Spotlight on Health and Safety by Bob Miller

Spotlight on Health and Safety

April 2013 News from NIPSA Health & Safety Committee

It’s a Safety First for Norman! The winner of the 2012 Health and Safety Representatives Award went to Norman Gray, Health and Safety Rep for Branch 730 and ViceChairperson of NIPSA Health and Safety Committee. The winner of the award, run by the Health and Safety Executive NI and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (NIC/ICTU), was announced at an event in UNISON on 25th January 2013. In presenting the award Barbara Martin, Chairperson of the NIC/ ICTU Health and Safety Committee said “The calibre of applicants was extremely impressive. Norman fought against stiff competition and we are delighted this award has gone to an extremely worthy winner”. In accepting the award Norman said: “I believe this award is for all Health and Safety Reps across NIPSA for their continued hard work and dedication to both protecting their members and raising health and safety awareness in their place of work. Continued on page 2

Above: George Lucas, Chairperson of HSENI, presents Norman Gray (Branch 730) Winner of the 2012 Health and Safety Representatives Award.

from cover

Whilst NIPSA is moving in the right direction regarding health and safety I believe that we face very real challenges ahead with the deregulation agenda, along with all the other cuts, being driven by this Westminster Government and what looks like a rubber stamp of approval by Stormont. I believe that we have to raise awareness and raise our game in showing the Stormont Executive that these cuts will affect workers and will do nothing to relieve the burden on business as the Coalition government would have everyone believe. These cuts will allow employers to ignore their obligation currently in place to protect employees from the risk. In receiving this award I hope it will encourage more members to take up the role of Health and Safety Rep within their branches. I would also like to acknowledge the support I received from Branch 730 committee members. Without their support I don’t believe I could have received this award. Thank you.” Also speaking at the event Geraldine Alexander, NIPSA Assistant Secretary said: “I am delighted and honoured to extend NIPSA’s congratulations to Norman on achieving this prestigious award. NIPSA is exceptionally proud of Norman and this is a fitting tribute and recognition for all his hard work in advancing the health and safety agenda in the workplace and ensuring workplaces are safer and healthier. Norman has worked tirelessly on behalf of not only NIPSA members but all workers, patients and visitors within Belfast City Hospital to ensure their lives are not put at risk. His enthusiasm and dedication to health and safety is an inspiration to us all. So on behalf of NIPSA and all workers thank you Norman and well done.”

April 2013

Spotlight on Health and Safety

NIPSA puts its case before DETI committee on RIDDOR changes NIPSA, along with a delegation from ICTU, gave oral evidence to the DETI Committee on 24 January 2013 against the proposals put forward by the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland (HSENI) to extend the reporting period from over 3 days to 7 days simply on the basis to reflect what has happened in Britain. In its submission NIPSA raised its concern that the current proposals stemmed not from a wish to improve our health and safety regime but from the need to respond to the recommendations from Lord Young’s Report “Common Sense, Common Safety”. A report that had no evidence base, considered shops, offices and schools to be low risk, obviously ignoring violence, stress and work related upper limb disorders as serious workplace problems or indeed any other work related illhealth condition. We argued this was clearly wrong as the Lord Young review stated aim was not intended to improve the health and safety regime, but to free businesses from unnecessary bureaucratic burdens and saving money. This aim would therefore suggest that changes were being made to RIDDOR to meet the political agenda rather than seeking to improve workplace health and safety. We went on to state the proposed changes will be detrimental to workers as no assessment had been made on the benefit to workers of these changes. This was borne out by the fact that a question was asked in the consultation for views on the advantage to business but with no corresponding question on the advantages to workers. NIPSA believed the consultation on this was also fundamentally flawed by the failure of HSENI to carry out a Northern Ireland specific EQIA. This was openly admitted by HSENI in its evidence to the Committee on 29 November 2013. We put it to the Committee that you cannot simply read across an equality impact assessment in Great Britain

