Application of Health and Safety

[mikienorth]

As I say often here in the Blue room, my history is in the, frankly, dangerous mad world of the construction industry, and especially in short term shopfitting contracting.

 

In this industry there is a basic right and responsibility of the Site Agent, who is the person in overall control of what happens on a site, and is not responsible for employing everyone on there, as some may be direct contractors for the client, to be able to refuse access to a site if a contractor, or one of their subcontractors is not wearing the correct PPE.

PPE is a permanent feature of the construction industry, as it is the only way to make a risk acceptable in many cases.

 

To sum up, if the subcontractor of a company not hired by the company the site agent works for, turns up a that agent's site without, for example a hard hat, ot a pair of safety boots, or even, god forbid, a hi-viz jacket, the site agent is duty bound to refuse them access to their site. He has no duty to provide the PPE, nor would the company who hired the subcontractor.

 

Now substitute site agent for venue, direct contractor for visiting company, and subcontractor for freelance crew.

 

Should a recieving venue have the right to refuse access to visiting companies and freelance crew if they are not wearing/providing the PPE requested, and the signs requesting the wearing are displayed within the venue, and are the same as make the above on a site happen?

 

I know this would make working very difficult quite often, but I have seen a couple of near misses where this level of control would have made the near miss less of an event, and also would have avoided a few injuries.

Hard hats and Boots, during an in and out, should in my opinion be mandatory, and any person not wearing them should be denied the right to work, as it is dangerous. If you are your own employer, you have to provide your own, I used to have to when I was self employed in construction.

 

What do you think, should this sort of thing be implemented?

Or is it implementable in the way I see the arrangements above, after all if someone dies in the recieving venue, it is not the company that they worked for that recieves the (inital) bad press and investigation, it is the venue.

 

I await your answers, as I am sure you will all be able to clarify my thinking.

 

Edited: Could a moderator please sort out my shocking typo in the title please? Sorry.

[Brian]

Should a recieving venue have the right to refuse access to visiting companies and freelance crew if they are not wearing/providing the PPE requested, and the signs requesting the wearing are displayed within the venue, and are the same as make the above on a site happen?

 

It's not a question of having a right. In law, under the HSWA 1974, all employers and employees have a number of general duties duties in respect of their own and others H&S...

 

General duties of persons concerned with premises to persons other than their employees.

4. (1) This section has effect for imposing on persons duties in relation to those who

 

(A) are not their employees; but

(B) use non-domestic premises made available to them as a place of work or as a place where they may use plant or substances provided for their use there,

and applies to premises so made available and other non-domestic premises used in connection with them.

 

(2) It shall be the duty of each person who has, to any extent, control of premises to which this section applies or of the means of access thereto or egress therefrom or of any plant or substance in such premises to take such measures as it is reasonable for a person in his position to take to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the premises, all means of access thereto or egress therefrom available for use by persons using the premises, and any plant or substance in the premises or, as the case may be, provided for use there, is or are safe and without risks to health.

 

General duties of employees at work.

7. 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; and

(B) as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

 

 

The issue would be if the incoming company's risk assessment did not call for PPE but the venue's did. That is where an arguement would centre. Since PPE is only mandatory in some cases (COSHH Regulations, Docks Regualtions etc) the provision of PPE in other cases is as a result of assessment. Whose RA would take precedence?

[mikienorth]

Thankyou Brian, I remember the second quote from my own, basic H&S training, but the other point is, from what I understand of it, the justification for what happens on a construction site.

Is PPE mandatory on a construction site? I have, again, beeen on many where it is not made a big thing of after a certain time on the site has passed, but until that date the circumstances I describe above take place.

Which way would other people here take the argument? I shall have to double check this but I am pretty sure that in the technical pack our venue sends out, a request is made for incoming companies to supply and wear hard hats at least. In many instances they are provided by the company incoming, but never worn, just left in a road case. I have also been on a show where this was the case, the hats were toured but never used. If a company provides them they should be used, am I right?

If, as I think the case is, we request the wearing of them, maybe we would be in a better position to argue the point further, but I shall have to check this out.

