INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OFRISK AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT

Visit our website at www.iirsm.orgIssue 06/2016

We must lead by example

Sovereign immunity, or Crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the Sovereign or State is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. While there are situations outside the health and safety arena where the status quo should remain, there are compelling reasons why Crown immunity should be abandoned in health and safety cases.

The Institute of Directors’ Vision of Leadership was a convincing document that focused on felt, visible leadership. It has become abundantly clear that no organisation can fully manage health and safety without commitment from the top.

Leaders need tools to compel: training, incentives, rewards, praise and, ultimately, sanctions. Arguably under the current system those employed by Crown departments cannot fully ensure health and safety, nor can they demonstrate true commitment to their colleagues or those affected by their actions.

A lack of visible leadership can impact morale, and makes it more diffi cult to learn from past health and safety failures. We only need to look at the public and private sectors to see how Crown departments

might use sanctions to encourage safer systems. It is clear that boards often listen, learn, and implement change in the aftermath of a fatality or serious injury. It should not only be because of fi nes or fear of prison but often that is the case.

Clearly, sanctions are not the only way to encourage commitment to health and safety. However, one cannot deny that economic impact infl uences businesses, and we cannot deny that sanctions have a role to play in helping to change unsafe behaviour. With ever-tightening budgets and no mechanism for sanctions, what exactly is the incentive for Crown departments to improve?

Unions gave evidence of six deaths of soldiers attributed to defence cuts, and we recently read of the soldier who died from excessive heat while training. There is, of course, a clear distinction between injury in the line of duty and injuries sustained during training. Even in the absence of sanctions, health and safety in training and working environments should not be neglected.

If Crown immunity in health and safety matters were to be abolished, one could

argue that sanctions would simply be a redistribution of funds from the Crown to the government. However, the advantage of losing funds from departmental budgets is that savings are less likely to be made at the expense of colleagues’ health, safety and welfare.

The UK is undeniably a global example of good practice in health and safety. In abolishing Crown immunity, we send the message that we are not immune from prosecution at any level. In essence, the Crown will prosecute itself. This sends a clear message about the importance of respecting the rule of law and criminal liability.

Liability should rest at the top, and those in roles of leadership should lead by example. It is our duty as health and safety practitioners to voluntarily accept the law of the land which applies to all sectors. If we take this opportunity to further protect workers, we could leave a legacy of greater transparency, conviction and a safer working environment.

CDM: when does a stage become a structure?

15INSIDE THIS ISSUE

Travis Perkins fi ned £2m after customer run over in yard

03 Management controls: following the paper trail

06 Australia’s miners see return of ‘black lung’

11

© is

tock

phot

o/ak

insh

in

What do you think? Join the debate in the IIRSM Group at www.LinkedIn.com

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 32

News Prosecutions

Chief executive Phillip PearsonHead of marketing and communicationsClare FlemingManaging editor Louis Wustemann

Editor Kellie Mundellkellie.mundell@lexisnexis.co.uk Designer Carrie Love

ADDRESSIIRSM, 77 Fulham Palace Road, London W6 8JA, UKTel +44 (0)20 8741 9100Fax +44 (0)20 8741 1349Website www.iirsm.orgEmail info@iirsm.org

Registered in England and WalesCharity No 1107666Company No 5310696

PUBLISHED BY LexisNexis © Reed Elsevier (UK) Limited 2016Printed by Headley Brothers Ltd, Kent

This publication is intended to be a general guide and cannot be a substitute for professional advice. Neither the authors nor the publisher accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of material contained in this publication.

Reproduction, copying or extracting by any means of the whole or part of this publication must not be undertaken without the written permission of the publishers.

ISSN 1746-1359

News Prosecutions

PUBLIC SAFETY

Pensioner hit by Co-op van

Supermarket chain The Co-operative Food Group has been fi ned £20,000 after admitting failing to protect its customers.

Bath and North East Somerset Council prosecuted the retailer after investigating the incident, which happened in January 2015. Edward Harris was entering the store from the car park through a gap in railings. As he walked past a van in its parking space next to the gap, it started to reverse and hit him, pushing him to the ground. The impact caused a hip fracture and he also developed complications, including two episodes of pneumonia and an acute kidney injury.

Bath Magistrates’ Court heard all customers had to use the gap in the railings to enter the store.

A delivery van was parked on a set of yellow hatchings to the right of the entrance, parallel to the front of the shop with its rear doors facing Harris. A set of bollards prevented it from driving out forwards.

Investigators revealed the van had no windows in its rear doors, no rear facing camera and the driver had no banksman to help him before he reversed into Harris.

The health and safety department of the council was notifi ed of the incident and found it was custom and practice for the store to park and load its delivery van in the yellow hatched area outside the front of the shop. The court was told the van had reversed in this way three or four times a day, six days a week over the last four years.

The council said there were “a number of shortcomings” in the Co-op’s working practices and that, if it had stopped the van parking by a pedestrian access route and reversing blindly across it, Harris would not have been injured.

The Co-op pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. In a statement, the company apologised to Harris and said the van now operates from a different location, which means it no longer needs to reverse. Other stores have carried out risk assessments and made necessary adjustments in procedures for physical access, it added.

WORK EQUIPMENT

McCain pays £800,000 over severed arm

● Worker lost fi ve pints of blood ● Risk assessment was fl awed, said Judge

Major frozen food manufacturer McCain Foods has been convicted of safety failings after an employee nearly lost his arm.

Peterborough Crown Court heard how the 34 year old worker was attempting to check the condition of the head roller on a bypass conveyor. While doing this, his arm became entangled in the machinery. It was left hanging on by the tendons, and he lost fi ve pints of blood. He has now returned to work, but the court heard he still suffers with nerve problems.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which happened on 21 August 2014, found that the conveyor did not have the correct guards fi tted.

An internal investigation, carried out after the accident, raised a number of other issues relating to guarding on other machines.

Judge Sean Enright heard the company has a very good safety record, and had acted very quickly to fi x the issues raised in the report.

But he said a risk assessment of the machine, carried out in 2013, was fl awed as it had not taken into account changes to the factory fl oor layout.

McCain Foods admitted to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, and was fi ned £800,000 with costs of £12,831.

An 88 year old customer was hit by a reversing home delivery vehicle while shopping at the store

WORKPLACE TRANSPORT

Travis Perkins fi ned £2m after customer deathBuilders’ merchant Travis Perkins has been fi ned £2 million after a customer was run over in the yard of its Milton Keynes store.

Mark John Pointer, 44, died after being crushed by a company vehicle at Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited in Old Wolverton in November 2012.

