Due to recent expansion and development of our training services please note that we have moved office.
Our new address is:
Suite 438
Davis House Business Centre
4th Floor
High Street
Croydon
Surrey
CR0 1QQ
Our new low rate phone number is 0333 577 0248
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Fire Warden Training London
Date: 10th September 2010 Venue: 78 New Oxford Street London Time: 09.30am Cost: £99 + VAT per delegate
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
Course Overview:
This 1/2 day course is aimed at employees with a designated role in relation to workplace fire safety. The course builds on the understanding of the phenomenon of fire that all of us can recognise, but the majority of people fail to fully appreciate. The course material and handouts are used in conjunction with Fire Safety Employers Guide and current legislation.
Aim:
The training aims are designed to enable employees identified in your emergency plan who have a supervisory role in the event of a fire (e.g. heads of department, fire wardens or marshals and, in some large workplaces, fire fighting teams) to meet the training requirements of “Fire safety An Employer’s guide” and current legislation.
Learning Objectives: By the end of the course delegates should:
• Be aware of key fire safety duties under the law.
• Be able to recognise habitual human behaviour in a fire situation.
• Know the typical role of a fire warden in relation to workplace fire safety.
• Be able to state the basic principles of risk assessment.
• Be aware of how to prevent fire or limit its impact.
• Be able to state the common modes of building evacuation.
• Recognise the need for fire drills and pre-planning for fire.
• Recognise active and passive fire safety measures and facilities.
• Be able to identify and use a range of portable fire extinguishers.
Prerequisites: None. Although ideally delegates should have attended a Fire Awareness course or have a basic understanding of fire safety in the workplace.
Who should attend? All employees will benefit from the training, particularly new staff and managers. It is especially useful to those employees and managers with a fire safety designated responsibility.
Programme:
Review of modern fire safety law.
Human behaviour in a fire situation.
The role of the fire warden.
Basic principles of risk assessment.
Routine fire prevention measures.
Modes of evacuation.
Fire drills & pre-planning
Fire safety features and facilities.
Fire-fighting equipment.
Certification: Delegates will be awarded a certificate of attendance on successful completion of assessment.
For a booking form e mail info@rhssltd.co.uk
Is there a maximum weight a person can lift during their work?
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (as amended) set no specific requirements such as weight limits.
The ergonomic approach shows clearly that such requirements are based on too simple a view of the problem and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, an ergonomic assessment based on a range of relevant factors is used to determine the risk of injury and point the way to remedial action.
The Regulations establish the following clear hierarchy of control measures:
1.Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable, for example by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load or by automating or mechanising the process.
2.Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided.
3.Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practicable. Where possible, you should provide mechanical assistance, for example a sack trolley or hoist. Where this is not reasonably practicable, look at ways of changing the task, the load and working environment.
Modern medical and scientific opinion accepts the scale of the problem and stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach to remove or reduce the risk of manual handling injury. Ergonomics is sometimes described as 'fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job'. The ergonomic approach looks at manual handling as a whole. It takes into account a range of relevant factors, including the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and individual capability and requires worker participation.
When a more detailed assessment is necessary it should follow the broad structure set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists a number of questions in five categories:
1.the task;
2.the load;
3.the working environment;
4.individual capability (this category is discussed in more detail under regulation 4(3) and its guidance); and
5.other factors, for example use of protective clothing.
Each of these categories may influence the others and none of them can be considered on their own. However, to carry out an assessment in a structured way it is often helpful to begin by breaking the operations down into separate, more manageable items.
The ergonomic approach shows clearly that such requirements are based on too simple a view of the problem and may lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, an ergonomic assessment based on a range of relevant factors is used to determine the risk of injury and point the way to remedial action.
The Regulations establish the following clear hierarchy of control measures:
1.Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practicable, for example by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load or by automating or mechanising the process.
2.Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided.
3.Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practicable. Where possible, you should provide mechanical assistance, for example a sack trolley or hoist. Where this is not reasonably practicable, look at ways of changing the task, the load and working environment.
Modern medical and scientific opinion accepts the scale of the problem and stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach to remove or reduce the risk of manual handling injury. Ergonomics is sometimes described as 'fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job'. The ergonomic approach looks at manual handling as a whole. It takes into account a range of relevant factors, including the nature of the task, the load, the working environment and individual capability and requires worker participation.
When a more detailed assessment is necessary it should follow the broad structure set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists a number of questions in five categories:
1.the task;
2.the load;
3.the working environment;
4.individual capability (this category is discussed in more detail under regulation 4(3) and its guidance); and
5.other factors, for example use of protective clothing.