[Brian]

Is PPE mandatory on a construction site?

 

In some cases yes.

 

For instance...

The Construction (Head Protection) Regulations 1989

 

Provision, maintenance and replacement of suitable head protection

    3.—(1)  Every employer shall provide each of his employees who is at work on operations or works to which these Regulations apply with suitable head protection and shall maintain it and replace with whenever necessary.

 

    (2)  Every self-employed person who is at work on operations or works to which these Regulations apply shall provide himself with suitable head protection and shall maintain it and replace it whenever necessary.

 

Ensuring suitable head protection is worn

    4.—(1)  Every employer shall ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that each of his employees who is at work on operations or works to which these Regulations apply wears suitable head protection, unless there is no foreseeable risk of injury to his head other than by his falling.

 

    (2)  Every employer, self-employed person or employee who has control over any other person who is at work on operations or works to which these Regulations apply shall ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that each such other person wears suitable head protection, unless there is no foreseeable risk of injury to that other person's head other than by his falling.

 

Other Regulations to look at are...

 

The Noise At Work Regulations 1989

 

The Control of Substances Harzardous to Health Regulations 1988

[techsupport]

Is PPE mandatory on a construction site?

In some cases yes.

 

As far as I can see on all sites I have been to it is, if you are working, you can not even get on site without it. The HASAW 1974 is always the key to all of this Safety subject. It is deliberately obscure and wide ranging. (as are other Statutory documents re Safety). Generally H&S is common sense and when reviewing a house rule a certain amount of leeway can easily be applied.

 

I give an example from a major construction project I was involved with. At Barking Reach on the Thames they built a power station, This was a £400M turnkey project and I was providing temp power for the initial commissioning of the Main control room. I managed to secure this contract even though I am not a qualified electrician. The induction for site H&S said "If you are found on site without a hard hat you would be fired" but our instructor then told us what this really was saying.

 

"If you are found on site without a hard hat anywhere where you are risk of a head injury which would ruin my sites safety record and possibly stop construction..... you would be fired... even if you were dead"

 

he then went on to say this is a safe site but use your common sense if you are inside and working on something where there is no risk of serious head injury, (working in a ups panel, or wiring a cabinet) then take your hat off and put it back on before you have to somewhere else.

 

In the Venue

 

So when the riggers are in the roof then all personel below should have hats on, however if you are down in the basement tying in the tails then no hat required... but put it back on before you move upstairs.

 

At Earls Court they cordon off the area under the riggers for the load out. You can not enter this area unless you are on the rigging team, with a hat. I worked for years in the sound business and when I was flying out the PA I would always call out in a loud voice "Sound moving SL" and not let anyone walk under it as it moved.

 

Considering the amount of shows we did over all the years, all over the world, we must have had a lot off common sense cause we certainly did not have many rules. There are few accidents amongst production crew in the touring R&R business. I don't know about Theatre.

 

Most people who made a career out of touring either in Theatre or R&R survived the dangerous enviroment they worked in simply by using ther brains and applying simple common sense.

Nobody wore PPE, riggers did what they wanted, if the band wanted 1000 pars we put them in. I remember Mr Stewart at Brighton Centre we flew the whole PA because the riggers mum was coming to the show, not for the sound but for the look. It did look good the, old TFA turbo system.

 

With regards to boots they had to be steel shanked at Barking Reach because of the danger of not only crushing but piercing injuries. You were allowed as a temp to use regular steels as long as you did not leave the pathways. if you ignored this simple advice you risked stepping on something very sharp covered in rat pee..... Weils disease.. Nasty

 

So,.. common sense prevailed we stayed on the paths and only took our hats off when safe.

 

If I do a project, I prepare Risk assessment, Method statement and Operation schedule. Then I have all this approved, the client then provides the permit to work. The work is done as prescribed, it is witnessed and signed off by the client. I would not do any project works without the correct forms and clients authority If you do the above you have provided Duty of Care and Due diligence

Plus...... this a big one, you are keeping within the terms of your Insurance policy.