He had been loading planks of wood onto the roof rack of his Land Rover when one of the straps he was using snapped and he fell backwards. He was then run over by a vehicle driving in the yard and he died from his injuries.

Milton Keynes Council, which investigated the case, said the company had “failed to ensure loading and unloading activities were undertaken in a safe manner in a safe area”.

Environmental health team leader, Martin Brown, said: “Individuals falling while loading and unloading vehicles is a common risk.

“While the term ‘health and safety’ is often incorrectly associated with trivial matters, true health and safety breaches

can have devastating consequences, as they did on this occasion.”

Travis Perkins Trading Company pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The company initially denied any causal link between the offences and the death, but subsequently conceded.

At a hearing at Amersham Crown Court on 27 April Judge Justin Cole said the incident “was an accident waiting to happen”.

As well as the fi ne, the company was also ordered to pay almost £115,000 in

prosecution costs.John Carter, Chief Executive of Travis

Perkins, said after the case: “It’s with deep regret that we acknowledge the conclusion of the court hearing regarding the tragic incident that occurred in 2012. Our thoughts continue to be with the family of Mr Pointer.

“Minimising the risks for everyone working in and visiting our challenging environment is my responsibility, and I take it very seriously.

“Safety will remain at the top of our agenda; we will continue to apply the lessons learnt from this terrible event with the aim of ensuring that an accident such as this never occurs again.”

CROWN IMMUNITY

MoD should be liable for deaths, say MPs

● House of Commons defence sub committee made the recommendation

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) should be subject to charges under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act in certain cases, a House of Commons defence sub-committee has recommended.

The report, “Beyond endurance? Military exercises and the duty of care”, concludes that the MoD should lose its historic immunity from prosecution when armed forces personnel are killed during training. “The lives of serving personnel are worth no less than those of civilians and those responsible for their deaths must be equally liable under the law,” the committee said.

Between 1 January 2000 and 20 February 2016, 135 armed forces

personnel died in non-combat incidents, mainly on training exercises. During that period 11 Crown censures were recorded, the maximum sanction possible that can be issued to the MoD by the HSE.

The committee argues that given there have been only 11 censures since 2000, it does not envisage that altering the corporate manslaughter exemption “would open the MoD to a signifi cant number of prosecutions”.

It further notes that while the committee found no systemic failings in the policies for managing risk during training and selection events, “the MoD has not always got the correct balance between adequate training and reducing risk”.

InBriefMerlin pleads guilty over ride collisionMerlin Attractions, the owner of Alton Towers theme park, has admitted to failing to protect visitors after a rollercoaster crash last summer left fi ve people seriously injured.

The theme park operator admitted breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at Newcastle-under-Lyme Magistrates’ Court, the fi rst hearing of the case, after two carriages collided at the Staffordshire park on 2 June last year. The district judge referred the case to the crown court for sentencing.

In a statement, Merlin said: “From the outset, the company has accepted responsibility for what happened in June last year and it has co-operated fully with the HSE in its investigation. We have sought to provide help and support to all those injured in the accident and will continue to do so.”

For a photograph showing the site of the incident visit www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/workplace-transport/co-op-van-harris

Forty-four-year-old Mark John Pointer died at this site after being crushed by a yard vehicle

© G

oogl

e St

reet

view

❝ It was an accident waiting to happen”

Do you think Crown immunity is still appropriate? Tell us in our LinkedIn Group.

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 54

News ProsecutionsNews Prosecutions

REGULATION

Job swap as Temple succeeds Hackitt at HSEMartin Temple, the former chair of manufacturers’ organisation EEF, will head up the HSE’s board from 1 May.

The appointment marks a two-way job swap, as former HSE chair Judith Hackitt took on Temple’s former role at the EEF on 4 April.

Temple brings more than 30 years’ experience in private and public sector roles, including senior positions at the Sheffi eld Hospital Trust and the 600 Group, an engineering and manufacturing business. But he is best known in the sector for leading the HSE’s most recent triennial review.

While generally complimentary of the executive as an independent regulator, the 2013 report was highly critical of the fee for intervention (FFI) charging scheme.

Temple’s review also made

recommendations that the HSE should “explore options for further commercialisation” and seek more innovative ideas to tackle ill health.

Justin Tomlinson, minister for disabled people with responsibility for health and safety, said Temple joins “at a time when the work of the HSE in promoting health and safety among employers is as important as ever”.

CROWD SAFETY

Hillsborough fans were unlawfully killed, jury rules

● Court verdict blames police failures for deaths ● Decision follows 27 year long campaign

The 96 people who died in the 1989 Hillsborough stadium disaster were unlawfully killed, the jury at the inquests has concluded.

By a majority of seven to two, jurors agreed that Sheffi eld Wednesday Football Club, whose home ground is Hillsborough, and stadium managers and contractors were also at fault over the facilities, safety and match planning at the stadium. They ruled that David Duckenfi eld, the former chief superintendent of South Yorkshire Police who was match commander on the day, was grossly negligent and that his actions were a cause of the deaths.

The Hillsborough disaster unfolded during Liverpool’s cup tie against Nottingham Forest on 15 April 1989 as thousands of fans were crushed at Sheffi eld Wednesday’s ground.

A zoning arrangement helped segregate supporters arriving from north and south, but meant Liverpool, which had larger attendances, had the smaller ticket allocation. By 2pm, an hour before kick-off, many Liverpool fans were still outside the ground. During the next 50 minutes pressure built up in the pens behind the Leppings Lane goal and in front of the turnstiles.

Realising the crowd would not get through the turnstiles before 3pm, a police constable asked the control room to delay kick-off. His request was denied, but at 2.52 Duckenfi eld, the offi cer in charge, ordered exit Gate C in Leppings Lane to be opened, allowing around 2,000 fans to fl ood into the already packed central pens behind the goal.

Jurors found a number of failings with the police force’s planning and response to the incident. They said that the commanding offi cers on the day failed to recognise that the pens were full before the gate was opened and that they did not consider where the fans would go once they had entered the stadium.

The jury also found that both the police and the ambulance service caused or contributed to the loss of lives in the disaster by an error or omission after the crush in the west terrace had begun to develop.

The verdict – which follows a two-year coroner’s inquest into Britain’s biggest sporting disaster and looked at police planning, defects in the stadium design and the conduct of the stadium engineers – said the behaviour of fans did not contribute to the deaths.