Each of these categories may influence the others and none of them can be considered on their own. However, to carry out an assessment in a structured way it is often helpful to begin by breaking the operations down into separate, more manageable items.
Manufacturing Fine - High Voltage Shock
A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled.
The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine at Chart Design Ltd in Wembley in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.
The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory.
The company also had no first aiders.
Chart Design Ltd - of Luxton Close, Dury Way, Wembley - pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.
HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said: "A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.
"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."
The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine at Chart Design Ltd in Wembley in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.
The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory.
The company also had no first aiders.
Chart Design Ltd - of Luxton Close, Dury Way, Wembley - pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.
HSE Inspector Kerry Williams said: "A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.
"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."
Asbestos Fines for Local Authority and Contractor
A local authority and its contractor have been fined after a worker left a family exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres for three days.
City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly removed.
Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008 the city council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn Street in the city and contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to investigate the fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their removal. However, County Waste (Lincs) Ltd was not licensed to work with asbestos.
The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The court was told he simply prised off the panels with a crowbar, breaking them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to transport to a yard for disposal.
Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council was fined £10,000 and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd, of Exchange Road, Lincoln, was fined £4,250 and ordered to pay costs of £12,000 and £6,000 respectively after pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.
HSE inspector Martin Giles said:
"The Council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.
"Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before rehousing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.
"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping.
"Asbestos is a hidden killer and the HSE has a wealth of information on its website to help employers manage the risks of working with the material. There is no excuse for ignorance when dealing with people's lives."
City of Lincoln Council and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after allowing asbestos insulation boards to be incorrectly removed.
Lincoln Magistrates' Court heard that in June 2008 the city council was refurbishing the bathroom of a property in Winn Street in the city and contracted County Waste (Lincs) Ltd to investigate the fixing of asbestos insulation boards, with a view to their removal. However, County Waste (Lincs) Ltd was not licensed to work with asbestos.
The employee carrying out the work lacked adequate information or training about the hazards from exposure to asbestos. The court was told he simply prised off the panels with a crowbar, breaking them in the process, before putting the pieces in a sack to transport to a yard for disposal.
Broken panels and pieces of asbestos debris were left on the bathroom floor of the property, and the worker walked around for the rest of the day in clothing that may have been contaminated with asbestos fibres.
After the tenant complained to the Council, employees visited the property to inspect the damage. However, they failed to tell the tenant there was a problem and did not move the family to another property for three days.
City of Lincoln Council was fined £10,000 and County Waste (Lincs) Ltd, of Exchange Road, Lincoln, was fined £4,250 and ordered to pay costs of £12,000 and £6,000 respectively after pleading guilty to a number of health and safety breaches.
HSE inspector Martin Giles said:
"The Council failed to ensure the contractor was competent to carry out the work and had no procedures in place to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to its employees. It failed to protect its tenants and ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health following the release of asbestos fibres.
"Not informing the family about the seriousness of the problem and leaving them in the property for three days before rehousing them was an irresponsible and unacceptable act for a landlord.
"Because County Waste (Lincs) Ltd failed to provide adequate information, instruction and training to ensure employees liable to be exposed to asbestos were able to safeguard themselves and others, it did nothing to prevent the spread of asbestos from the bathroom and removed the material from the property without being in an appropriately sealed receptacle or wrapping.
"Asbestos is a hidden killer and the HSE has a wealth of information on its website to help employers manage the risks of working with the material. There is no excuse for ignorance when dealing with people's lives."
Migrant Workers
All construction workers have a right to work on sites where they do not get hurt or ill through work.
Your employer and the main contractor on site are responsible for health and safety, but you must help by being aware of your own and your employer’s responsibilities.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.
This website will help overseas construction workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.
If you are working here from overseas, this website will help you:
find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law; and
find information on health and safety including your basic rights, good practice, legal standards and conditions of work.
If you are an employer or main contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.
You can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by calling one of these Helpline numbers (English also spoken):
0207 556 2181 - Gujarati
0207 556 2206 - Hindi
0207 556 2294 - Punjabi
0207 556 2239 - Polish
0207 556 2200 - Romanian
Please note: All calls made to these numbers are confidential and you do not have to give your name if you don’t want to.
Your employer and the main contractor on site are responsible for health and safety, but you must help by being aware of your own and your employer’s responsibilities.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is the government agency responsible for enforcing health and safety legislation in Great Britain.
This website will help overseas construction workers and their employers understand their roles and responsibilities under British health and safety law.