 

 

I have posted before about where to find The H&S law so no more of that, but you guys seem to know whats what.. I have read a lot of your recent posts. I think after all the rambling above, my point is we have all been doing the bits required under the Act for years, the thing is now people want us to write it all down! You need to teach your people to use their brains and their common sense. Then they will be safe.

 

Some of the recent posts on this board would appear to show an amazing lack of both!

 

Stay Safe

 

Cheers

techsupport

 

Moderation: Post tidied up and quote fixed.

[techsupport]

Is PPE mandatory on a construction site?

 

Let me ask another question or two, again broadly based to collect H&S opinions from the members.

 

1) Is Electrical Inspection and Test something you all undertake?

 

2) How do you treat incoming technical equipment with regard to the above?

 

thanks

techsupport

 

Stay safe

[mikienorth]

1) Is Electrical Inspection and Test something you all undertake?

 

2) How do you treat incoming technical equipment with regard to the above?

 

In our venue, periodic inspection and testing is carried out by an outside, NICEIC registered contractor, which both by who it is carried out by, and the fact it is carried out, is a stipulation of the Public entertainments License.

You must be a member of NICEIC or ECA to carry out PEL periodic testing, at least in every part of the UK I have both tested and worked in, and that's most of it.

Inspection and test of an electrical installation is carried out annually to comply with PEL requirements, and I think the frequency of inspection for a building used for public entertainment is stipulated as this in BS7671.

I do not undertake the inspection myself, although in the past I have carried out the same inspections, and have been trained to do so (C&G 2391/five year apprenticeship)

I do carry out PAT work, and am seen as competent by my employer to do so. Tests are recorded, and appliances labelled as tested.

 

In respect to incoming equipment, I believe, and shall have to check this, that it is the responsibility of the owner to supply equipment with certification of tests carried out (PAT). With hire companies the lack of obvious PAT labels is no reason to say they are untested, as the asset tracking systems used by larger companies will serve as a record of tests also.

In the 'Lighting and Electrics, time to separate?' Poll/Topic, my queries on where the temporary and Portable line would be drawn is made clear, but, as in factories, anything on the Load side of an Isolator, or that is plugged in, is not part of the installation, and therefore would be classed as portable?

However this is open to debate.

 

What is the thinking here on my original post?

Should access be made very difficult, admittedly, not all the time, to a stage if incorrect PPE is worn (old, damaged, not there) for the nature of work being carried out at the time, which would be get in/out, hard hat and boots at the minimum, due to overhead risks, and the, on larger shows, heavily crowded workplace along with heavy equipment being handled, which if not overhead is often taller than we are?

I think I may have just clarified my original query a little there, but I'm learning to be more concise...

[techsupport]

mikienorth,

 

 

Thanks for your response chap, I think I need to clarify the Inspection an Test bit.

This means in temp power "Quality Control" prior to shipment, and in installation it means testing to BS7671.

 

This is generic so please allow me some latitude. I am trying to see if the following argument is valid, or could be made vaild by adding additional controls.

 

When a building is put the electrical designer make an electrical plan.

This is verified as correct to 7671

Parts are delivered and the whole thing is put together as per plan.

The 2391 chap turns up to test the whole lot as prescribed in 7671.

Assuming all is well he issued the 7671 completion cert.

 

This is judged to provide the level of safety as required by the law.

 

 

All of the below assumes a competent person is responsible throughout.

 

When a event is set up in a space, (theate. venue or green field), a experienced production electrian makes a plan. The plan assumes Ze =0.35

This is verified as workable and safe in the shop

Pre tested parts and certified components are delivered.

All RCD or RCBO equipment is supplied with test certs.

This is all assembled on site to the plan.

Then a series of basic checks are carried out before energising a circuit.

1) Visual checks on all equipment

2) Earthing

Then circuit was energised and the following checked at all points of delivery

3) Voltage

4) Polarity

5) Operation

6) System is monitored throughout for excessive temp etc

 

The question is...

Does this method provide the same or similar level of safety as required by the law.

 

Or would this not be enough. What do you guys think.

 

Thanks

Stay SAFE

 

techsupport