to Northern Ireland and their failure to carry out a proper EQIA was not compliant with Northern Ireland equality laws and in particular Section 75. Even if you look at the GB Impact Assessment there was again a clear focus on the calculation of costs and benefits of the proposal to both businesses and local authorities, with no mention of the potential impact on the health of employees. This was perhaps intentional as it was difficult to understand or identify what benefits workers will gain from a reduction in the collection of data which helps to prevent and/or reduce workplace deaths, injuries and ill health. We stated that under reporting under RIDDOR was rife and that some employers simply do not comply with the regulations and don’t report many non fatal prescribed accidents, injuries and dangerous occurrences. Yet the requirement to report O3D incidents is incredibly simple. It was therefore difficult to see how the so called burden to businesses will be reduced when employers will be required to record O3D incidents and report these after 7 days. Rather than reducing the burden it was clear that this will increase as employers are faced with a two tier system which could potentially increase the chance of non compliance. We argued strongly that any proposed change should be seeking to improve the process

to encourage more employers to comply with the existing legislation. RIDDOR reports provide much needed intelligence data to help with planning and targeting enforcing authorities’ interventions. We said if this change was allowed to go ahead then injuries such as work-related upper limb disorders, work-related stress, manual handling, slips, trips and falls incidents including verbal abuse, threats and actual violence will go under the radar and the majority of these incidents occur in so called low risk workplaces. Consequently the opportunity to identify prevention measures will be missed or ignored. We put it to the Committee that in its current format RIDDOR suffers from massive under reporting. Rather than extending the period in which the report takes place, NIPSA believe it would make better sense to look at how levels of reporting can be improved as well as strategies to encourage more, particularly small and medium size employers, to comply with their duty to report under RIDDOR. NIPSA was of the view that simply extending the number of days in which a report can be made will do nothing to improve reporting levels especially as employers will still be required to record O3D incidents.

April 2013

Spotlight on Health and Safety

It’s not in any job description No one comes into their place of work to get abuse or become injured from the result of being attacked by members of the public; sadly this is not the case across the public sector in NI. A number of studies would suggest frontline staff are at greatest risk of such abuse and violence. Reporting of such incidents seems to be under-reported in many areas across the public sector. The factors contributing to this under reporting could be because people are fearful for their jobs and don’t want to rock the boat, the feeling that the employer won’t act on the report or put in place measures to reduce/remove the risks associated with dealing with members of the public, others can’t be bothered along with the most common reason for not reporting which is people feel they just have to except these attacks and get on with their job. Your Employer has a duty of care to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of employees but if they are not aware of any risks to front line staff it is difficult to check what appropriate measures are needed to combat this unacceptable behaviour. This is why it’s important to ensure that the culture of not reporting such behaviour stops and all such incidents are reported both in a timely manner and at the appropriate level. What should you report? There is no hard and fast rule on what should or what not to report, but the best advice to give is that if you are in doubt report it.

Remember if you are subject to an assault, either verbally or physical, it should be reported. If it can happen to you it can happen to another work colleague. Why do these attacks happen? There are many reasons why someone assaults public sector workers such as: they pay their wages and feel they have the right, frustration that they don’t get the answer they expect or get seen in a timely manner or because they feel they can do it because they know that the public sector worker will just accept it and that they will get sorted quicker. Within the public sector across NI it could be argued that the surge in violence towards public sector workers, could be down to the soaring waiting times, closures of A&E’s along with staff shortages, while this maybe the case it is also down to the culture of under reporting along with the employer’s not doing enough to protect employees from such attacks. We must do more to change both the mind-set of the public that it’s not acceptable along with ensuring that we report these incidents and hold

employers to account to ensure that they do more to stop these attacks and put in place measures to protect employees. If it can happen to you it can happen to others so let’s start reporting these incidents when they occur and through these reporting mechanisms hold employers to account. On the good news front on the issues of violence and aggression against public facing workers there was a second reading on 1st February 2013 of a Ten Minute Rule Bill to give shop workers legal protection against violence and abuse. This bill proposes a new offence relating to assaults on public- facing workers carrying a maximum sentence of 12 months or a £10,000 fine. If passed this will become law in both England and Wales and it is hoped that it will also become law in both Scotland and here. All attacks on our public sector members is wrong and should not be acceptable to anyone but the clear cold hard fact is this; if staff don’t report these types of incidents nothing will change therefore we would encourage that all incidents are reported and help to remove the risk of injury to both yourself and your work colleagues.