The former chair of manufacturers’ organisation the EEF previously led the HSE’s triennial review

Britain’s worst-ever sporting disaster happened in 1989 at Hillsborough football stadium

CONFINED SPACES

Balfour Beatty fi ned £2.6m over trench collapse deathBalfour Beatty Utility Solutions has been fi ned £2.6 million after an employee was killed when the trench he was working in collapsed on him.

James Sim, 32, an employee of LD Oliver Construction, was laying ducting for cables on an offshore wind farm being built off the coast at Heysham, Lancaster, in April 2010. The trench was dug to a depth of 2.4 metres without any shoring.

His employer had been hired by Balfour Beatty, which had been awarded the contract by windfarm client Dong Energy.

Preston Crown Court heard that Balfour Beatty failed to adequately risk assess the works or control the way in which the excavation took place.

The fi ne is one of the largest seen in the construction sector, and follows the revision to the sentencing guidelines in February.

“The level of this fi ne should serve as a warning to industry not to ignore health and safety matters,” said HSE inspector Chris Hatton.

“Balfour Beatty failed to adequately assess, plan and supervise the work being undertaken. Trench collapses are easy to prevent, and it is disappointing that James’ life was lost in such a tragic way.

“The family has shown great patience and support throughout this investigation which is a credit to both them and James’ memory.”

Sheffi eld-based Balfour Beatty Utility Solutions pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Regulation 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations.

In addition to the fi ne, the company was ordered to pay costs of £54,000.

InBriefBoss jailed after worker killed in ditch collapseA construction company boss has been jailed after a worker was killed in a ditch collapse which buried him alive.

Glyndwr Richards, 54, was covered by soil in a drainage ditch while working for Ryan Construction at a Pembrokeshire Housing Association housing estate in June 2012.

William Ryan Evans, 54, admitted breaching his duty of care to an employee. Swansea Crown Court jailed him for six months.

Severfi eld fi ned £135,000 following forklift truck deathSteel giant Severfi eld has been fi ned after a forklift truck operator was killed when the machine he was operating overturned.

Teesside Crown Court heard how 27 year old Kelvin McGibbon was reversing the forklift truck when it struck some steps, causing it to overturn. He was not wearing a seatbelt.

HSE investigators found that Severfi eld failed to manage forklift truck driving operations. It did not enforce the wearing of seatbelts or control the speed at which some operators drove their trucks.

Men, women and children lost their lives in the crush

96 Altin Homes ignored the HSE’s recommendations

RISK ASSESSMENT

Contractor fi ned after dangerously stacked blocks collapse onto cycle lane

A building company has been sentenced for safety failings at a site in Cheshire following the collapse of building blocks across a pavement and cycle lane.

Altin Homes was running the building works of residential houses and apartments at a former petrol station in Altrincham in June 2014. When the HSE investigated the collapse of the building blocks, it was noted that there were other poorly stored blocks on site which were at risk of crashing through the hoarding for a second time. The company was told to remove them as soon as possible to reduce this risk.

But on a second visit a fortnight later, it had failed to remove the unsafe blocks which had caused the original

incident. Though the fi rm had made some improvements to other areas of the site, it had essentially ignored the recommendations of the inspector.

Altin Homes was charged with failing to protect the safety of its employees, failing to protect the safety of others including subcontractors and members of the public, and one count of failing to plan, manage and monitor construction work so that it was carried out in a safe manner.

The company pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates’ Court to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act and Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. It was fi ned £40,000 with £3,000 costs.

© C

olor

spor

t/RE

X/S

hutt

erst

ock

For a full interview with the investigating inspector, visit http://bit.ly/1Xjp3fDX for full details

❝ Martin Temple joins at a time when the work of the HSE in promoting health and safety among employers is as important as ever”

© is

tock

phot

o/hx

dyl

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 76

Management controlsManagement controls

Following the paper trail

While not all paper mills are the same in terms of the products they produce and the way they

achieve the end product, there are some very similar safety hazards associated with paper, fi bre board and tissue production that will affect all mills to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon the individual mill.

The process for tissue paper often relies upon recycled waste paper delivered in ‘banded’ bales by 40 foot curtain sided HGVs. Bales are offl oaded and stacked in designated bays that are accounted for from delivery until use by the pulper, which turns the waste paper in to liquid ‘stock’ in preparation for the removal of unwanted plastics and other ‘foreign bodies’.

The largest waste paper bales can weigh about 500kg each and the more any bale is handled by forklift trucks the more they can become damaged and begin to fall apart, so careful stacking of the bales must take place with safe systems of work in place to ensure all workers understand the dangers and precautions required. For example, operators assess the condition of each bale prior to stacking, a restriction on the height of bale stacks to reduce the risks of toppling over, and no pedestrian activity takes place around the ‘in use’ bays while forklift trucks are stacking or de-stacking.

One of the highest risks in the waste storage area is the potential for self-ignition of waste paper bales. After all, paper is derived from organic material and just like your compost heap at home, decomposition creates heat. Effective control by strict stock rotation ensures that no bale is kept on site for any longer than is necessary to prevent bales deteriorating to the point where spontaneous combustion occurs. Risk assessment by individual sites can determine a safe turnaround time for bales based upon type of materials and other criteria such as covered or open storage. Further management controls can be put in place to measure moisture content of older bales and long temperature probes measure heat build-up at the centre of a bale to ensure it remains within safe limits. Any bale found to be outside of the safe storage criteria can then be identifi ed and sent to the pulpers for immediate use.

As with other manufacturing industries, machine safety is of paramount importance and the use of appropriate guarding to protect from dangerous moving parts of machinery is a necessary part of a paper mill’s production. The usefulness of risk assessments and safe systems of work as

From fi re risk to tissue dust, Lawrence Green FIIRSM talks us through the management controls needed in paper manufacturing.

also be more susceptible to the affects of tissue paper dust, which may trigger an asthma attack.

Regular occupational health surveillance of employees will help identify any potential health problems early on and can also act as an indicator to confi rm controls continue to be effective.

Exposure limitsPaper and tissue dust is covered by the Work Exposure Limit (WEL) specifi ed for “dust of any kind”. The WEL has been set at 10mg/m3 total inhalable dust or 4mg/m3 respirable dust and this should not be exceeded. These limits relate to the amount of dust in the air, which is averaged over an eight-hour working day. However, employers must reduce exposure to dust to as low as ‘reasonably practicable’ even if below the relevant WEL.

Many mills operate 12-hour shift patterns, which will increase exposure time for those relevant groups of employees compared with the average eight-hour shift.

