Explosion and Fire at Royal Mail Vehicle Services Guildford

[k979aaa]

Training issue management's fault again!.

Oh yeah, bound to be.
If the kid was doing something he knew he shouldn't have been doing, why is it management's fault?

Maybe he did not know thats why it could be a training issue. And that would be a management faliure! it is their job too make sure safe systems of work are in place and adhered to!. END OF

[Night Tonic]

Welders don't weld without proper training courses in a workplace environment. Forklifts are the same. There are strict rules that apply to these.

Has nothing to do with being a perfectionist, its called using your brain and taking responsibility - another emphasis in health and safety.

[k979aaa]

Who inforces the rule's would that be the MANAGER?. And about useing brains and takeing responsibility WHY would you defend the indefenceable attitude by royalmail management to health and safety!. Or are you just going to pass the buck like most MANAGER'S do!.

[brothermagrew]

Again, it doesn't matter HOW much duty of care there is or isn't. In the end we are each responsible for what we do each day and make SURE we stick to the rules - its called doing the job correctly. Unless you're a total lemming. Maybe some are, in which case they'll need to hold someones hand on deliveries too.

A Night Tonic I see that you say in the end we are each responsible for what we do each day and make SURE we stick to the rules - it's called doing the job properly. Yes I agree with what you say as individuals we each (employees & managers) have a legal responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Sections 7 & 8. However, primary responsibility lies with the employer for the health and safety of their employees, contractors, visitors etc; and they cannot delegate their general duties under law, each individual member of staff bears some responsibility for health and safety.

This may be as simple as the legal duty to co-operate with the Employer. However, any employee acting in a managerial or supervisory capacity bears additional responsibilities - the more senior the appointment. the more onerous the responsibility. The level of that responsibility is directly linked to the level of control exercised. In health and safety terms, each manager/supervisor is responsible for those people and activities they are expected to control and are accountable in law for there actions.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law and will consider taking action against individuals following an inspection or an accident investigation. Their enforcement policy states that a prosecution should normally take place in any one of a number of circumstances, including:

a. when a workplace death is caused by a breach of the law;
b. if there has been reckless disregard of health and safety requirements;
c. if the offender's standard of health and safety management is far below what is required.

When considering whether to prosecute individuals, the HSE consider the management chain and the role played by individual managers.The policy states that action should be taken where an offence was committed with the consent or connivance or to have been attributable to neglect on the part of the individual. On the other hand, if a manager has done everything possible to comply with the law, and has taken all reasonable and normal steps to ensure the health and safety of staff, and any other persons affected by that contractors/visitors etc; then it is very unlikely that the manager would be considered for prosecution.

Reasonable and normal steps would include: carrying out risk assessments; addressing high risk matters revealed by that assessment; ensuring equipment is regularly checked and maintained; and ensuring that staff understand their own responsibilities in relation to health and safety are properly trained, and competent to fulfil their functions. Any manager who is uncertain about health and safety issues should contact the Health, Safety and Environment Team for advice. If they follow procedures and reasonable recommendations they will be seen to have properly carried out their health and safety responsibilities.

There are also a number of members of staff who are Trade Union Health and Safety Representatives whose knowledge and experience is available to managers. Detailed information on health and safety matters and copies of legislation may be obtained from the Health, Safety and Environment Team and managers are encouraged to use this resource to support their management tasks.

There are also a number of specific areas of health and safety where it is necessary for a manager to have a basic working knowledge of the duties and requirements. What is required will depend on the circumstances of the work and area concerned but will certainly include:

Risk assessment (including COSHH Assessment where applicable);

Emergency and evacuation procedures;

Accident and incident reporting;

Use of work equipment;

Manual Handling.

Legislation:
Legal responsibilities of employers.
Health and safety law states that organisations must:
• provide a written health and safety policy (if they employ five or more people);
• assess risks to employees, customers, partners and any other people who could be affected by their activities;
• arrange for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventive and protective measures;
• ensure they have access to competent health and safety advice;
• consult employees about their risks at work and current preventive and protective measures.
Failure to comply with these requirements can have serious consequences – for both organisations and individuals. Sanctions include fines, imprisonment and disqualification.

Legal liability of individual board members for health and safety failures.
If a health and safety offence is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the organisation, then that person (as well as the organisation) can be prosecuted under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Recent case law has confirmed that directors cannot avoid a charge of neglect under section 37 by arranging their organisation’s business so as to leave them ignorant of circumstances which would trigger their obligation to address health and safety breaches.

Those found guilty are liable for fines and, in some cases, imprisonment. In addition, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, section 2(1), empowers the court to disqualify an individual convicted of an offence in connection with the management of a company. This includes health and safety offences. This power is exercised at the discretion of the court; it requires no additional investigation or evidence.