April 2013

Spotlight on Health and Safety

Cameron again dredges up safety myths over youth employment The stereotype of “health and safety” getting in the way of jobs and growth has reared its head yet again, this time in relation to the employment of young people. With monotonous regularity, Prime Minister David Cameron falls back on “health and safety” as the whipping boy in his increasingly frantic search for excuses as to why the government’s austerity strategy is not working. His latest target is youth unemployment and the availability of work experience. In January he told a group of business leaders in the North West that “a lot of kids aren’t getting the sort of work experience that you used to get, because of all the concerns about health and safety”. The populist and grotesquely flawed suggestion that health and safety laws get in the way of job creation for young workers must be highly offensive to the thousands of under 19s who are seriously injured at work each year. According to the HSE a worker is as likely to suffer an injury in their first six months at a workplace as during the whole of their remaining working life. Many factors explain this higher risk. These include inexperience or unfamiliarity with the job and workplace, and reluctance to voice concerns for fear of looking stupid or being marked down as a troublemaker. How much more likely are these risk factors to

be affecting the workplace behaviour of young people? Their natural inclination to be less risk averse than adults places them at particular risk. And scarcity of jobs makes them even more vulnerable because they are much more likely to be compliant and to take risks.

Young Workers: The Law

A risk assessment – a straightforward concept which is not onerous – must always be undertaken when working with young people. It involves identifying the particular hazards in the workplace and assessing the likelihood that these hazards will cause harm to the young person.

Regulation 19 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (NI) 2000 says that employers must protect young workers (those aged under 18) from risks to their health and safety arising from lack of experience or maturity, and must not employ a young person for work which:

The process needs to be collaborative, to make sure the employer understands any particular risks associated with a particular young person, for example disability, but it need not be too complicated.

●● is beyond their physical or psychological capacity;

●● they are supervised by a competent person; and

●● involves harmful exposure to radiation, toxins or carcinogens;

●● the risk will be reduced to the lowest level reasonably practicable.

As well as injury, young workers are at greater risk of bullying and harassment. Unregulated work experience and “internship” lend themselves to hidden abusive working practices because of the young person’s need to please in order to secure a job.

●● involves the risk of accidents which may not be recognised or avoided by young people because of their inexperience; or

●● The key findings of the risk assessment and the control measures must be passed to the parent, although this need not be in writing.

●● involves a risk to health from extreme cold or heat, noise or vibration.

There are also special rules for young workers under the Working Time Regulations. These rules govern the maximum length of the working day and week, and also allow for extra rest breaks.

Union safety reps can play an important role in explaining the importance of good health and safety and why it matters for young people.

The Approved Code of Practice says that the employer must carry out a risk assessment before

the young person starts work. The code adds that when control measures have been taken and a significant risk remains, a young person must not do the work unless: ●● it is necessary for their training;

April 2013

Spotlight on Health and Safety

So what is stress? ...and what can you do about it? Do you think you may be experiencing work related stress and what can you do about it? So what is stress – well the HSE define it as: “The adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed on them” (HSE 2001). This makes an important distinction between pressure, which can be a positive state if managed correctly, and stress which can be detrimental to health.

The Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

If an employee feels they are experiencing work related stress there are a number of ways to seek support:

●● What are the employer’s responsibilities;

●● Contact your Health and Safety Rep

●● What can employees do;

●● Contact Occupational Health in the work place for support

●● Changes in mood or behaviour ; ●● Deteriorating relationships with colleagues ; ●● Loss of interest in work;

Risk Assessment has become a standard phrase in Health and Safety over the last 10 – 20 years. However, although many people have heard of it, and it is regularly mentioned in discussions with managers, there appears to be some confusion as to what it actually means. We all unconsciously carry out risk assessments every day, whether it be moving from one area to another or lifting a box of paper for the photocopier, but there is a requirement under health and safety legislation to carry out a “Formal” risk assessment for each of the processes we carry out and the area in which we work. The 1988 Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (CoSHH) Regulations were the first to require employers to carry out and record Risk Assessments (R.As.). But it was the introduction of the “six-pack” in 1993 (6 sets of new regulations all introduced at the same time) that really brought risk assessment to the forefront of health and safety control strategies. Most of the “six-pack” has since been revised and updated but risk assessment is still the main approach that underpins much of what they require.

