IntroductionThis the safe storage, handling and use

Published by admin on

IntroductionThis report will discuss the role of compliance of all working within the current Health and Safety legislation. The discussion will outline a number of current legislations and roles and responsibilities of those involved. Two engineering environments (College and Devonport dockyard) will be compared to understand the application of the law. This will be further supported by the role of management and consequences of failure in compliance. Overview Both employers and employees/students have a duty of care  within in the engineering environment to support the Health and Safety work Act 1974  ( 2017). Employers have the responsibility to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of all employees/students who work for the company. This can be maintained by supplying safe plant and safe systems for operational tasks. The employer also has the duty of care to supply reasonable/appropriate machinery, equipment and substances to be used. Employers are also required to provide safe access and egress to the workplace. Moreover the safe storage, handling and use of dangerous substances needs to be observed and provided, this will further help to reduce any potential harm for the employees/students. This is supported by the employer providing comprehensive training to maintain employee/students knowledge of Health and Safety.Employees/students have the duty to ensure due diligence is maintained throughout work/training activities. This covers taking ‘reasonable care’ to avoid potential harm to themselves and others. Its vital that employees co-operate and embrace the employer’s health and safety ethos. It’s their responsibility to not interfere with any equipment provided to help protect their health, safety and welfare. There are a number of legislations in place to support both the employer and employee/students with their responsibilities:’Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (amended 2003) ( 2017)’: This aids employers in outlining risks and the reasonable assessments that need to be implemented to cover this aspect. Employers are also required to make sure emergency procedures policies are in place. Moreover adequate training needs to be provided and performance management implemented when required. The production of risk assessments helps employees/students understand area of potential harm, and breeds an atmosphere of due diligence surrounding safe working practices. This coincides with employees/students completing operations within the training parameters provided. ‘Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 ( 2017)’: This places reasonable care on employers to make sure that the workplace is safe and suitable for the tasks being carried out, and that it does not present risks to employees and others. This is broken down further into key aspects within the workplace: ‘Maintenance of equipment and services, ventilation, temperature within the workplace,lighting, cleanliness and waste materials, room dimensions and space, workstations and seating, workfloor condition and routes, falls or falling objects, windows and transparent or translucent doors, gates or walls, skylights and ventilation, welfare facilities (restrooms, dining area, seating, changing area and drinking water)’. This aids the Employer in understanding the responsibility that have to provide the above provisions and maintaining a safe workplace. With regards to employees/students this increases their understanding of their entitlements and how to use the facilities provided correctly, to further support completing operations alongside current legislation. ‘Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 ( 2017)’: Covers the correct use of mechanical and manual lifting procedures. It also identifies three ranking classifications for dealing with risks in this area. The classifications are known as First (avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable), Second (assess any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided) and Third (reduce the risk of injury so far as is reasonably practicable). It’s the employer’s responsibility to provide sufficient and comprehensive training on this area to all employees. To maintain a consistent approach to manual handling operations employers should complete regular observations/reviews and provide constructive training plans as required. Employees/students have a duty of care to demonstrate correct practices and review training if unsure. ‘Personal Protection at Work Regulation 1992 ( 2017)’: Employers have the responsibility to provide the correct provisions to support safe working. Personal Protective equipment ‘(overalls,eye protection,hearing protection,safety gloves, safety boots etc.)’ must be supplied to all workers to reduce the exposure to harm from machinery and chemicals.  Employees/students have the responsibility to wear the equipment provided and maintain their own PPE. It is vital that all defects and faults are reported accordingly. ‘Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998 ( 2017)’ : Insures the controlling of risks from equipment has been implemented to minimise exposure. This comes in the many form such as correct signage, risk assessments and training on workplace risks for all.  It is the responsibility of employees/students to adhere to the controls/signage, and maintain them when operating equipment. Moreover employees/students are responsible for attending training courses and seek further guidance when required. ‘Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 ( 2017)’: Insures safety parameters are in place to reduce forms of ergonomic strain (eye strain). Employers are also required provide the correct equipment (adjustable seating,keyboards, adjustable desks, screen resolutions, adjustable blinds) Employers also are required by this regulation to review current procedures/equipment if changes are made to operations,therefore it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure updates are completed. Employees/students must adhere to break timing to reduce their own exposure and use the equipment provided to them. Employees also need to be aware of the symptoms of strain and take actions themselves, i.e taking breaks, using adjustable blinds to alter glare and interior lighting. ‘The Electricity at work Regulations 1989 ( 2017)’ was introduced to insure control measures are in place for the machinery that requires an electrical source. The regulation requires all portable equipment to be regularly tested (12 monthly is common practice). Inspections are also required which are broken down into 3 processes. These processes are called Visual inspection (looking for damage to cable,plug, casing and loose components), Earth continuity test (tests for earth continuity between plug and connected devices) and insulation test ( checking for cable weaknesses and unseen faults). The  legislation ensures employers complete consistent checks on electrical equipment by a qualified electrical engineers. Furthermore all portable devices are required to be PAT tested to aid in supporting safer working environment, as part of the review period. Employers also need to keep records of tested devices to support any inspections from outside bodies. Employees/ students are responsible for highlighting defects they find and ensuring the device is not used until the issue has been resolved. Furthermore employees/students are responsible for using electrical devices in the correct manner, with the training they have been provided.’Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) ( 2017)’: outlines the correct parameters for companies to report any accident (which could cause death or serious injury) within the workplace in accordance with regulations 4-6. Industrial diseases are also required to be reported under this regulation, alongside with any dangerous occurrences (near miss with the potential to cause harm). Employers are responsible for implementing a constructive reporting system and providing training for employees to access the system when required. Moreover Employers need to review reports to aid in the implementation of more rigid control areas. These reports help employers understand increased risk areas and can therefore provide relevant training when required. Employees/ students have the responsibility to use the system correctly and be honest in the report they file. Inaccurate information could lead to the implementation of incorrect control measures. ‘Control of Substances Hazardous to Health 2002 (COSHH) Regulation ( 2017)’: outlines the safety measures that need to be considered for all employees/students, who come in contact with hazardous substances. The regulation requires risk assessments to completed on these substances, and safety controls to be implemented. Employers are responsible for reviewing risk assessments and control measures. Moreover they need to provide constructive training on COSHH to all employees. Employees/students are responsible for using hazardous substances in accordance with the training provided. Two engineering environmentsThe above legislation applies to every individual who works within the engineering area of the Devonport Dockyard and Plymouth City College. It is key to note that the nature of an learning environment usually breeds more controlled conditions, due to the decreased number of extraneous variables within the workshop. For example there are no moving vehicles which could cause harm unlike the Devonport Dockyard. Regulations such as COSHH will be more controlled in this area due to the decreased number of hazardous substances. In comparison the Devonport dockyard will have more exposure to hazardous substances due to the increased scale of operation. For example the dockyard will provide more training to employees who work with nuclear materials. Moreover the Dockyard will have more safety procedures in place to support this, and will complete more regular reviews (good practice). It is clear to see that the scale and scope of engineering environments increases the roles and responsibilities of those who work in this area. This does not mean that the regulations do not apply, it suggests that each one brings a different depth and criteria depending on the size of the environment. Increased scales and scope on the professional level brings more audits (Regulation 3)and risk assessments to be completed by Health and safety officers within the establishment, that are ‘suitable and sufficient’. This is considered as evidence of ‘good practice’, as it enables written documents to be created in line with HSC approved code of Practices (ACOPs), which aids in the promotion of compliance. The college has one HSE for the whole establishment, whereas the Devonport Dockyard has a number of teams in place to support safe working within the engineering environment. The differences in the size of teams shows the increased number of risk within the Dockyard and the constructive controls in place to support employees and compliance with Health and Safety. Furthermore more emphasis will be placed on the information gained from RIDDOR documentation within the Dockyard due to the number of extraneous variables and operations that happen daily. The reports aid HS department in highlighting any issues within current operations and support management in creating effective risk assessments and facilitates the planning of review periods (Regulation 5). These reports also highlight any training needs in place and will enable management to ensure their teams are compliant with Dockyard training policy.  Compared to the college RIDDOR (oshens) will have less entries into due to the controlled conditions that are implemented within the learning environment.Management need to be aware of the consequences of not abiding to Health and Safety legislation within the engineering environment and span their authority accordingly. The first is the potential for imprisonment for individuals who fail implement correct Health and Safety controls. The prosecutions would be heard in the Magistrates Court or Crown Court.  This would be very damaging to both the College and Devonport Dockyard as it would greatly impact their reputation and potential for future business, through the publicity that such court cases attract. This can attract expensive lawsuits (court costs) and heavy fines (£20,000 on average) for failure to implement correct controls and training. Directors of the company could disqualified from holding their position, this is dependent on the case. Another key consequence is the potential for the loss of an employee through death or serious injury as a result of management negligence. This could result in the movement through a company’s disciplinary process, with the possibility of losing their job. Moreover the manager in question could face ‘corporate manslaughter’ charges depending on the severity (death). This can cause more financial unrest as employees may seek to personally sue the company,’ see appendix 1 for case study’. Additionally the company could face increased costs in wages through subcontractors being employed to supplement skill disparities. Some employees may choose to leave the business as as a result of poor management. This can greatly decrease the skill base of the team and hinder innovation within the business.  