Individual directors are also potentially liable for other related offences, such as the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. Under the common law, gross negligence manslaughter is proved when individual officers of a company (directors or business owners) by their own grossly negligent behaviour cause death. This offence is punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment.

Note: equivalent legislation exists in Northern Ireland, ie article 34A of the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 and article 3(1) of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 an offence will be committed where failings by an organisation's senior management are a substantial element in any gross breach of the duty of care owed to the organisation's employees or members of the public, which results in death. The maximum penalty is an unlimited fine and the court can additionally make a publicity order requiring the organisation to publish details of its conviction and fine.
In considering the liability of an organisation under the Act, a jury must consider any breaches of health and safety legislation and may have regard to any health and safety guidance. In addition to other health and safety guidance, this guidance could be a relevant consideration for a jury depending on the circumstances of the particular case.

[brothermagrew]

Welders don't weld without proper training courses in a workplace environment. Forklifts are the same. There are strict rules that apply to these.

Has nothing to do with being a perfectionist, its called using your brain and taking responsibility - another emphasis in health and safety.

"Forklift trucks were responsible for just under 2,000 reportable incidents in 2006, including seven deaths. They are a potential danger to their operators and to other people in the vicinity if not operated with great care. Risks include being struck by a moving truck, crushed by an overturning vehicle, becoming trapped between a truck and an object or being crushed by a falling load.

"Employers must ensure they assess the risks involved in any use of these vehicles and take appropriate steps to counter those risks. They must also provide adequate health and safety training for any employees operating forklift trucks (another emphasis in health and safety). However, many companies do not ensure that all of their operators receive adequate forklift truck training.

[Tman]

"Employers must ensure they assess the risks involved in any use of these vehicles and take appropriate steps to counter those risks. They must also provide adequate health and safety training for any employees operating forklift trucks (another emphasis in health and safety). However, many companies do not ensure that all of their operators receive adequate forklift truck training.

But back to the subject under discussion, to have received a Welding Competency Certificate in RM, he will have received in-depth training followed by stringent testing, and inherent in that is the understanding (tested in many legal cases involving injury and death) that he then "knows what he's doing".

It's a bit rich for anyone to then make the dummy connection that it was somehow management's fault.

Another facet of the current "weren't my fault, mate" culture, maybe?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Its not rules that cause accidents, its PEOPLE - however you want to chop it up and no matter how many health and safety rules you put in place, people cut corners and for the record I'm talking about accidents in general not this one. Look around your own DO - you'll see breaches all day long and they KNOW the rules.

But failure to enforce is surely a management problem. Yes some people cut corners but then its up to Management within their responsibilities for the H&S of their employees and they should take action especially if failure to comply is as widespread as you suggest. After all the advert where the worker goes up the wrong type of ladder successfully sues someone because he climbed/used the wrong one. Its managements responsibility to ensure there is a robust policy towards H&S issues and that their workers comply with all applicable laws, regulations and guidance. However, this does not mean that individuals should not have some responsibility regarding their own and their colleagues H&S.

When there is a failure of H&S and an injury occurs in most cases its a mixture of individual and managerial failures. Very rarely is an accident caused by one particular thing, its usually a chain of events that lead up to it.

[brothermagrew]

"Employers must ensure they assess the risks involved in any use of these vehicles and take appropriate steps to counter those risks. They must also provide adequate health and safety training for any employees operating forklift trucks (another emphasis in health and safety). However, many companies do not ensure that all of their operators receive adequate forklift truck training.

It's a bit rich for anyone to then make the dummy connection that it was somehow management's fault.

Tman as I previously intimated to Night Tonic, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) who for clarity are the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, are I would put it to you, not just anyone capable of making the dummy connection that it was somehow management's fault, and in their examinations and findings of fact, are you seriously suggesting that they the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, cannot distinguish who was primarily at fault and in breach of health and safety legislation.

As brother Teebs suggests and in which I agree, very rarely is an accident caused by one particular thing, it is usually a chain of events that lead up to it. Like risk - the level of risk is determined from a combination of the likelihood of a specific undesirable event occurring and the severity of the consequences (i.e. how often it is likely to happen, how many people could be affected and how bad would the likely injuries or ill health effects be?). Risk control measures - are the workplace precautions put in place to reduce the risk to a tolerable level? Root cause - an initiating event or failing from which all other causes or failings spring. Root causes are generally management, planning or organisational failings. Underlying cause - the less obvious 'system' or 'organisational' reason for an adverse event happening, e.g. pre-start-up machinery checks are not carried out by supervisors; the hazard has not been adequately considered via a suitable and sufficient risk assessment; production pressures are to great etc.

