health and safety inspectorate - government of jersey · health and safety annual report 2008...

Health and Safety Inspectorate Annual Report 2008

Health and Safety Annual Report 2008

Front cover picture

The failure of this component, part of a jockey wheel assembly to a cable trailer, resulted in an employee sustaining serious leg and foot injuries when the jockey wheel to the trailer collapsed without warning.

The accident occurred on the 14th March 2008 with the injuries he sustained resulting in the employee not being able to work since that date.

2


Introduction

The Health and Safety Inspectorate is the regulating authority for health and safety at all workplaces, and arising from all working activities, carried out in the Island.

This report comprises two parts. The first part summarises the work carried out by the Inspectorate in 2008. The second part provides information, sourced from claims made for social security benefit, where claimants have identified their claim as being due to a workplace accident or ill health suffered as a result of their employment.

3


About us

The Inspectorate is part of the Social Security Department, with the Director of Health and Safety, who is also a member of the Senior Management Team of the Department, reporting to the Controller of Social Security. In view of the Inspectorate’s responsibilities for regulating health and safety in the public sector the Director of Health and Safety also reports to the Attorney General, where the Inspectorate has dealings with States Departments and it is suspected that a breach of health and safety legislation may have occurred.

The political responsibility for health and safety at work rests with the Minister for Social Security. During 2008, Deputy Ian Gorst replaced Senator Paul Routier as Minister for Social Security, with Deputy Angela Jeune replacing Deputy Peter Troy as Assistant Minister.

The Inspectorate is staffed by the Director of Health and Safety, Colin Myers, and two Health and Safety Inspectors, Tammy Fage and Lee McGurty. Lyn Hamel, Technical and Administrative Officer, completes the direct staffing of the Inspectorate.

The Inspectorate is also provided with support by staff of the Social Security Department, with Anne Mathews and Jane Bertram providing part time administrative support and financial and other services provided by the Corporate Services division of the Department.

Senator Paul Routier Deputy Peter Troy

Deputy Ian Gorst Deputy Angela Jeune

4


Our Aim

Our overall aim is to establish and maintain a working environment in which health, safety and welfare standards are adequately controlled for anybody who may be affected.

Clearly, the Inspectorate is not staffed to provide a policing function of health and safety at work, reflecting the legal position which places the responsibility for the control of risks on those who create them.

The work of the Inspectorate does involve developing the framework for health and safety at work, assisting duty holders to understand the legal requirements placed on them and taking appropriate action, within our enforcement policy, where it is identified that these requirements are not being met.

The first part of this report summarises the work carried out by the Inspectorate in 2008.

5


Part One Our work in 2008

Asbestos

“The deadly disease” and “the hidden killer” are just two of the terms which have been used to describe the legacy of asbestos. Not without justification. Diseases as a result of breathing in asbestos fibres currently cause the death of over 4000 people a year in the UK, with this figure expected to continue to rise over the next decade. The UK Health and Safety Executive report that every week 3 plumbers, 20 tradesman, 6 electricians and 6 joiners are among those who die from asbestos related diseases

The picture of individuals suffering from asbestos related diseases in Jersey is not clear due to the potential time delay between exposure and onset of symptoms which, in the case of mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung, has been recorded as being up to 40 years from the time of exposure.

It is however the case that there is a significant amount of material containing asbestos present in buildings in Jersey, due to its extensive use in the past during construction and refurbishment work. The potential for individuals to be exposed to the risk of breathing in fibres as a result of disturbing asbestos is therefore considerable, unless the work is properly managed.

Asbestos is therefore treated as a high priority topic by the Inspectorate.

In 2008, the Health and Safety (Asbestos Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations, 2008, were passed by the States of Jersey. These Regulations are essentially a revision of the former licensing regulations intended to clarify the legal definitions of certain asbestos containing materials. The opportunity was also taken to remove textured decorative coatings, commonly referred to as “artex”, from having to be removed by licensed contractors, as the risks involved with such work have been shown to be low.

The Regulations restrict work with the more dangerous types of asbestos containing material, such as asbestos pipe insulation and asbestos insulation board. When disturbed, these materials will release large amounts of asbestos fibres, resulting in the potential for individuals creating the disturbance, and other persons in the vicinity, to breathe in asbestos. Work with these materials can only be carried out by contractors who are licensed under the Regulations by the Minister for Social Security or, in the case of contractors already licensed by the UK Health and Safety Executive or Northern Ireland Health and Safety Executive, who have had their licence approved by a Health and Safety Inspector.

