!

Principles of Health and

Safety

Sample Pages

Level 6

Certificate in Applied Health & Safety

HSD 1

Introduction

In the first case study, we shall be looking in depth at a real scenario. This is quite a long case study, split into two parts, and should take many study sessions for you to work through. As it is the first case study, there are lots of new concepts introduced here. Take time to reflect on the various concepts, but don’t worry if you do not feel that you fully understand them all at this stage. They will be built upon as we work through the numerous case studies throughout this course.

Martell Property Ltd owns a large portfolio of commercial and light industrial property throughout the UK. This property is then leased out to a wide range of businesses. Martell Property Ltd operates from a Head Office in London, and five regional offices, from where business activities are managed.

Many of the properties leased by the Company are small, single storey units on industrial estates or business parks.

Case study 1 Part 1

Martell Property Ltd

Study time:

Text and activities: 4 hours Online activities: 45 minutes

Learning objectives:

• Recall and understand the general duty owed by an employer to their employees• Understand the concept of “reasonable practicability” and be familiar with the leading case

law that defined this concept• Apply the general duties of employers to a given scenario• Understand the risks and some basic control measures relating to work at height• Introduce the concept of “layers of safety”

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd

Some of these had been rented out on short-term leases, where the contractual responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the building remained the responsibility of the landlord - Martell Property Ltd.

A relatively routine maintenance task on commercial and industrial buildings is the cleaning of gutters. You may not clean the gutters on your house very often, but the large surface area of industrial roofs results in a lot of debris (such as moss, leaves and dirt) accumulating in gutters, which can lead to blockages and leaks - and which can then lead to further damage to the property. So it makes business sense to keep on top of these tasks.

A caretaker employed by Martell Properties Ltd was sent to a particular site they owned to clean the gutters of a single storey light industrial building. This job is typically undertaken by manually scooping out the debris with a gloved hand, and perhaps the use of a hand-held brush. It is not particularly strenu-ous, and does not require the use of any heavy equipment.

Activity 1

Without carrying out any research, try to think of various ways in which the gutters could be accessed - how could you get to them? It doesn’t matter if you have any knowledge in this area or not - just see how many different methods you can think of. Write them in the table below.

As with all of these activities, it is really important to spend time thinking about this and not be tempted to look ahead in the workbook.

Methods of access

Discussion

There are, of course, many methods of accessing the guttering. One of the most obvious examples is to use a ladder. This activity could be done from either a stepladder - a hinged ladder that can stand freely without support, or a leaning ladder - which would lean against the wall or side of the roof, and is often extendable.

You may also have considered scaffolding. This can be in the form of a

allow 10 minutes

16

lightweight scaff old tower on wheels, which is assembled in sections and can be pushed around the site. Or alternatively the heavier, “tube and fi tting” scaff olding that is oft en seen on construction sites.

Other options include using powered access solutions - known as “Mobile Elevated Work Platforms”, or “ MEWPs”, described in the box below.

You may have also considered accessing the roof and working from the roof itself, or even working from the top of a parked van - a method undertaken surprisingly oft en!

Activity 2

Working through the table on the next page, and adding any other solutions that you may have considered in Activity 1, think of the benefi ts and disadvantages of each solution, and write these in the appropriate column. You might want to think about how safe you feel each method would be, and also anything that would discourage you from using the particular method.

Leave the fi nal column blank for now - we will come back to this later.

allow 20 minutes

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd 17

Mobile Elevated Work Platforms, or “MEWPs”, can provide a safe method of access and a safe and stable mobile working platform. Users must be provided with adequate training in their safe use, and equipment must be properly maintained and subject to thorough examinations every six months.

The boom device, or “cherry picker” (left) is easily manoeuvred and can reach over obstacles. The scissor lift platform (right) must be situated directly below or directly adjacent to the work area, but has a larger working platform which assists with transporting equipment and supplies, and reduces the need for continuous movement.