AssessmentRegulation 10.1 of COSHH requires that employers monitor and measure exposure to a hazardous substance to obtain data on the level of exposure present in the work area. Where it is identifi ed that the exposure exceeds the relevant WEL limit, appropriate controls to reduce the exposure level need to be considered and the most effective and reasonably practicable solutions put in place. Once implemented, further monitoring will be required to establish the effectiveness of the controls in reducing the level of exposure below the WEL and continues to remain effective in the future.

Air sampling and monitoring should be

assessed by a competent person by carrying out a dust survey and monitoring exercise to establish:● if the work area has a dust issue● the individual workers likely exposure

levels to dust● which tasks may generate high levels

of dust● where controls may be needed to

reduce exposure to an acceptable level.

The dust survey will need to include static background monitoring as well as personal monitoring to get a complete picture of dust levels within the work area being assessed.

Practical solutions and control measuresShould exposure levels beyond the WEL be identifi ed, employers must decide the best means of reducing dust. Control measures can include:● If properly designed and implemented

correctly Local Exhaust Ventilation (LEV) can provide a very effective means of reducing dust in the workplace. If used, LEV must be checked every 14 months as a minimum, to ensure it is working as expected.

● Water curtains can be effective in some situations and has been found to be more effective than LEV in some cases.

● In some scenarios general dilution ventilation can be suffi cient to reduce exposure.

● Good housekeeping and cleaning regimes can be an important tool in reducing employees exposure. The use of compressed air lines is not recommended as this can increase exposure of those carrying out the cleaning and also those working nearby. The HSE considers that the use of air lines to ‘blow down’ is the major contribution to overall dust exposure in the industry. Vacuum cleaning, sweeping and damp cleaning regimes are practical alternatives to cleaning down with airlines.

● The use of air conditioned operator refuges is considered by the HSE to be one of the potentially effective control measures during tissue manufacture.

● Compulsory use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE), for example dust masks, for reel changes, paper breaks and cleaning duties.

Lawrence Green FIIRSM is health and safety manager at Fourstones Paper Mill Co.

part of risk management and the overall provision of information, instruction and training to employees on the safe operation of machinery cannot be underestimated.

However, at the end of the manufacturing process, the tissue paper comes off the machine and is wound into large parent rolls, which is a particularly dusty part of the process as the tissue is now in its dried form.

Control of tissue dustThe control of tissue dust is covered primarily under the Control of Substances

Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH). This legislation requires all employers to protect workers from the harmful health effects of hazardous substances in the workplace, including the effects of dust.

Within tissue paper making processes there is the potential for workers to be exposed to high levels of paper and tissue dust. Being regularly exposed to high levels of dust can affect the respiratory system and cause workers to become ill from occupational asthma or other respiratory related issues. Workers who already suffer from non-occupational related asthma will

New FellowsCongratulations to the following members who were recently awarded Fellowship status: Mohammed Abbas; Abdullatif Albitawi; Kevin Angell; Stephen Bennett; Keith Blowes; David Brown; Richard Chalkley; Robert Coveney; Matthew Cox; Nicholas Grice; Paul Grimes; Anthony Hayward; Francis Higgins; Derek Hillier; John Holland; Jason Honeyman; Arend Kamping; Wessam Mamdouh Elmegid; Anil Kumar Menon; Eugene Okosun; Paul Saunders; Mark Stanley; Ian Strong; Mark Sutton; and Garry Lee Watson.

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 98

Institute News Institute News

SOUTH WALES SAFETY GROUPS ALLIANCE CONFERENCE

Leading the way

● IIRSM President addressed delegates at the inaugural event

On 13 April in Cardiff, the South Wales Safety Alliance Inaugural Conference took place. The Alliance, made up of key health and safety groups in the area, is an excellent example of collaboration to achieve an improvement in the health, safety and wellbeing of all employees and others in South Wales.

Chaired by Neil Craig, Head of Field Operations for HSE Wales and the Marches, the conference provided delegates with practical information on an array of subjects that they could take away and use in their roles. From sessions on risk assessments to safety leadership, a key theme of the day was that health should be given equal billing to safety.

IIRSM President Siobhan Donnelly gave a presidential speech and praised the organisers for their extraordinary efforts. Siobhan pointed out how the Alliance was unique in its collaborative local approach

and that South Wales was leading the way towards the working together agenda. In her address Siobhan talked about how the UK has some of the best health and safety

INTERNATIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Meet our friends in SingaporeCouncil member Su Wang recently holidayed in Singapore and took time out to meet up with IIRSM members in the region. Su had a very enjoyable meeting and asked two of the members she met to share their stories of how they became members of the Institute.

Faisal Hussin SIIRSM“My interest in IIRSM began when I joined Linkedin in 2013. I was browsing professional profi les as I searched for job opportunities overseas. I noticed ‘FIIRSM’ and ‘MIIRSM’ after the names of professionals, and I was curious as to what the letters stood for. As I browsed the IIRSM website, I found these titles were a way for practitioners to demonstrate their competence, level of skills, experience and expertise in risk, health, safety and environment.

“Since becoming a member, my aspiration is to help others understand workplace safety, hazards and risk, which I enjoy doing. I joined in 2015, and I have found membership has increased my professional network and has given me excellent opportunities to gain experience, share knowledge, and meet HSE practitioners in various industries, providing multiple career benefi ts.

“I am proud to be a member of IIRSM. The Institute has broadened my knowledge locally and internationally. It supports me in reaching my professional goals to deliver health and safety solutions with the infl uence to promote and enhance a strong culture of prevention.”

Joe McWilliam MIIRSM“I was travelling in the UK last year, mainly on family business. I had received a number of emails from sources regarding the Safety and Health Expo at London’s Excel centre in June. I was not planning to go, but it turned out I had less pressing things to deal with back in Singapore and so I made a snap decision to attend. I didn’t really have an agenda, and didn’t make any kind of plan of what I’d be looking for.

“When I arrived I spent quite a lot of time wandering around. As you’d expect, all the usual shiny items were on show

– such as safety clothing and personal protective equipment – all the stuff your boss doesn’t want you to purchase!

Tucked away at one end of the hall I spotted the IIRSM stand. I‘m so pleased I noticed it. I had a chat with the staff member manning the stand and was given some leafl ets, which I threw in my bag with all the others I’d been handed that day.

“On my return to Singapore, I settled down one quiet evening to see what I had collected. Most went into the bin (shiny paper is discouraged for recycling). Then I read the IIRSM material. This was interesting. I checked the website – very interesting. No need to go to the boss for this one! I went through the joining process and here I am.

“The moral of my story? All that glitters is not gold!”