6


The approval of a UK or Northern Ireland licensed contractor by an Inspector is not simply a paperwork trail, with discussions taking place with the relevant regulatory authority on both the validity of a licence and recent performance of any Company wishing to work in Jersey. In 2008, seven UK Companies had their licence extended to allow them to work in Jersey.

As part of the conditions attached to a licence for work with asbestos, contractors are required to notify the Inspectorate of any work that they are intending to carry out together with a detailed method statement. In 2008, the Inspectorate reviewed 61 method statements submitted by licensed contractors.

Contractors are required to provide 14 days notice of any intended work, which in turn places an obligation on the Inspectorate to review method statements within this period of time. In many cases, this review, which may involve visiting the site of the proposed work, was carried out well within the 14 day required notification, particularly where the work was considered to be urgent.

Inspectors also carry out unannounced visits to asbestos removal work, with one of the Health and Safety Inspectors receiving the necessary training and medical examination to inspect work being carried out within an enclosure in which asbestos is being removed. In 2008 this expertise also enabled the Inspectorate to assist our colleagues in the Guernsey Health and Safety Executive, with assistance being given to an investigation into an asbestos disturbance during a refurbishment project in Guernsey.

During 2008, the Inspectorate also carried out a number of investigations into disturbances of asbestos, of which two, because of the seriousness of the matters found, resulted in reports being forwarded to the Attorney General. Two Companies were prosecuted in 2008 for work involving asbestos with the Royal Court imposing fines and costs totalling £25,500.

The Inspectorate also actively supported the asbestos awareness campaign organised by the Jersey Safety Council, the body set up by the States to promote health and safety at work. The Director of Health and Safety was involved with the campaign and also gave a presentation at the breakfast launch held in October.

7


Case Study – Asbestos prosecution

Apex Contracts Limited was prosecuted in the Royal Court on the 13th June 2008 for disturbing asbestos during the renovation of a property in St Helier which included the demolition of a two storey building to the rear of the property.

No steps had been taken to determine whether any asbestos containing materials were present in the building prior to its demolition, despite the requirement for this being brought to the attention of one of the Directors of the Company by an Inspector, both verbally and by letter, some 6 weeks previously.

During the course of the demolition works, asbestos insulation board was removed in an uncontrolled manner, resulting in two employees potentially being exposed to asbestos fibres.

The Company admitted charges under the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, and the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations, 1997, and were fined £15,000 with and additional £2,500 costs.

Area where demolition took place

8


What we are doing in 2009

The revision of the Licensing Regulations, together with other changes in the control of the risks from asbestos, has resulted in proposals for a revision being made to the Approved Code of Practice on the Management of Exposure to Asbestos Fibres in Workplace Buildings and Structures. The Minister for Social Security will give consideration to issuing a revised code of practice in 2009.

Raising awareness to asbestos can prove difficult as a result of an individual’s lack of appreciation that exposure to a seemingly inoffensive product results in a serious health risk; failure to identify asbestos containing materials during construction work; and as a result of the complacency that certain individuals have when working with asbestos containing materials.

For these reasons and the high risks to the health of persons and others caused as a result of disturbing the material, the Inspectorate will continue to treat asbestos as a high priority area in 2009.

9


Investigations into work related incidents, accidents and ill health Inspectors are appointed by the Minister for Social Security under Article 12 of the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989. Inspectors are provided with wide ranging powers in order to enable them to carry out investigations into work related incidents, accidents and ill health, including being able to visit any workplace to carry out enquires and to question any person who may be able to assist in an investigation.

The Inspectorate gain information on work related accidents or ill health in a number of ways including:

directly from the individual affected;�

from employers;

as a result of claims made for social security benefit; and

from the emergency services.

In 2008, the Inspectorate carried out 71 investigations into work related incidents, accidents and ill health.

The main aim of any investigation is to identify what has occurred in order to require improvements to ensure that the factors which led to the incident are not repeated and, in the wider context, to learn lessons which form the basis of

advice and guidance for other organisations. On occasion the poor performance of the duty holder is such that enforcement action is taken, in keeping with the Inspectorate’s Enforcement Policy which has been agreed by the Attorney General. The Enforcement Policy is available online at http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI/ About+Us/enforcementstatement.htm

Where an individual contacts the Inspectorate to report that they suffered an accident or ill health as a result of a working activity, the Inspectorate will, in most cases, commence an investigation into the report. This is, however, subject to the report of the incident being received by the Inspectorate within a short time of the incident and the benefit that may be gained from an investigation.

The Inspectorate is legally unable to assist individuals seeking compensation. This is a matter for the individuals’ own legal advisor.