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000

●● Symptoms and signs;

The following may be signs of work-related stress;

Demystifying the Risk

The key legislation associated with stress is:

●● Speak with the line manager – remember if the employer doesn’t know then nothing can be done.

It is important staff are aware of:

Employers have a duty to carry out a risk assessment – it is important that a risk assessment is carried out involving employees and management and Trade Union Health and Safety reps if the employee wishes them to be involved.

Generic or Specific Assessments

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) require that all employers assess the general risks to health and safety arising from work.

●● Irritability/short temper; ●● Indecisiveness/reduced concentration; ●● Absenteeism, poor time keeping or reduced performance;

Regulation 3: Risk Assessment Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of

●● Delayed recovery and return to work from illness;

●● The risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed while they are at work; and

●● Excessive smoking, drinking or use of drugs; ●● Complaints about health (headaches etc).

●● The risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking.

Employers have a duty of care towards their employees and to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of employees and others affected by their work. Requiring more than your average day Risk Assessment!

For the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions.

The purpose of Risk Assessment

It is important for Health and Safety Reps to be aware of the intentions behind risk assessment. Some managers see the legal requirement as a need to have a piece of paper with a few notes on it in a file somewhere. This is not sufficient. In the Accepted Code of Practice (ACoP) accompanying the MHSWR, the HSE give their own explanation: “The purpose of the risk assessment is to help the employer or self employed person to determine what measures should be taken to comply with the employers or self employed person’s duties under the “relevant statutory provisions”.

April 2013

Who carries out “Risk Assessments?”

It is the employer’s duty to ensure those carrying out risk assessments are competent to do so. They should have suitable training and the time and resources to carry out the assessment. Also the code of practice on the Management Regulations points out “the risk assessment” process needs to be practical and take account of the views of employees and their safety representatives who will have practical knowledge to contribute.” In certain areas, safety reps may be more experienced or better qualified in Health and Safety than management or the risk assessors; in this case management may be tempted to ask the safety rep Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Order to actually carry out the risk assessment themselves. Such requests should be politely refused. Firstly 1978 has specific duties that cover: because Risk Assessment is a management duty, not ●● Plant; a safety reps responsibility and the independence of the safety rep in looking at the results is vital. ●● Systems of Work; There must be a clear separation between the rep ●● Handling, storage and transport of articles and and the risk assessor to protect the independence substances; of the rep in assessing the results and to properly protect the interests of the members. Secondly ●● Workplaces, including access and egress; under the legislation the Health and Safety rep has no “Duty of Care” in other words if s/he does not ●● The working environment. identify a hazard as such during a safety inspection So to fully satisfy the legal requirements, a risk or in discussions with management, no fault can be assessment should look at all of these areas and laid at the foot of the rep. However whoever carries produce an action plan to tackle the identified risks. out a risk assessment then becomes a “responsible person” i.e. they have a responsibility to make sure that the necessary preventative measures or Define “Hazard” and “Risk” The ACoP says a risk assessment should identify equipments identified in the risk assessment are put the hazards present, and then identify the extent of in place. the risk involved, taking existing precautions into account. In order to understand this properly we Regular Reviews have to know what is meant by Hazard and Risk. Risk Assessment is not a one off event. It is (or The HSE defines a hazard as “something with the potential to cause harm (this can include articles, substances, plant or machines, methods of work, the working environment and other aspects of work organisation); the Risk is the likelihood of potential harm from that hazard being realised. The extent of the risk will depend on the likelihood of that harm occurring; the potential severity of that harm; i.e. of any resultant injury or adverse health effect; and the population that may be affected by the hazard i.e. the number of people who might be exposed.” Note that hazards are not only physical objects – methods of work can also constitute a hazard or risk. There are two particular areas where we will want to ensure that the management are paying proper attention to risk assessment: The threat of violence to staff, especially lone workers and those working away from the office and Stress Risk Assessments.

should be) a continuous event that reacts to change. Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations says that a risk assessment must be reviewed by the employer if: 1. There is a reason to believe that it is no longer valid; or 2. There has been a significant change in the matters to which the assessment relates. It is good practice for assessments to be reviewed on a regular basis, as well, to ensure that changes have not slipped through.