Singapore BranchThanks to Jo and Faisal for taking the time to meet with Su and share their stories. They are now working with IIRSM to create a Branch in Singapore and would be interested in meeting other members in the region. If you would like to fi nd out more, please contact Clare Fleming (clare.fl eming@iirsm.org) or Rebecca Smith (rebecca.smith@iirsm.org).

Above: The event was attended by key health and safety groups in South Wales. Left: IIRSM’s Siobhan Donnelly gave a presidential speech

CYBER SECURITY

You can fi nd out more about ESAS 2016 by visiting www.esas2016.co.uk

United Arab Emirates8 June 2016, Abu DhabiTopic: TBCRegister: uaebranch@iirsm.org

North West England16 June, WarringtonTopic: Unique hazards in a zoo environment (Ian McIntosh, Chester Zoo)Register: edblanchard27@btinternet.com

Gloucestershire27 JuneTopic: TBCRegister: peter@sureteam.co.uk

London29 June, HammersmithTopic: Display Screen EquipmentRegister: rebecca.smith@iirsm.org

Nigeria Branch 30 June, AbujaTopic: TBCRegister: nigeriabranch@iirsm.org

United Arab Emirates6 July, Dubai Topic: TBCRegister: uaebranch@iirsm.org

Qatar 19 July, DohaTopic: Annual General MeetingRegister: qatarbranch@iirsm.org

UPCOMING BRANCH MEETINGS

Dates for your diary

Supporting our colleagues at the Ministry of DefenceIIRSM is proud to be a supporting partner at ESAS 2016, the UK Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) fl agship symposium focusing on equipment safety and environmental management. The two day event hosts up to 350 MoD and industry delegates and this year’s theme will be ‘Engineering for defence – safely and responsibly’.

IIRSM will be presenting a seminar on cyber security and targeted attacks, trends and future prospects, which will be delivered by David Emm. David is the principal security researcher in the global research and analysis team at Kaspersky Lab, one of the world’s largest cyber security companies.

David’s presentation will discuss targeted attacks, which have become an established part of the threat landscape. The presentation will highlight the most

noteworthy APT (advanced persistent threat) developments, provide insight into how cyber security threats are likely to evolve over the coming 12 months and beyond, and offer advice on what businesses need to do in order to defend themselves.

IIRSM will be exhibiting at the symposium and will be on hand to discuss professional development and membership options with members and non-members in attendance.

Other topics covered at the event include setting evidenced based regulation, autonomous vehicles, safe and secure systems, sustainability, in-service safety management, and the workings of the coroners’ court.

legislation and practice in the world but added that we should not be complacent – we must continue to work towards ensuring that everyone comes home from work safe, as “one death is one too many”.

IIRSM Council member Clive Johnson gave a presentation on risk assessments and provided delegates with an interesting insight to the approach taken by his employer, Land Securities. Drawing on his experience and using local examples, Clive talked about the complexities of the hazards that he deals with and how he uses risk assessments to address risks that cannot be mitigated at the source.

Following this there were some inspirational presidential speeches from the British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) and IOSH as well as some great quality sessions about wellbeing, behavioural safety, BOHS’s breathe freely campaign and a look at the defence side of legal claims.

The alliance is formed of the IIRSM Wales Branch, IOSH South Wales Branch, South Wales Construction Safety Group, Cardiff & South East Wales Occupational Health & Safety Group and Swansea & West Wales Occupational Safety Group.

The day was a great success and the Institute would like to give special thanks to IIRSM Wales Branch Chair Steve Bergiers and the Branch Committee for their part in the Alliance and for helping to organise the event.

Above left to right: Su Wang, Faisal Hussin and Joe McWilliams

❝ I am proud to be a member of IIRSM. The Institute has broadened my knowledge locally and internationally”

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 1110

International News International News

QATAR

Training centre opens for rail workers

About 15,000 Qatar Rail workers will benefi t from a new training centre recently launched in an effort to ensure the highest standards of health and safety on its sites.

Thought to be the fi rst of its kind in the Doha region, the state of the art centre is Premium level accredited by the UK’s Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

Employees who undergo training are among the key personnel in construction of the Doha Metro project.

The centre offers training on health and safety across all levels which can last up to fi ve days. Training includes workshops from tunnelling and construction inductions to working in confi ned spaces, fi rst aid, risk assessment, vehicle and plant movement, working at heights, and electrical and fi re safety, among others.

As part of Qatar Rail’s continuous improvement approach, the training intends to get accreditation from the National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) later this year to deliver level 5 and 6 courses.

JAPAN

Bill to regulate working hoursThe Japanese Communist Party and three opposition parties have jointly submitted a bill to revise the Labor Standards Act to eliminate excessively long working hours and death from overwork.

Unlike European nations, Japan fails to set an upper limit on hours of overtime by law. Even in violation of the law, unpaid overtime has long been rampant in many workplaces in Japan. On top of that, the Abe Cabinet has presented its so-called “zero overtime payment” bill to remove the present rule on working hours.

As a counterproposal to the government bill, the amendment bill will impose a ceiling on overtime and will ensure a rest period of a certain number of consecutive hours between the work shifts.

Regarding the discretionary labour system which allows employers to pay only for the prearranged hours of work, the amendment bill will oblige employers to record how many hours each of their employees actually works inside

and outside the workplace in order to not exceed the maximum time period stipulated by the Ordinance of the Labor Ministry.

At a press conference after the bill’s submission, JCP member of the House of Representatives Takahashi Chizuko said: “It is a big step forward for the four opposition parties (JCP, DP, SDP and People’s Life) to jointly submit a bill. I will work hard to achieve the bill’s enactment.”

USA

Third worker killed at tyre factoryA worker has been killed after an incident at the Danville Goodyear plant in Virginia.

Greg Cooper, who had been an associate at Goodyear – Danville’s largest private employer – for 18 years, died during his shift on 12 April.

This is the second fatality in less than a month and the third in the past eight months.

On 31 March, 54 year old Kevin Edmonds died in an industrial accident at the plant. On 31 August 2015, Jeanie Lynn Strader, 55, was killed while working at the plant.

OSHA said investigations could take up to six months.

BRAZIL

11 killed in Rio Olympics build

A total of 11 workers have died in the construction for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro over a period of three years, according to information gathered by members of the Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) and state labour inspectors.

Records show one construction worker was killed after being run over by a truck, another by falling from a ladder, one from being whipped by a compressed air hose and one from electric shock. Other accidents include workers being buried alive and killed in overturned vehicles. Hundreds of serious injuries have also been reported.

The deadliest project related to the Rio Olympics is the extension of the Metro Line in Rio. Two workers have also died in the construction of the Olympic Park where most of the games will take place.

