Westminster Compliance

In recent news the leader of a London council refused to wear a hard hat while visiting a redevelopment site in his borough. He defended his decision, saying “people should have a choice whether to wear them or not”. He informed the site manager he wouldn’t be wearing a hat and that the manager could refuse him entry if he had concerns.

The visit went ahead even after almost 11,000 people were injured at work last year because they were hit by a moving, flying or falling object from a building or structure, and the number of fatalities in the construction industry continue to increase this year.

The construction company in charge of the redevelopment said: ” This unfortunate situation was caused by this particular individual applying peer pressure to our site manager and insisting that he would not wear a hard hat. Our site manager at the time decided not to upset the client, and he therefore carried out correct company procedure by carrying out a full risk assessment. The councillor and the rest of the clientèle team were escorted by the site manager at all times and walked a safe zone where there were no overhead /underfoot hazards, and at no time did they enter any work areas.”

Do you agree? Should the site manager have continued with the visit or refused entry – no matter what position the visitor holds? Should there be a minimum PPE requirement for all visitors to site? We’d love to hear your thoughts..

A recent news article talks of a plumber who’s PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) dissolved in acid, leaving him with scarred for life all because the employer did not ensure the employee was wearing the correct PPE for the task and had not provided training in using the chemical safely.

The employee was unblocking a sink when the accident occurred. When the plunger he was using was not sufficient and there was no apparent blockage after dismantling the pipes,  he poured sink unblocker fluid down the train and after turning the taps on to test the chemical had work properly this caused a reaction hitting the ceiling and rained down on him, burning through his paper overalls. He suffered burns to his face, chest and arms and was unable to return to work for two months owing to his injuries.

The employer pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, for not adequately controlling the exposure of workers to hazardous chemicals and was fined £5000.00 and ordered to pay £2965.00 in costs.

Don’t let this happen to you!