Principles of Health and SafetyWorkbook for unit HSD1

NCRQ National Compliance& Risk Qualifications

Sample pages

NCRQ have a refreshing and adult approach to learning. This is based on the concept of “problem-based learning”, where you will be faced with a wide variety of real life case studies.

You will break down each scenario, and consider various aspects of it in more detail. For example, in one case study, you might look at a little bit of law, a new health or safety hazard, a new concept of safety management, and a new method of risk control.

In this way, your knowledge and skills build progressively through the course, and you will have a real understanding of the syllabus and an ability to apply it in real life.

The following few pages provide a brief sample of one of the NCRQ workbooks, to provide you with an example of our approach to learning.

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 in more detail.

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 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 to clean the gutters of a single storey light industrial building that they owned. 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 strenuous, 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 of 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 than 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 scaffold tower on wheels, which is assembled in sections and can be pushed around the site. Or alternatively the heavier, “tube and fitting” scaffolding that is often 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 often!

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 benefits 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 using the particular method.

Leave the final 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 plat-form (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 Ltd18

Met

hod

of a

cces

sA

dvan

tage

sD

isad

vant

ages

Lean

ing

ladd

er

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. They can be used for a wide variety of tasks. If they were of sufficient height, they could be used to access the guttering in a relatively safe manner. They 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 floor surface. To undertake the cleaning of gutters, this may mean that the ladders must lean against the guttering itself. This 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. The 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 sufficient 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. They are relatively cheap, easily available, and take only moments to set up. They can be used without assistance, although if very high or outside it may sometimes be prudent for a colleague to foot the ladder - standing on the bottom rung - to provide extra stability.

Stepladders do, however, require a flat, solid floor surface, to avoid a risk of overturning. The caretaker could only clean a section of guttering of about one metre before having to climb down and move the ladders, to avoid over-reaching.

Scaffold tower

Scaffold towers are free standing towers, consisting of lightweight sections that are easily assembled on site. They 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 briefly considering the benefits 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.

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 to required to arrange and for the scaffolding to be installed by a professional company, as well as the risks presented 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.

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

20

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, find 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 first subparagraph. Copy out section 2(1) of the Act into the space below (ie the first subparagraph of section 2). Read it through to check you have copied it correctly. These 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? The employerTo whom is the duty owed? All his employeesWhat is the duty? To ensure their health, safety and welfare at workHow is the duty qualified? So far as is reasonably practicable

allow 30 minutes

22

Tip:

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

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

“If you give a man a fish he is hungry again in an hour. If you teach him to catch a fish 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 it’s 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. This is an impossible task - short of a world made of cotton wool, it would require an almost infinite amount of resources. For that reason, Parliament qualified 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 are 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

The phrase is not defined in the Act. As is often the case when important words or phrases are not defined 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 often 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 that:

“Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must be made... in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for averting the risk (whether in time, trouble or money) is placed in the other and that, if it be shown that there is a great disproportion between them – the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the person upon whom the obligation is imposed discharges the onus which is upon him.”

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 “sacrifice” required to implement those measures, in terms of the financial 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. The potential reduction in risk and the sacrifice to deliver that reduction should be clearly considered.

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

The judgement in Edwards v National Coal Board clarified that “if it be shown that there is a great disproportion” between the reduction in risk and the sacrifice to control them, “the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice”, then is 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.

This 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

The 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 effect 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 sacrifice in implementing that control measure, in terms of time, trouble, and money; and then

2. The control measure must be then implemented, unless the sacrifice would be grossly disproportionate to the reduction in risk - that is, the conceptual scales are tipped firmly 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 fingers in the hinges of a door. This can be reduced significantly by installing plastic finger 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 office environment, let us consider the risk reduction effect of these measures.

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

The sacrifice 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, are quite high. When balanced against the reduction in an already low risk, it would generally be accepted that the sacrifice was grossly disproportionate to the risk.

However, change the scenario to a nursery for toddlers.

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

When the risk in the nursery scenario is balanced against the sacrifice, it would generally be accepted that the reduction in risk balanced against the sacrifice 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 finger after it was caught in a door hinge at her nursery