series of articles on sensible precau tions to avoid accidents, but positive health-promotion ideas are likely to stem from the Health and Safety Commission.
The great variety of premises used in road transport, and in distribution generally will, in time, be visited by inspectors responsible to the Commission.
I have little doubt that increasingly higher standards of premises and equipment will be insisted upon, either by the inspectors in the coarse of their routine visits, or in response to pressure from employees.
As an example of what may be called for in workshops I can cite a personal experience from a recent visit to a splendid new College of Further Education in Kent. Here, there is a modern vehicle workshop, with pits, and plenty of testing equipment. At either end of the workshop there are new sliding doors.
Escape routes
Although this workshop facility, used for training motor vehicle 'apprentices, and others, has been erected only within the past five years, anticipated safety precautions have recently been incorporated at very considerable expense. Additional dears have been provided at both ends of the workshop to provide easier and quicker exits than the sliding doors, and in the tiled pits, as modern as anything I have been in the road haulage industry, a new door has been cut to provide a quick escape route. Additionally, part of the heavy expandedmetal flooring above the pit has been hinged, over a small area, so that anyone in the pit can lift this and make a rapid escape in the event of fire or explosion.
Comparing what has been thought necessary at this Kent workshop, where probably no more than a dozen people will ever be working, with some socalled " pits " in the more primitive repair premises to be seen around the country, it is not difficult to imagine the expense some employers may soon be required to incur as a condition of staying in business.
When the scope of safety representatives is defined by the Commission shortly it is expected that they will be given facilities to 'inspect work areas at least every three months and whenever there is a notifiable accident or dangerous occurrence. They are likely to be authorised to examine any relevant documents on health and safety and the Trades Union Congress anticipates that safety representatives will enter a record of inspections in the register maintained by employers, and sign it.
It seems likely that safety representatives in road transport companies may desire to visit the scene of accidents or incidents occurring away from their home base. The implications of this will not be lost on employers; certainly, if an incident justifies a visit by a transport manager or supervisor, it would not be surprising if the safety committee expects one of its number to go along as well.
In terms of common-sense advice on sensible precautions in the work situation, the TUC's Health and Safety at Work, price 25p, available from the TUC, Congress House, Great Russell Street, London WC1B 3LS, cannot be bettered. Many chapters, such as "Dangers to the skin," are particularly relevant in road haulage, where cuts and grazes through handling sharp-edged products, or in body-building or repair work shop, are a constant risk, ,
Cost of skin trouble
How many people know that skin troubles alone account for over 900,000 lost working days a year At a cost to the Health Service of over £50m? Or that the total skin area of the average man is 100 sq ft ? This chapter details precautions in handling mineral oils, solvents and epoxy resins etc. It does not mince words, and contains much sensible advice on the risk of contamination through oilsoaked overalls, not least, the risk of scrotal cancer, dermatitis or oil acne.
Accidents caused in lifting are an obvious hazard in road transport work. There are still a few old road hauliers who have 'lifted 280 lb sacks, and thought little of it, but the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists recommends a maximum weight to be lifted of 120 lb and the laternabional Labour Office between 80 and 110 lb as a maximum, varying with age and physique.
Some experts suggest—I quote from the TUC Guide44 lb as the limit for men of 16-18 years ; 55 lb for men of 20-35 years and a limit of 35 lb for men over 50. Women of 16-18 should carry no more than 26 lb and if over 50, 22 lb, whilst the limit for women of 20-35 yeasts should be 33 lb. For regular and frequc handling, the TUC sugge these figures should be reduc by 25 per cent and that worla expected to carry heavier lea should be specially selected a trained. Some unions ha agreed maximum weights wi the appropriate managemeru In case these limits set absurdly Tow, it is pointed o that the maximum load pi mitted in France for youngstE (16-18) is 22 lb for females al 44 lb for males. In the US the limit for women 'and you people is 25 lb, in Germany . lb and the USSR 46 lb. In ti UK there are no regulations this character to protect worm and young people. Should the be?
Supplying clothing
In Belgium, a law h receraly been passed saying th employers must supply 4 workers with a full set of wcs clothes, and even headgear as footwear will be designed Government approved standard Practice in the United States that workers change workwea on average, more than twice week.
It appears that " wet-washed overalls only remove 50 per cer of oil contamination. Henc ideally, three sets of overal: are needed which should 'be dr cleaned, and a clean pair use at least once a week.
Although 14.4 per tent of a accidents happen to feet an tees, resulting in over thre minim last working days, on! 20 per tent of workers in th UK wear safety footwear an of 'this it is claimed that 91 per cent is privately bought often through schemes sub sidised .by employers. Contras this with the Continent; when 90 per cent of protective foot wear is purchased by companies and issued free to thei workers. Now that British toad( unions and Labour ,politiciaru are to play a full role in tla Economic and Social Committal of the EEC is it not likely tha: comparisons will he made Wages and conditions agree merits may be supplemented before long, with safety code: specifying the free issue o protective clothing, includinl
There was a specific proposal during the Committee stages of the Bill calling for employers to provide protective clothing. It was defeated on the grounds that s.2(2)(a) of the Act imposing on employers a general duty to ensure "the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health" was sufficient. The Secretary of State has power under section 15 (Schedule 3, pare 11) to impose requirements with respect to the provision and use in specified circumstances of protective clothing and equipment, including clothing affording protection against the weather.
Taking the Health and Safety at Work Act as a whole, most employers will be anxious to keep out of trouble with the law whilst spending the minimum of money. The risks if nothing is done may appear minimal ; a thousand or so inspectors cannot visit every employing establishment frequently. A few serious accidents in any industry are likely to attract attention, with a larger than average number of visiting inspectors.
As stressed on several occasions, health and safety are now the joint concern of employers and workers. What is accepted as reasonable and practicable in the larger, richer firms, may be expected to seep down, relatively quicker, to smaller firms.
The most difficult problem of all for employers will be to decide how far to go in safety and health and to apportion responsibility for safe operations. The law provides for a fine not exceeding £400 on summary conviction, while for conviction on indictment (le after trial in a higher court such as a Crown Court) there is no limit to the monetary penalty that may be imposed. Anyone consistently contravening any of the relevant statutory provisions may face up to two years imprisonment and/or a fine, and with a continuing offence a funther fine of £50 a day can be imposed. Directors, managers and operatives are liable to prosecution, as is clearly spelt out in S.37.
The relevant words in 5.37 on the question of responsibility by companies refer to offences committed with the "consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity." In this event "he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."