Spotlight on Health and Safety

Set a good routine to avoid the dangers of your desk! The vast majority of NIPSA members are tied to their desks throughout the working day, with some common sense practices you can avoid conditions like RSI before they become a major problem. Display Screen Equipment (DSE) is a device or equipment that has an alphanumeric or graphic display screen, regardless of the display process involved; it includes both conventional display screens and those used in emerging technologies such as laptops, touch screens and other similar devices. Computer workstations or equipment can be associated with neck, shoulder, back or arm pain, as well as fatigue and eyestrain.

Past surveys have found that a high proportion of DSE workers report aches, pains or eye discomfort. These aches and pains are sometimes called upper limb disorders (ULDs), which can include a range of medical conditions such as Repetitive Strain Injury. Most of these conditions do not indicate any serious ill health, but it makes sense to avoid them as far as possible The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations (NI)1992 aim to protect the health of people who work with DSE.

The Regulations were introduced because DSE has become one of the most common kinds of work equipment. That doesn’t mean that DSE work is risky, it isn’t. ULDs can be avoided if users follow effective practice, set up their workstations properly and take breaks during prolonged use. By just taking a few simple precautions, work with DSE can be more comfortable and productive. The regulations require employers to; ●● Analyse workstations, and assess and reduce risks ●● Employers need to look at the whole workstation including equipment, furniture, and the work environment, the job being done, any special needs of individual staff, and where risks are identified, take steps to reduce or remove them. They must ensure that workstations meet the minimum requirements, plan work so there are breaks or changes of activity during the working day. ●● Whilst there is no legal guidance on the point of breaks away from your workstation as it depends on the type of work you do it is advisable to break up long spells of DSE work. Frequent short breaks are better than infrequent longer ones; 5-10 minute breaks every hour are better than 20 minutes every 2 hours. Ideally users should have some choice about when to take breaks. ●● The principal risks when using DSE relate to physical (musculoskeletal) problems, visual fatigue and mental stress. These are not unique to DSE work nor an inevitable consequence of it, and indeed there is some evidence that the risk to the individual user from typical DSE work is low if appropriate precautions are taken. However, in DSE work as in other types of work, ill health can result from poor equipment or furniture, work organisation, working environment, job design and posture, and from inappropriate working methods. While surveys indicate that only a small proportion of DSE workers are likely to suffer significant ill health, the number of cases is still far from negligible as DSE workers are so numerous. However, the known health problems associated with DSE work can be prevented in the majority of cases by good ergonomic design of the equipment, Views expressed in this Newsletter are not, unless otherwise stated, the views of NIPSA.

April 2013

workplace and job, and by the worker training and consolation. Risk Assessments should be completed and should look at a number of areas such as: Postural problems: may be overcome by simple adjustments to the workstation such as repositioning equipment or adjusting the chair. Postural problems can also indicate a need to reinforce the user’s training (for example on correct hand position, posture, how to adjust equipment). New equipment such as footrest or document holder may be required in some cases. Visual problems: may be tackled by straightforward means such as repositioning the screen or using blinds to avoid glare, placing the screen at a more comfortable viewing distance from the user, or by ensuring the screen is kept clean. In some cases, new equipment such as window blinds or more appropriate lighting may be needed. Fatigue and stress: may be alleviated by correcting obvious defects in the workstation as indicated in items above, and ensuring the software is appropriate to the task. In addition, as in other kinds of work, good design of the task will be important. Wherever possible, the task should provide users with a degree of personal control over the pace and nature of their tasks. Proper provision must be made for training and information, not only on health and safety risks but also on the use of software. It is important to take a systematic approach to risk reduction and recognise the limitations of the basic assessment. Observed problems may reflect the interaction of several factors or may have causes that are not obvious. For example backache may turn out to have been caused by the worker sitting in an abnormal position in order to minimise the effects of reflections on the screen. If the factors underlying a problem appear to be complex, or if simple remedial measures do not have the desired effect, it will generally be necessary to obtain expert advice on corrective action. Further information can be obtained on the HSENI website links at: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg36.pdf www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg90.htm and www.hse.gov.uk/msd/faq.htm