stock
Senior Member
In the UK the HSE (health and safety executive) have the same role as OSHA.
The tool this article is a two stroke consaw
HSE issue Prohibition Notice to Employee
May 6, 2011
The majority of enforcement action for breaches of health and safety law is directed against employers, however, a recent case has shown that this is not always the situation.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspector visited a DCT Civil Engineering Ltd site on Thursday 13th January 2011 and issued a Prohibition Notice to one of its employees.
The DCT site operative was using a cut-off saw on a road work project. He was not wearing any breathing protection or using the water bottle to suppress any dust. There are multiple risks associated with using cut-off saws which include the spinning blade itself, debris from the material being cut, a large amount of dust which can contain silica and high noise levels. Anyone using such equipment should use water to suppress the dust, wear eye and hearing protection and a dust mask.
The HSE Inspector asked to see the employee’s training records and the dust masks supplied by his employer. He found that the worker had a Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) card and the necessary NVQ qualifications and had training in the safe operation of the cut-off saw. As such, the HSE Inspector ascertained that he was suitably competent for the task, and should have been aware of which PPE was required and should have worn this when carrying out the task.
The Prohibition Notice was issued to the DCT employee on an individual basis and was not issued against DCT Civil Engineering Limited as a company as the Inspector was satisfied that DCT wasn’t at fault. It was deemed that the DCT site operative was in breach of The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Section 7 and that by not ‘cutting wet’ or wearing a mask, he had failed to take reasonable care. Under section 7 (Duties of Employees), all employees have a duty to use/wear the safety equipment supplied to them by their employer. Failure to do so could lead to individual prosecution.
A Prohibition Notice remains in place and prohibits an action from being carried out until the fault is rectified. If the HSE see the worker using equipment without the required PPE again then he will be in breach of the Prohibition Notice and may be prosecuted in court.
This case proves that it is essential to provide workers with the necessary training and keep a copy of training records. Staff should also be aware of risk assessments and safe systems of work.
Because DCT had a vigorous health and safety system in place with evidence to back it up, the HSE took their side and pursued the employee who had ignored them. This highlights the importance of keeping good training records and providing staff with the correct protective equipment.
The tool this article is a two stroke consaw
HSE issue Prohibition Notice to Employee
May 6, 2011
The majority of enforcement action for breaches of health and safety law is directed against employers, however, a recent case has shown that this is not always the situation.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Inspector visited a DCT Civil Engineering Ltd site on Thursday 13th January 2011 and issued a Prohibition Notice to one of its employees.
The DCT site operative was using a cut-off saw on a road work project. He was not wearing any breathing protection or using the water bottle to suppress any dust. There are multiple risks associated with using cut-off saws which include the spinning blade itself, debris from the material being cut, a large amount of dust which can contain silica and high noise levels. Anyone using such equipment should use water to suppress the dust, wear eye and hearing protection and a dust mask.
The HSE Inspector asked to see the employee’s training records and the dust masks supplied by his employer. He found that the worker had a Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) card and the necessary NVQ qualifications and had training in the safe operation of the cut-off saw. As such, the HSE Inspector ascertained that he was suitably competent for the task, and should have been aware of which PPE was required and should have worn this when carrying out the task.
The Prohibition Notice was issued to the DCT employee on an individual basis and was not issued against DCT Civil Engineering Limited as a company as the Inspector was satisfied that DCT wasn’t at fault. It was deemed that the DCT site operative was in breach of The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Section 7 and that by not ‘cutting wet’ or wearing a mask, he had failed to take reasonable care. Under section 7 (Duties of Employees), all employees have a duty to use/wear the safety equipment supplied to them by their employer. Failure to do so could lead to individual prosecution.
A Prohibition Notice remains in place and prohibits an action from being carried out until the fault is rectified. If the HSE see the worker using equipment without the required PPE again then he will be in breach of the Prohibition Notice and may be prosecuted in court.
This case proves that it is essential to provide workers with the necessary training and keep a copy of training records. Staff should also be aware of risk assessments and safe systems of work.
Because DCT had a vigorous health and safety system in place with evidence to back it up, the HSE took their side and pursued the employee who had ignored them. This highlights the importance of keeping good training records and providing staff with the correct protective equipment.