Moreover when an incident happens more HSE investigations could occur and could highlight more issues. If these issues are not rectified it could see the investigator suspend business until ‘good practice’ is achieved (companies have 21 days to resolve breach). This could greatly impact team morale in the long run and damage the overall production, resulting in loss of revenue. Its is key that businesses adhere to the suspension of operations, as more fines can be issued if a breach has been evidenced.ConclusionTo conclude employers can satisfy the legislation in given Health and Safety situation incident by completing regular audits on risk assessments to ensure they are ‘sufficient and suitable’ (regulation 3,the regulations’). This will aid in the evidence of ‘Good practice’ which will satiate current legislation. This also ties in with the needs of management to adapt with engineering innovation. This requires management to utilise ‘reasonable practicability’ when developing training plans and clear reviewment periods, to ensure the safety of employees and of those completing activities (sections 2&3, HSWA 1974). Moreover Employers are must give effective arrangement to appropriate planning,organising,control,monitoring of preventive and protective measures (regulation 5, the regulations). Companies are required to maintain documents in the case of a potential audit. Consistency with the above points will further aid in satisfying the legislation in given and health situations, and help reduce risks within the workplace. Additionally it aids both companies and educational establishments display ‘duty of care’ to all of its employees and operations. This has positive effect in building morale based on safe working operations, and can greatly aid in increasing employee retention rate.  A hypothetical example incident within babcock has been discussed below:Incident: Employee cuts their finger as a result of using wrong manual handling techniques and not using the correct PPE (gloves) within the workshop. The Manager delegated the task and placed great emphasis on speed. This resulted in the manager observing failure to comply with manual handling techniques and did not correct the issue before the incident occured. Additionally the process was not reported correctly. The employee felt neglected and decided to sue the company.Employee Consequence: The employee will have sick time until the injury has been healed. The individual could face a number of symptoms such as stress from the incident as a result financial difficulties. Following the employees return to work, Occupational Health will assess their fitness to work within their given area. This could further cement more stress as the individual could be moved to another job, which does not interest them.  Legislation breached:  Manual Handling and lifting Operations,’Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Personal Protection at Work Regulation 1992 and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.Babcock Consequence: The babcock would now face an investigation from the Health and Safety Executive. This officer will gather information from all witness of the event and the RIDDOR log,  to aid in the complying of the report. The report will detail the failure within the control systems and will seek to find new controls to prevent another incident.  Additionally Babcock in the interim will have to pay subcontractors to supplement the missing skill base. There is the possibility for the employee involved in the incident to leave the business, further reducing technical competencies. Legislation breached:  Manual Handling,lifting Operations, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Personal Protection at Work Regulation 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998, Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR).Management Consequence:  The manager could face disciplinary action as a result of their failure to complete the constructive observations and training. There is the potential financial cost implication if the employee decided to sue the manager personally as a result of the negligence displayed. Moreover this individual could face psychological symptoms from the guilt and movement through the disciplinary process. Legislation breached:  Manual Handling and lifting Operations, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Personal Protection at Work Regulation 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998 and Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.Health and Safety officer Consequence: Following the severity of the incident the Health and Safety officer attended the workplace. During this period the relevant document was reviewed (risk assessments and RIDDOR logs). The evidence confirmed that no log was completed and there were consistent breaches in compliance. Consequently business was suspended until new control measures were implemented and substantive reporting system in place.Remedy: Introduction of constructive reporting system for incidents needs to be cemented into safety protocols. More training needs to be supplied with First aiders to complete reports immediately. This will satiate compliance with the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR).Management need to implement more regular training session on manual handling techniques. This is can be further piloted by regular observations of operations and PPE requirements. Issues observed by management need to be dealt with promptly to instill safety mentality. Additionally detailed training logs need to be implemented and maintained to understand skill progress and disapartties.This will satisfy the following breaches within legislation: Manual Handling and lifting Operations, Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Personal Protection at Work Regulation 1992, Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulation 1998 and Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR) and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.The risk assessment needs to be updated to provide evidence of new control measures and support due diligence. The new assessment needs to be published and made accessible to all employees. Additionally, Management could get all employees to sign a document to acknowledge them understanding risk exposure within the workplace.  Moreover, the measure of control needs to be integrated into the standardised operating procedure to support the evolution of a safer working environment. By completing these tasks the following legislation would complemented:  Management of Health and

Categories: Case Study


I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out