Fatalities have also been reported in the roadwork related to the Olympic sites and the construction of two museums being built for the Olympics.

By comparison, six workers died in the preparations for the Olympic Games in Beijing 2008 and one in the Vancouver build for the 2010 winter Olympics.

HONG KONG

Worker was crushed to death in container

Three companies have appeared in court after an employee was crushed to death in a container terminal.

Modern Terminals, Mitsuizosen Technoservice Hongkong and Win Team Construction Engineering were fi ned $45,000, $45,000 and $80,000 respectively at Tsuen Wan Magistrates’ Courts in April for violating the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation. The May 2014 accident in Tsing Yi happened by the wheel of a quayside gantry crane as the maintenance worker applied lubrication oil to the wheels of the crane.

Following the case, the Labour Department, which brought the prosecution, appealed to all construction companies to develop and implement an effective safe system of work for maintenance of cranes, and enhance the safety training and supervision to workers involved.

NIGERIA

Highway claims tenlives in six weeksSix doctors travelling to a conference died in a car accident along the Abuja-Kaduna Express Way in Ekiti State recently. The driver also died after it was thought a tyre exploded.

The accident happened just weeks after Nigeria’s minister of state for labour and productivity, James Ocholi, and his wife and son were killed in a similar crash on the same stretch of road.

NORWAY

13 killed in helicopter crash near BergenA helicopter transporting oil workers crashed on Norway’s western coast recently.

The aircraft was fl ying from the Gullfaks oilfi eld, which is operated by Statoil, to Bergen. All 13 on board were killed.

Reports suggested that the helicopter involved was a Eurocopter EC225 belonging to CHC Helicopter Service. The UK launched an inquiry into helicopter

safety in 2013 after a spate of crashes in the North Sea involving the EC225 and its predecessor, the AS332.

A previous fatal helicopter crash in Norway in 1997 involved another version of the Super Puma model, the AS332.

INDIA

Fire at cracker unit

Two workers have been seriously injured in a fi re accident at a cracker unit at Vadapatti near Tiruthangal.

Police said that the two were injured when debris fl ying from a wall following an explosion hit fl eeing employees.

Over 20 employees were working at the unit when the accident, said to have been caused by a chemical reaction after workers were fi lling chemicals for making chorsa, occurred.

One man sustained head injuries, while a female worker suffered a fractured leg.

They were admitted to Government Rajaji Hospital in Madurai.

Fire and Rescue Services personnel from Sivakasi put out the fi re at the cracker unit. One shed was destroyed in the accident. Tiruthangal police are investigating.

USA

Work violence in healthcare is ‘largely ignored’

Violence against workers in healthcare settings is an under-reported, ubiquitous and persistent problem, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr James Phillips, from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, looked at previous studies on workplace violence and interventions to reduce violence. In one study, 46% of nurses reported workplace violence during their fi ve most recent shifts, and a third said they were physically assaulted.

The resulting review, Workplace Violence against Health Care Workers in the United States, notes that between 2011 and 2013, the number of workplace assaults averaged about 24,000 annually, with nearly 75% occurring in health care settings.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that healthcare workers are nearly four times as likely to require time away from work as a result of violence as they are because of other types of injury.

USA

New report highlights dangers of teenagers working on tobacco farmsUnited Nations’ Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published fi ndings on children’s exposure to hazardous substances after it was revealed thousands of teenagers are exposed to nicotine, toxic pesticides, extreme heat and other dangers on tobacco farms in the United States.

A new 72-page report from the group, Teens of the tobacco fi elds: Child labor in United States tobacco farming, documents the harm caused to 16 and 17 year olds who work long hours as hired labourers. Nearly all of the teenagers interviewed suffered symptoms consistent with acute nicotine poisoning – nausea, vomiting, headaches, or dizziness – while working on tobacco farms.

In 2014, several tobacco companies and growers’ groups adopted new policies banning children under 16 from employment in US tobacco farming.

But teenagers are still vulnerable to the harmful effects of the work, HRW said. Under international law, the US is obliged to take immediate action to eliminate hazardous labour for those under 18, including any work that is likely to harm their health or safety. Tobacco companies, for their part, have a responsibility to work to prevent and eliminate serious human rights problems in their supply chains, said HRW.

Nearly all the teens polled suffered symptoms

AUSTRALIA

Poor regulation sees return of ‘black lung’ among minersA Senate committee has slammed poor regulation and incompetence within the mining industry for the re-emergence of a potentially fatal disease in coal miners.

Black lung disease is caused by the inhalation of coal dust over a long period, and can emerge up to 15 years after exposure. It was thought to have been eradicated about three decades ago, but eight Queensland miners have been diagnosed with the condition in the past year.

The committee urged the industry to create a nationwide fund to provide affected workers with lifetime assistance to cover medical costs and travel associated with the condition.

It also wants a national standard established for coal dust exposure, and until that happens said workers should be withdrawn from unsafe areas

without penalty.Unionists and activists have claimed

there’s been a black lung “cover-up” and the number of cases could be as high as 1,000, though this has been slammed by the industry.

A fi nal report from the Senate select committee on health is due in June 2016.

Eight cases have been diagnosed in the past year

© is

tock

phot

o/Ju

liean

neBi

rch

© is

tock

phot

o/Ry

erso

nCla

rk

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 1312

Health in constructionHealth in construction

Taking actionIIRSM has joined the construction industry in uniting in the battle for a healthier future. We report on the progress made so far.

tools to develop action plans for their organisations.

Andy Mitchell, chief executive offi cer of Thames Tideway, said: “Britain has a proud record on safety – it’s one of the best in the world. Our challenge is how we bring health on a par with safety. We now need to make transformational changes to eradicate the ill health effects caused by the work we do, and treat health like safety.”

For more information and to watch a video from Crossrail, visit www.healthinconstruction.co.uk

In the UK, construction workers are 100 times more likely to die from work-related ill health than accidents”

In the construction sector there were 35 fatal accidents during 2014/15. In the same period it is estimated that

around 4,000 construction workers died from cancer caused by their exposure to hazardous substances while at work. The majority of these cases are lung diseases caused by exposure to asbestos (2,600 deaths) and silica (600 deaths).

In the same period around 3,000 workers in the construction industry were suffering with breathing and lung problems they believed were caused or made worse by their work, a rate signifi cantly higher than the average across all industries. Twenty per cent of workers identifi ed ‘dusts from stone, cement, bricks or concrete’ as a contributing factor.

To draw attention to these devastating statistics, more than 150 leaders responsible for health and safety in the UK construction industry met recently at the second Health in Construction Leadership Group summit.

