Like any other bosses, hauliers have a duty of care
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
to their staff. And that doesn't simply mean ensuring trucks are in tip-top order —all employees must be safe in the workplace. As Pat Hagan found out, operators who flout the rules face stiff penalties...
• FIRST THE GOOD NEWS. Your chances of being killed in the course of your work are roughly half what they were 30 years ago, thanks in no small part to the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. The bad news is that if you're a truck driver, you're still top of the risk league.
According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, occupational drivers are just as likely to die on the job as coal miners, construction workers or farm workers. Its research suggests one in 12 of all drivers killed on Britain's roads are truck drivers. Whether an employee is behind the wheel of a 40-tonner or sharpening pencils back in the office, his health and safety is the legal responsibility of his employer.
Cultural change
Although there has been a cultural change in the way most employers view this responsibility, it's clear that many still fall short of their statutory obligations, or fail to understand the full extent of those obligations.
Most hauliers are no doubt confident they already fulfil their duties to staff under the terms of the Act, but in reality many don't. Even the biggest players, those who have the resources and the know-how to stay on the right side of the law, admit that they struggle to keep pace with the frequent changes in health and safety regulations.
This lack of understanding is a potential time bomb for the haulage industry, especially as the government has made it clear that it plans to come down hard on those who fall foul of the law. Earlier this year, for the first time, it announced targets for a reduction in work-related deaths, ill-health and injury which, combined, cost the British economy up totifilin a year.
The government wants to reduce the number of days lost from work-related injury and illhealth by 30% by the year 2010. By the same date it aims to slash cases of work-related ill-health by 20%, and to cut fatal incidents and major injuries by 10%.
Its plan is to use carrot-andstick tactics. The carrots include an occupational health strategy to combat work-related illnesses, with new help for small businesses, including piloting a health and safety grant and providing better targeted support.
The sticks include tougher penalties to deter health and safety breaches, including longer prison sentences for the very worst offences and the maximum £20,000 fine to be extended to a wider range of health and safety offences.
Other measures include the possibility of linking fines to company turnover; the suspension of managers without pay; and a director's code of practice which will make a named person responsible for health and safety matters within every company.
Every year 400 people are killed in accidents caused by work activities and around 25 million working days are lost as a result of work-related accidents and illhealth. More than 25,000 people are forced to give up work as a result of work-related accidents and ill-health.
Although magistrates can only impose a maximum £20,000 fine, if a criminal prosecution is referred to a jury trial at Crown Court, bosses can find themselves being jailed for up to two years for the most serious breaches. And it's not just the top brass who can be up before the courts. The law recognises that employees also have a responsibility to comply with health and safety rules and, if an inspection reveals they have been negligent, they can be held liable.
The whole process of improving health and safety begins with a risk assessment. This is where the employer carries out a detailed analysis of all the potential risks, not just to staff but to any subcontractors or third parties who are likely to be visiting the site.
Specific changes
This assessment must identify the specific dangers to each group of workers, as well as the general risks. For drivers, for example, it might include exposure to diesel fumes, but for office workers the potential for back pain or eye strain from sitting at a computer all day is more of an issue.
Once the written assessment has been completed, detailed plans must be drawn up for how the firm intends to minimise the risk and the assessment should be frequently reviewed.
Part of the problem with health and safety in the haulage industry is the sheer diversity of jobs. Even small-to-medium sized operations might have office, warehouse and workshop staff as well as drivers. It's also likely that many firms fail to recognise that things they think of as occupational hazards are covered by the law.
For example, exposure to diesel fumes is generally regarded as something that goes with being a truck driver. But under the COSHH regulations—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health—all businesses have a duty to minimise those risks.
Breathing in diesel fumes can affect health and exposure to the fumes can cause irritation of the eyes or respiratory tract. Although these effects are generally harmless in the short term, there is some evidence that repeated exposure to diesel fumes over a period of about 20 years might increase the risk of lung cancer. Exposure to petrol engine exhaust emissions does not have the same risk.
The Health and Safety Executive advises drivers who think their health is being affected by diesel fumes to tell their employer or the company's safety representative and consult a doctor.
The COSHH regulations state that bosses must take the necessary steps to prevent or control exposure to fumes within the workplace.
The regulations include the following advice to drivers: "Where exposure cannot be prevented, your employer will need to consider the use of a combination of specific control measures including: • Workplace air extraction fans; • The use of tailpipe exhaust extraction systems; • The use of filters attached to exhaust tailpipes; • Catalytic converters; • General measures such as turning off engines when not required, keeping doors and windows open where practicable and installing air vents in the walls and ceiling!"
It adds: "Your employer should only provide respiratory protective equipment as a last resort when other means of control are not suitable."
HSE survey
A recent HSE survey showed that nearly three out of four firms had implemented the COSHH regulations properly—but conversely that means that many hadn't. More than 5,000 enforcement notices have been issued to firms of all kinds since the regulations took effect in the early 1990s.
The HSE says: "If you are finding it difficult to cope with COSHH, please contact us (or your local authority) and we will do our best to help. On the other hand, if you are deliberately neglecting your responsibilities, don't expect us to turn a blind eye—we won't" Prosecutions for breaches of COSHH have produced average fines of around .C690 per offence, and £1,200 per employer. An increasing proportion of prosecutions have been for failure to pro vide adequate information, instruction and training to employees working with hazardous substances.
For office staff, the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 require that employers must minimise the risks of desktop computer work by ensuring that workplaces and jobs are well designed. Workers who use computers all the time are covered, but those who use them only occasionally are not Employers have to make sure staff have equipment like adjustable chairs and suitable lighting, and must also plan for them to have regular breaks.
If a computer worker requests an eye test, the firm must arrange it and provide spectacles if special ones are needed.
For accidents and emergencies, there must be a suitably stocked first-aid box and an appointed person to take charge of first-aid arrangements. Bosses also have a duty to ensure staff are not suffering undue stress. The HSE warns those who don't could be leaving themselves open to compensation claims from employees who have suffered ill-health from work-related stress.
And even drivers working on their own for days on end—sometimes hundreds, even thousands of miles from bas—are still the firm's responsibility. The HSE states: "It is the employer's duty to assess risks to lone workers and take steps to avoid or control risk where necessary."
For warehouse staff and drivers, the dangers often lie in loading and unloading. In December 1996 Bobby Bell, a driver with Cumbria-based AD Reyes, died instantly when his cargo slipped and crushed him as he tried to unload it. His employer was found to be blameless.
Safe systems
The HSE advises firms to make sure loading and unloading activities are carried out using safe systems of work on ground that is fiat, firm and free from pot-holes. Vehicles must be braked and/or stabilised as appropriate to prevent unsafe movements during loading and unloading operations. Also, ensure that the load is spread evenly to avoid the vehicle or trailer becoming unstable.
David Bell, director of safety and environment with Exel Europe—a company with 25,000 staff—says although it has wellestablished health and safety systems and the staff to enforce them, the company still struggles to keep track of the regulations.
"The spirit of the law is good and the direction of the law is good," he says. "But I would like to see a little bit more guidance from people like the HSE and local authorities."
Bell fears that environmental health officers, who used to provide advice and tips on preventing problems, are now under growing pressure to secure more prosecutions.
"There's pressure on them to improve performance," he says. "They seem less willing to help with advice and guidance."