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd18M

etho

d of

acc

ess

Adv

anta

ges

Dis

adva

ntag

esLe

anin

g la

dder

Step

ladd

er

Scaf

fold

tow

er

Scaf

fold

ing

(tube

and

fitti

ng)

Scis

sor l

ift

Che

rry p

icke

r

Stan

ding

on

top

of a

van

Wor

king

from

the

roof

Discussion

Let us consider each of the methods of access in turn.

Leaning ladders

Leaning ladders are relatively cheap, easy to obtain and easy to transport. Th ey can be used for a wide variety of tasks. If they were of suffi cient height, they could be used to access the guttering in a relatively safe manner. Th ey would need to be tall enough to allow the caretaker to have a good handhold whilst carrying out the cleaning.

Leaning ladders require a solid wall to lean against, and a relatively solid and level fl oor surface. To undertake the cleaning of gutters, this may mean that the ladders must lean against the guttering itself. Th is can cause damage to the guttering, and would present a risk of the ladder falling if the guttering failed. You would therefore need to use a “stand-off device” so that the ladders could lean solidly against the wall below the guttering. Th e caretaker could only clean a section of guttering of about one metre before having to climb down and move the ladders, in order to avoid over-reaching. In most circumstances, leaning ladders should be secured at least at the base - which could involve in this case a person standing on the bottom rung to provide stability.

Stepladders

Stepladders are free-standing, and so do not require a solid wall to lean against and will not cause damage to the guttering. If they are of suffi cient height, they could be relatively safe - the caretaker must be able to work comfortably without over-reaching, have a handhold available at waist height and position the ladders in the correct orientation. Th ey are relatively cheap, easily available and take only moments to set up. Th ey can be used without assistance, although if very high or outside it may sometimes be prudent for a colleague to foot the ladder - stand on the bottom rung - to provide extra stability.

Stepladders do, however, require a fl at, solid fl oor surface, to avoid a risk of overturning. Th e caretaker could only clean a section of guttering of about one metre before having to climb down and move the ladder, to avoid over-reaching.

Scaffold tower

Scaff old towers are free-standing towers, consisting of lightweight sections that are easily assembled on site. Th ey provide not only a very safe method of access, but also a secure working platform - a level area from which longer-duration activities can be undertaken - which is protected by railings around the edge to reduce the risk of falling. It would also permit working from a

Note:

In this discussion, we are only briefl y considering the benefi ts and disadvantages of the different access methods - this is not a summary of all of the control measures necessary to work safely at height.

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd 19

A ladder with a stand-off device to avoid gutter damage

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd

wider section of the guttering at one time, before the caretaker would need to climb down and move the tower to the next section.

As with stepladders and leaning ladders, a scaffold tower would require a solid and level surface. In reality, they would require a larger footprint than ladders, such as a concrete path around the perimeter of the building. The hire or purchase of a scaffold tower would be more expensive than ladders, and would require a larger van to transport. It would also take time to assemble; a process which would usually require two people. Importantly, the assembly of the tower itself may present a risk of falling during the assembly process. It is always important to consider all of the circumstances - including the impact of controls on other aspects of health and safety.

Scaffolding

As with a scaffold tower, tube and fitting scaffolding would provide a very safe method of access and a secure working platform for longer-duration activities, and would enable the whole of the guttering to be accessed without repeatedly climbing up and down. Unlike the previous methods, it can also be safely installed on ground that is not level.

The disadvantage here is clearly the cost and time required to arrange for the scaffolding to be installed by a professional company, as well as the risks pre-sented to others during the assembly process.

Mobile elevated work platforms

These are generally very safe methods of working at height. The caretaker would work from a mobile elevated platform which has guardrails around the edge to reduce the risk of falling. Once on site, they would take only a few minutes to get into position.

The ground would need to be solid and level below the guttering to use a scissor lift, although a cherry picker has the ability to move over the top of obstructions. The hire of such machinery will clearly cost more than stepladders and leaning ladders, and would require transport to the site.

Specialist training would be required to operate the device, or a trained operator could be hired.