[Tman]

Tman as I previously intimated to Night Tonic, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) who for clarity are the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, are I would put it to you, not just anyone capable of making the dummy connection that it was somehow management's fault, and in their examinations and findings of fact, are you seriously suggesting that they the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, cannot distinguish who was primarily at fault and in breach of health and safety legislation.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting that, but I am seriously suggesting that posters are too quick to apportion blame to management on here. Doubtless the H&S report will be rather more in-depth..

[POSTMAN]

but I am seriously suggesting that posters are too quick to apportion blame to management on here.

That's because it usually is.

A koffin full of mail bags tipped over about 2 feet away from me the other day,i was at the back of my van sorting bits out.
2 feet more and the back of my ankles would of been smashed to smithereens,i told the plum that he should not be using the Koffin in the yard,he told me he didn't know that and that he had never been told otherwise.

Who's to blame in that situation?

[brothermagrew]

Tman as I previously intimated to Night Tonic, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) who for clarity are the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, are I would put it to you, not just anyone capable of making the dummy connection that it was somehow management's fault, and in their examinations and findings of fact, are you seriously suggesting that they the national body responsible for the enforcement of health and safety law, cannot distinguish who was primarily at fault and in breach of health and safety legislation.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting that, but I am seriously suggesting that posters are too quick to apportion blame to management on here. Doubtless the H&S report will be rather more in-depth..

So if I am following your thread correctly, you are in effect saying, that those of us on this forum (who have a differing view) are misguided in our belief that the primary responsibility for health and safety lies with the employer for the health and safety of their employees and others who may be on their property.

It is enshrined in law.
Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

You will recall that in a previous posting of mine that whilst each individual member of staff bears some responsibility for health and safety under law, Companies/Employers simply cannot delegate their general duties under law.

As I have stated before it is not about apportioning blame, it's about taking or instituting preventative measures, like safe systems of work, suitable and sufficient risk assessments, proper controls, supervision, instruction and training etc:

As you say, doubtless the H&S report will be rather more in depth. We would all, whether we agree or disagree on certain aspects, be very disappointed if this was not the case, and I hope that it is published in full.

[axeman]

May i suggest teaman and nighty use there brains (perhaps in unison) and now shut up and stop suggesting that all accidents are caused by the employees We have seen enough information here to just slightly suggest that the employer is indeed responsible for the workers safety (usualy totaly ignored by royal fail) in the quest to get the mail out the door by whatever means posible so h&s does indeed get sidelined

[Tman]

So if I am following your thread correctly, you are in effect saying, that those of us on this forum (who have a differing view) are misguided in our belief that the primary responsibility for health and safety lies with the employer for the health and safety of their employees and others who may be on their property

.

Err, no, not that either.
Don't know the ins-and-outs of this case, but it would appear he was welding something he shouldn't have been (maybe a PJ, or a favour for someone, who knows?) and it exploded, and from that, it's hard to work out just how the employer is at fault.
By leaving empty drums around? Training the "wrong person" in welding? Not supervising him every minute of his working day? What?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 10&t=11858 WHO IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE- Poll for those wishing to see what the general feeling is .

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So if I am following your thread correctly, you are in effect saying, that those of us on this forum (who have a differing view) are misguided in our belief that the primary responsibility for health and safety lies with the employer for the health and safety of their employees and others who may be on their property

.

Err, no, not that either.
Don't know the ins-and-outs of this case, but it would appear he was welding something he shouldn't have been (maybe a PJ, or a favour for someone, who knows?) and it exploded, and from that, it's hard to work out just how the employer is at fault.
By leaving empty drums around? Training the "wrong person" in welding? Not supervising him every minute of his working day? What?

but it would appear he was welding something he shouldn't have been

- had he been advised that he should not be welding that item, or perhaps he believed or had been instructed that it was inert and therefore not dangerous.

hard to work out just how the employer is at fault

I would agree but conversely just because there was an explosion does this also mean that the individual was entirely to blame.

Training the wrong person

- well that would be a Management error if he had been instructed to carry out work he was not adequately trained for. Also the individual would have to take some blame if he did not advise the manager he was not trained for the work required, but ultimately it would be a management failure if records of training were incomplete or not up to date.

Not supervising him every minute of his working day

Well they cant supervise him every minute but they should have processes in place which would minimise the risk.

All in all I would think that in this case as with every case I came across as a Health and Safety at Work Responsible Person in my last employment it will come down to a mixture of blame on Management, Processes and the individual concerned. To deny that any of these are responsible or to say one is more responsible than the other (worker or management) is pre-judging on a case of which we will never have the full facts.