Titled ‘Committing Construction to a Healthier Future – from commitment into action’, the event followed on from the inaugural meeting held in January, when almost 200 chief executives signed a charter committing to improving occupational health in the industry.

Delegates heard from Dr Richard Judge, HSE chief executive; Professor Dame Carol Black, Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge and a special advisor to the Department of Health and Public Health England; as well as founding members of the Health in Construction Leadership Group – Heather Bryant (Balfour Beatty) and IIRSM Council member Clive Johnson (Land Securities).

HSE research shows that most occupational ill health is preventable, and so the construction industry is uniting in a bid to replicate the huge cultural shift in safety that led to an 80% reduction in workplace fatalities over the last 40 years.

In his address, Richard Judge considered the generational difference – in the 1980s there were about 140 fatalities every year on construction sites. “Compare that to last year, when there were 35 deaths, reinforces that we need sustain our focus,” he said.

“It goes without saying, that fi gure is 35 too many, but with a shared commitment, ambition and desire, we can drive a new level of performance and use this to combat health risks.”

Dame Carol Black discussed intrinisic health and conditions that are determined by our social gradient. “Many construction workers are not necessarily living in the best conditions,” she said. “They are mostly males – many of whom are hard to reach – they do not see their GPs or access NHS health checks.”

She noted that many will smoke and drink alcohol and will not have access to nutritious food. “Economic background is crucially important when you think about the people who come into your workplace. They will probably be less educated. In a way they are already disadvantaged ... the fi gures are clear.”

During the meeting, industry leaders also looked at ways to reduce the risk of developing respiratory disease through a series of facilitated discussions, as well as mental health, and how to manage depression, anxiety and stress-related illness. Delegates formulated self-assessment

www.iirsm.org | 06/201606/2016 | www.iirsm.org 1514

Members’ Pages Members’ Pages

If you are looking for advice, call the health and safety information helpline with your questions on +44 (0)1296 678 465 or email iirsm.helpline@alcumusgroup.com for information on any health and safety related topic. Here are just a few of your recent queries.

Q&AsHOT WATER SIGNS

I work for a healthcare organisation which is suggesting that hot water signs are not required as we have thermostatic mixing valves (TMVs). However, I am aware of the valves failing and very hot water running out of the taps, therefore I propose we add small signs in the event of the TMVs failing. What would you advise?

It seems as though the steps you are taking are along the right path. As your risk assessments have highlighted that TMV failure may be an issue, then further investigation into what is causing these failures should be considered, as well as continued maintenance to ensure that these controls are in working order. This would be in compliance with Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) which covers maintenance of work equipment (see www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/regulation/5/made)

Additional controls such as signage may be required. This would also be in line with best practice, especially as you may be working with people of varying vulnerability and heat tolerance in a healthcare setting.

Additional information on hot water safety in care homes is available at http://bit.ly/1WntvcE. There is also UKCHA Guidance regarding the control of scalding risks from bathing and showering which might provide additional insight: www.ukhca.co.uk/pdfs/BathingShowering.pdf

PORTABLE APPLIANCE TESTING

Which legal and technical legislation should I refer to when determining the periodicity of portable appliance testing (PAT) for all forms of company portable electrical equipment please?

There is no set statutory periods for PAT, the law simply requires electrical equipment to be maintained in order to prevent danger. The type and frequency of user checks, inspections and testing needed will depend on the equipment, the environment in which it is used and the results of previous checks.

Regulation 4(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) states: “Every employer shall

ensure that work equipment is so constructed or adopted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or provided,” while Regulation 4(2) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 states: “As may be necessary to prevent danger, all systems shall be maintained so as to prevent so far as reasonably practicable, such danger.”

This means that employers (and those self employed) must ensure that all electrical work equipment is safe, suitable for the purpose and properly maintained in good order. However, the regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently (for example they don’t make inspection or testing of electrical appliances a legal requirement, nor do they make it a legal requirement to undertake this annually).

In many instances the manufacturer of your equipment should be able to provide further advice on recommended testing intervals.

See www.hse.gov.uk/electricity/faq-portable-appliance-testing.htm for the HSE’s FAQs on PAT testing.

FORKLIFT WARNING SOUNDS

We recently replaced our diesel forklifts with electrical vehicles but staff are complaining that they do not hear them moving around, except when reversing.Are you aware of a warning system for electrical forklifts?

By law you must ensure that your vehicles and pedestrians are able to use a traffi c route without causing danger to the health and safety of people working nearby. Roadways and pathways should be separate wherever possible.

Where you fi nd that your area is not large enough to have a big separation, warning sounds may be helpful. There are a couple of options when it comes to warning systems. You can either have a system fi tted where your employees wear alarm systems and when the forklifts come within a certain distance they sound off.

Alternatively some sites have a system where drivers sound their horns before going around bends and corners or when approaching pedestrian intersections. Forklift trucks can also be fi tted with reversing alarms which sound when the truck is reversing (and the driver’s vision

may be restricted). In addition, warning beacons/fl ashing lights can be fi tted to trucks, which although is not an audio means, does act as a visual stimulus therefore can attract the attention of people within the area.

Which system you use would come down to your risk assessment and what would be deemed as reasonably practicable. Ultimately it comes down to weighing the risk against the sacrifi ce needed to further reduce it.

The HSE’s separating pedestrians guide is available at www.hse.gov.uk/workplacetransport/separating.htm

A guide to reasonably practicable risk management is at www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm

ACCIDENTS AND NEAR MISSES

I would like some guidance on whether a recent incident should be classifi ed as an accident or near miss. A member of staff received a mild electric shock, the cause of which has been ascertained. He received no injuries and was fi ne apart from being a little surprised.

Would this be classed as a near miss as no injury resulted? Or should it be recorded as an accident?

An accident is defi ned by the HSE as an event that results in injury or ill health. A near miss is defi ned as an event not causing harm, but has the potential to cause injury or ill health.

This particular incident can be classifi ed as a near miss as the event did not result in either injury or ill health. It is also not reportable as a dangerous occurrence under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) as no fi re or explosion resulted from the electric shock. More information about dangerous occurrences is available at www.hse.gov.uk/riddor/dangerous-occurences.htm

This incident should still be recorded and steps should be taken to prevent similar incidents like this from happening again. A good article on the the defi nitions of a near miss is available at www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/accident-reporting-riddor/near-miss

HSE STRATEGY

In recent years the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has selected an area of focus – in 2014 it was stress, and in 2015 it was musculoskeletal injuries. Do you know what the focus is for 2016?