If you are working here from overseas, this website will help you:
find out about your rights and responsibilities under health and safety law; and
find information on health and safety including your basic rights, good practice, legal standards and conditions of work.
If you are an employer or main contractor this website will enable you to provide written guidance for employees who do not speak English.
You can contact the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) by calling one of these Helpline numbers (English also spoken):
0207 556 2181 - Gujarati
0207 556 2206 - Hindi
0207 556 2294 - Punjabi
0207 556 2239 - Polish
0207 556 2200 - Romanian
Please note: All calls made to these numbers are confidential and you do not have to give your name if you don’t want to.
Monday, 7 June 2010
The pressures of the economic crisis have hit private company owners, with a survey revealing 41% of bosses have seen a rise in their stress levels as compared with a year ago.
Grant Thornton polled 500 privately held firms, including family, entrepreneurial and SMEs (PHBs) to find 34% of them selecting the recession as the main cause of workplace stress.
Twenty-six per cent said a heavy workload caused them most stress, while 26% picked the pressure on cash flow.
Privately owned business bosses in Northern Ireland were found to be the most stressed in the whole of the UK. The survey revealed 54% claimed their stress levels have increased in the past 12 months, while those in the East (48%) were second. Those in London and the South gave the third highest response, with 45% claiming a rise in stress levels in the past year.
PHB heads in the Midlands too said the crunch caused them the most stress at work, with 32.9% saying the recession made them tense, 28.6% citing pressure from a heavy workload and 27.1% pressure on cash flow.
Office managing partner at Birmingham's Grant Thornton Dave Munton said: "The pressure on cash flow has been driven by several factors, not least of which are the tightening of credit lines and customers renegotiating and often lengthening payment terms in order to keep cash within their own businesses."
Grant Thornton polled 500 privately held firms, including family, entrepreneurial and SMEs (PHBs) to find 34% of them selecting the recession as the main cause of workplace stress.
Twenty-six per cent said a heavy workload caused them most stress, while 26% picked the pressure on cash flow.
Privately owned business bosses in Northern Ireland were found to be the most stressed in the whole of the UK. The survey revealed 54% claimed their stress levels have increased in the past 12 months, while those in the East (48%) were second. Those in London and the South gave the third highest response, with 45% claiming a rise in stress levels in the past year.
PHB heads in the Midlands too said the crunch caused them the most stress at work, with 32.9% saying the recession made them tense, 28.6% citing pressure from a heavy workload and 27.1% pressure on cash flow.
Office managing partner at Birmingham's Grant Thornton Dave Munton said: "The pressure on cash flow has been driven by several factors, not least of which are the tightening of credit lines and customers renegotiating and often lengthening payment terms in order to keep cash within their own businesses."
Eye Care for Workers
Nearly one in 10 British businesses are failing to meet their legal responsibilities to protect their workforce's sight, a new study commissioned by national sight charity the Eyecare Trust and healthcare provider Simplyhealth found.
"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired colour perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen.
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.
There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in 10 businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.
Small businesses employing fewer than 10 people are the worst offenders. Absolutely no provision for eye care is provided by one in five (21%) small businesses, and the offer to pay for sight tests is only offered by a third, while three-quarters fail to ensure workstations are designed to minimise glare or reflections - two factors that can lead to screen fatigue and cause visual trauma.
When it came to big businesses, one in five (18%) did not meet the costs of regular sight tests, while two-fifths (40%) point blank refused to pay a contribution towards the cost of spectacles required solely for VDU work.
"Screen fatigue" is regularly suffered by 90% of office workers, and the symptoms include headaches, sore or tired eyes, impaired colour perception and blurred vision. During their working life, the average office worker will spend 128,740 hours staring at a screen.
The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) regulations place a legal obligation on all employers to make sure they care for the eye health of staff who regularly use a VDU (computer screen) at work in order to combat the visual stress associated with prolonged screen use.
There is no eye care policy at all amongst one in 10 businesses, while regular sight tests, which forms the most basic element of the legislation, are not provided by 44% of employers, the ScreenSmart study found.
Small businesses employing fewer than 10 people are the worst offenders. Absolutely no provision for eye care is provided by one in five (21%) small businesses, and the offer to pay for sight tests is only offered by a third, while three-quarters fail to ensure workstations are designed to minimise glare or reflections - two factors that can lead to screen fatigue and cause visual trauma.
When it came to big businesses, one in five (18%) did not meet the costs of regular sight tests, while two-fifths (40%) point blank refused to pay a contribution towards the cost of spectacles required solely for VDU work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)