Working from the top of a van

Whilst it may be very convenient, the top of a van is not an appropriate work-ing platform, as there is no protection from falling, and no handholds at waist height.

20

Working from the roof

In this scenario, working from roof would still require the use of a ladder in order to access it in the first place. Working so close to the edge would present a risk of falling from the roof, and the caretaker could also fall through the roof if it were not of sufficient strength.

The duty of employers to their employees

So, we have a range of possible options here to carry out the task. Some are safer than others, and some will require much more trouble, money and time than others.

Which option should we choose?

How should we make this decision?

Must an employer ensure that no accidents can ever possibly occur?

It is possible to reduce the risks of accidents to a negligible level - but rarely possible to absolutely eliminate them. We could fill the entire industrial estate with cotton wool, and dress the caretaker in a cotton wool suit. This is clearly absurd, but where do we draw the line?

To resolve this, we need to look at what duty is owed to the caretaker.

The duties in relation to people at work are established in law. The key piece of law that applies in relation to health and safety is the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. This is an Act, which means that it arises from an Act of Parliament.

This Act forms the backbone of most safety legislation in Great Britain (it does not apply to Northern Ireland). It explains the general duties in relation to work activities, as well as establishing the Health and Safety Executive to enforce the law, and giving powers to inspectors to undertake this task.

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd 21

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd

Activity 3

One of the most important sections of the Act, and one which is fundamental to this course, is section 2(1).

Using the internet, fi nd a copy of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.Carefully read through the whole of section 2, which is entitled “General duties of employers to their employees”.

Of particular interest now is the fi rst subparagraph. Copy out section 2(1) of the Act into the space below (ie the fi rst subparagraph of section 2). Read it through to check you have copied it correctly. Th ese words are very important, and are the foundation of health and safety legislation in Great Britain.

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974:

Discussion

Let us examine this duty in a little more detail.

Who owes the duty here? Th e employerTo whom is the duty owed? All his employeesWhat is the duty? To ensure their health, safety and welfare at workHow is the duty qualifi ed? So far as is reasonably practicable

allow 30 minutes

22

Using the internet, fi nd a copy of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.Carefully read through the whole of section 2, which is entitled “General duties of employers to their employees”.

Of particular interest now is the fi rst subparagraph. Copy out section 2(1) of the Act into the space below (ie the fi rst subparagraph of section 2). Read it through to check you have copied it correctly. Th ese words are very important, and are the foundation of health and safety legislation in Great Britain.

Tip:

If you are struggling, the best place to fi nd the actual wording of legislation iswww.legislation.gov.uk

Why don’t you just tell me what the law says?Unlike other safety qualifi cations, this course is designed to enable students to work independently in the real world. You are encouraged to undertake research and fi nd your own answers, just like in real life.

“If you give a man a fi sh he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fi sh you do him a good turn.”

Anne Ritchie, 1885

So, an employer must ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of his employees. On its own, “ensure” would mean that an employer must make absolutely certain that the health, safety and welfare of his employees was protected at all times. Th is is an impossible task - short of a world made of cotton wool, it would require an almost infi nite amount of resources. For that reason, Parliament qualifi ed the duty with the phrase “so far as is reasonably practicable”.

But exactly how far is “so far as is reasonably practicable”?

Activity 4

Looking at the words, which of the phrases below do you think is most similar to “so far as is reasonably practicable”?

Take all necessary measures Do as much as possible Do everything that is technically possible Do everything that is practical Do as much as is reasonable

Discussion

Th e phrase is not defi ned in the Act. As is oft en the case when important words or phrases are not defi ned in legislation, it is for judges to interpret the meaning and apply them to the circumstances. Where a case hinges on the meaning of some legislation, it is oft en referred to as case law.

allow 5 minutes

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd 23

Case law: Edwards v National Coal Board[1949] 1 All ER 743

Edwards was a miner who was killed when a mine roadway collapsed. A roadway is a tunnel large enough for small carriages of coal to be transported on tracks. The National Coal Board argued that they should not be required to shore up every section of every roadway to prevent any risk of collapse - just those sections that required it.