This year the HSE is concentrating on maintaining Britain’s health and safety record by implementing its Work Well Strategy (see cover story, March issue fo Insight). The strategy has six themes:● Acting together: promoting broader

ownership of health and safety in Great Britain

● Tackling ill health: highlighting and tackling the costs of work-related ill health

● Managing risk well: simplifying risk management and helping business to grow

● Supporting small employers: giving SMEs simple advice so they know what they have to do

● Keeping pace with change: anticipating and tackling new health and safety challenges

● Sharing our success: promoting the benefi ts of Great Britain’s world-class health and safety system.

More information is available at www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/index.htm and the new strategy is available at www.hse.gov.uk/strategy/strategy-document.htm

PERSONAL HEADPHONES

Our factory has production lines which create noise in excess of 85dB(A). A noise survey has been conducted and appropriate hearing protection is provided for staff; audiometry tests are conducted for workers when they start employment and at suitable intervals thereafter.

Employees who are primarily or wholly offi ce-based are asking if they can use their own personal iPods/similar equipment with earphones as the environment in which they work is open plan and background noise from colleagues is distracting.

Currently the company has a policy not to permit personal audio equipment being used on site – in the factory or in the offi ce; given the potential for hearing damage within the factory, it would be diffi cult to establish whether any hearing damage sustained by staff was caused by exposure to noise in the factory or by listening to music using earphones – I have seen a report in the news recently that the output of some MP3 players is an average 100 dB(A).

Are we justifi ed in imposing a blanket ban on the use of earphones on site? I have seen noise limiting earphones advertised (mainly for children) which claim to limit output to 85dB(A) – if we provided these for staff who wish to listen to music in the offi ce, is this adequate duty of care and would this protect the company in the event of any potential claims for noise induced hearing loss?

An HSE case study which references a similar query to this is Case 206 – Wearing Personal headphones in the workplace. This states there are no health and safety regulations that specifi cally ban the use of headphones in the workplace. However, as you have pointed out, where the use of headphones would increase the risk of harm as identifi ed by your risk assessment, then you are justifi ed in banning the headphones within the factory (see http://bit.ly/2332vz9)

In terms of managing this across the company, ensuring compliance from employees may require you to have a blanket ban, which would apply to offi ces as well, however the Case 206 also advises that good employers should consult with their staff to determine if and where use of personal headphones is reasonable. Where there is limited risk of harm from distraction or moving equipment, is that some employees who might suffer from conditions such as tinnitus might fi nd relief by using personal headphones. In most cases, for the offi ce setting, this will come down to company policy and culture, as well as general courtesy.

With regards to supplying your operatives with decibel restricted earphones, this would be seen as going above and beyond what is necessary. An alternative measure would simply be to ensure the level of sound from the

headphones is not audible or distracting to colleagues, and asking users to reduce the volume where required.

STAGE STRUCTURES UNDER CDM

We are going to build a temporary stage which will be used for an election. At what point does a simple stage become a structure to which the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) 2015 applies?

There is nothing defi nitive that states when a ‘stage becomes a stage’ (unless you consider elements such as CDM notifi cation as a threshold) however, the IStructE guidance document defi nes a TDS (temporary demountable structure) as:

“Structures which are in place for a short time, generally no more than 28 days, that are designed to be erected and dismantled manually many times. They are usually made from lightweight components and are used for a wide variety of functions at public and private events. They include grandstands, tents and marquees which may accommodate large numbers of people, and stages and supports for performers.” See www.juicesound.co.uk/tempstructuresguidance1.pdf for guidance on TDS procurement, design and use.

We believe the stage being constructed for the purpose of the election would fall under the description of a TDS and, in our opinion, the basic principles of CDM apply. CDM operations under the 2015 regulations will generally require you ensure that arrangements are suitable to ensure that the construction work can be carried out, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks to the health or safety of any person affected by the project, etc.

HSE guidance on TDS is at http://bit.ly/1pAX25t

Join the conversationThe UK’s Ministry of Defence should be subject to charges under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act in certain cases, a House of Commons defence sub-committee has recommended.

This month we’re asking:

Do you believe Crown immunity is still appropriate?

Have your say: visit www.linkedin.com and search Groups for IIRSM and request to join.

06/2016 | www.iirsm.org16

Interview

Peter Kozlowski AIIRSMAs Operations and Facilities Manager at Total Food Service Solutions, Peter manages a 40,000 sq ft site, housing ambient chilled and frozen products in modern high bay racking. Responsible for more than 60 members of staff, he has overall responsibility for all aspects of health and safety policies and implementation and reports to the board of directors.

How did your career start?

I always wanted to work in warehousing and logistics. I progressed from a young age in warehousing learning my trade through the years and was lucky to be recognised which helped me progress into management.

How did you become involved in health and safety?I’ve always been passionate about doings things in the right way and safely. I was lucky to have a great mentor who was passionate about health and safety, and was fortunate to work for a company which invested in further development of its employees.

What do you get out of your job?It is very satisfying watching people develop and take ownership of health and safety. I always believe that you have to lead by example to get the best out of people.

What’s the most memorable experience you’ve had in your career?Passing our fi rst ever health and safety audit. We were very raw as a company and were keen to see how we had progressed as we had put a lot of

investment and effort into keeping people safe at work. This was the fi rst benchmark we had set ourselves and those principles are still practised every day.

What’s the most challenging problem you’ve had to overcome?Moving an entire operation into a new premises and buying into a new safety culture of a modern warehouse with new systems of work. People do not like change, and we had to overcome these barriers in order to adapt people’s perceptions of health and safety.

What’s the best piece of advice you’ve ever been given?Early in my career I was going nowhere. Luckily I took the advice from a warehouse manager who advised me to work and study at the same time. Two years later I had started to progress. It was the best advice I could have been given.

What’s the biggest challenge facing the health and safety profession?The growing sickness trends of non reported illness is worrying and companies should be addressing this. We must recognise that occupational ill health is on the rise. As with our great record of driving down accidents in the workplace, the same commitment is now needed in occupational health.

Would you like to see any legislative changes?No not really I am happy with the work the Health and Safety Executive is doing, and watching how it is moving forward under its new leadership.

What issues can you see coming up in your sector?

Driving for work is still a major concern and a very high risk area for my industry. Our fl eet controllers are continuously monitoring road risk.

What do you like most about the institute?The magazines are full of fantastic news and features. I fi nd them very informative and useful.

What inspires you?

I am lucky to work for a company which genuinely supports and leads me.

Where do you see yourself in fi ve years’ time?I would like to coach and mentor and get involved in charity work. As far as my career goes, I am still developing and would hope to continue progressing within the company and achieve my personal goals.