This suggested that an assessment of the risk should be undertaken, to consider the likelihood and severity of harm on one hand, and the cost of the control measures on the other.

The judge stated:

“Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must bemade...inwhichthequantumofriskisplacedinonescaleandthesacrificeinvolvedinthemeasuresnecessary for averting the risk (whether in time, trouble ormoney) is placed in the other and that, if itbeshownthatthereisagreatdisproportionbetweenthem–theriskbeinginsignificantinrelationtothesacrifice–thepersonuponwhomtheobligationisimposeddischargestheonuswhichisuponhim.”

A roadway at Marine Colliery, the accident site.

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd

So, in some ways, reasonable practicability can be considered as a set of scales. On one side is the reduction in risk that a particular control measure would produce. On the other, the “sacrifi ce” required to implement those measures, in terms of the fi nancial costs, the time that would be added to the task being undertaken, and the trouble that an employer must go to in order to implement the control measures.

Analysing potential control measures in this way is a prerequisite to considering if they are reasonably practicable. Th e potential reduction in risk and the sacrifi ce to deliver that reduction should be clearly considered.

Th e second part of the process is then to consider how far the scales must tip for the control measure to be reasonably practicable.

Th e judgement in Edwards v National Coal Board clarifi ed that “if it be shown that there is a great disproportion” between the reduction in risk and the sacrifi ce to control them, “the risk being insignifi cant in relation to the sacrifi ce”, then it would not be reasonably practicable to implement the control measures. We are not therefore looking at balancing the scales, but ensuring that the proposed measures are not grossly disproportionate to the risks.

Th is process requires all of the circumstances of the activity to be taken into account.

24

Reductionin risk

Time

Trouble

Money

Reductionin risk

Time

Trouble

Money

Th e concept of reasonable practicability underpins not only the general duties of employers to employees under s2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, but also many other legislative requirements that will be considered throughout this unit.

Remember, there are two parts to determining the reasonable practicability of a control measure:

1. Weighing the eff ect of the control measure, in terms of the reduction in risk (be that the probability of an incident occurring, or the consequences of an incident, or both), against the sacrifi ce in implementing that control measure, in terms of time, trouble and money; and then

2. Th e control measure must be then implemented, unless the sacrifi ce would be grossly disproportionate to the reduction in risk - that is, the conceptual scales are tipped fi rmly in that direction.

Case study 1 Part 1 | Martell Property Ltd 25

An example of reasonable practicability

There exists a risk that people may trap their fi ngers in the hinges of a door. This can be reduced signifi cantly by installing plastic fi nger guard strips along the hinges. The guards cost perhaps £15, and would then need to be installed on every door. They would then need to be inspected occasionally to ensure they were still in place, and replaced when they became damaged.

In an offi ce environment, let us consider the risk reduction effect of these measures.

The likelihood of an adult putting their fi ngers in a hinge area, either on purpose or accidentally, is very low indeed. And should the door close, the likely outcome is bruising.

The sacrifi ce in terms of time to install the measures, costs to purchase them and pay for installation, and trouble in terms of making arrangements and implementing an inspection regime, is quite high. When balanced against the reduction in an already low risk, it would generally be accepted that the sacrifi ce was grossly disproportionate to the risk.

However, change the scenario to a nursery for toddlers.

The sacrifi ce has not really changed here - the costs of the guards and the installation, the trouble in making arrangements for installation, and implementing an inspection regime are the same. However, the risk has changed. The likelihood of a very young child deliberately or accidentally putting their fi ngers in a hinge area is much higher than for an adult. And with very small fi ngers, injuries can be much worse, perhaps resulting in a broken bone.

When the risk in the nursery scenario is balanced against the sacrifi ce, it would generally be accepted that the reduction in risk balanced against the sacrifi ce was not grossly disproportionate, and so the control measures should be implemented on the doors in the nursery where very young children were likely to have regular access.

This girl sustained an amputated fi nger after it was caught in a door hinge at her nursery.