10

http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI


Case study - accident resulting in serious injury

A firefighter fell into an open manhole in a training complex whilst helping to show a number of persons the area. There was reduced visibility and restricted height in the area. The firefighter sustained a serious and career threatening knee injury.

It was found that the manhole cover had not been replaced after a previous training exercise, in part due to the participants having to leave the area quickly as a result of an emergency call out.

The investigation identified the need for improvements in both pre and post training checks, and more clearly defined management responsibility for the area.

Manhole in training complex

11


Case study - accident resulting in serious injury

A 15 year old boy sustained very serious injuries to both of his lower legs, when he was struck by a power scythe whilst assisting his father to clear a patch of ground. Although he was not at work, the machine involved in the accident was on hire from a local hire shop.

The father had spotted his son inadvertently stepping backwards directly into the path of the power scythe and immediately shouted a warning, let go of the machine to stop it, and went to try and push his son out of the way. Suddenly, realising that the machine was still running and moving forwards, he tried to pull it away from his son before turning the ignition switch off, thereby stopping the engine. Unfortunately, the cutting blades had already made contact with his son’s lower legs, causing very severe injuries, including severed Achilles tendons and muscles to both lower legs.

It was apparent that a failure of the operating controls had occurred which should have stopped the machine as soon as the controls had been released. The investigation determined that they had been inadvertently disabled by the father when he incorrectly re-connected the

electrical wires after they became disconnected after snagging on some brambles.

Recommendations were made to improve the design of the wiring connections.

Although no working activity was being carried out at the time of the accident, the hire of equipment is a matter which is subject to health and safety at work legislation. In this instance, it was found that the hire shop involved had not committed any breach of legislation.

The power scythe involved in the accident

12


Case study - accidents resulting in serious injury

An archivist working for a local bank sustained multiple injuries when he fell a distance of 2.2 meters from the edge of a racking system. He was flown to the UK for medical treatment as a result of his injuries.

The archive store was undergoing a major refurbishment at the time of the accident, with boxes of files stacked on a pallet board being moved by fork lift truck. During the transfer of boxes onto the pallet board, the employee missed his footing and fell over the open edge.

The investigation identified that a simple safety measure, the provision of a guard rail to the edge of the racking system, which was required to be fitted by an Inspector prior to the work continuing, could have prevented the very serious injuries sustained by the employee.

Racking where fall occurred

13


The Inspectorate will continue to investigate work related incidents, accidents and ill health.

We will prioritise our work in this area on matters involving, or having the potential, for serious injury or ill health.

The primary focus of our investigative work will be on accidents and ill health which occur to employees, in keeping with our aim to establish and maintain a working environment in which health, safety and welfare standards are adequately controlled.


14


Complaints

The Inspectorate responds to complaints, about matters arising from working conditions and activities, in accordance with their published complaints policy, which is available online at http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI/ About+Us/inspectionscomplaints.htm

In 2008, 175 complaints were received about working conditions and working activities.

The types of complaint which were received varied considerably, from issues where individual members of the public were reporting an accident, to concerns over the removal of asbestos, or the manner in which work was being carried out in general.

All complaints made to the Inspectorate are dealt with in accordance with our complaints policy. We endeavour to respond to all complaints within five working days, but naturally, concerns over immediately unsafe activities or dangerous situations result in a more immediate response.

Our response to complaints must be balanced against our other work and availability of resources. In 2008, we responded to 98% of complaints within five working days, exceeded our stated target of responding to 95% of complaints within five working days.

One area where we are unable to assist is where individuals are seeking compensation as a result of injuries or ill health that they have suffered. In such instances we will always recommend that the individual approach their own legal advisor.

We are also unable to carry out investigations into incidents which are reported to the Inspectorate a significant time after the date that the incident occurred due to the difficulties in ascertaining the exact circumstances at the time, and the overall benefit of carrying out an investigation.

15



Case study - concerns raised by a member of the public

A member of the public contacted the Inspectorate following concerns over the manner in which access was being provided to carry out hedge trimming.

Following a visit by an Inspector, it was found that work was being carried out using a hedge trimmer from a triple extension ladder. The work was immediately stopped, through the issue of a Prohibition Notice, and discussions took place on a more appropriate arrangement for carrying out the work.

Photograph taken by the Inspector on arrival

16


Case study - concerns raised by a member of the public

Following a call received from a concerned member of the public about the access provided for painters decorating a property, an Inspector immediately attended at the premises.

The individuals had completed work for the day and left the site, however, following a further visit the men were stopped from working. A subsequent meeting took place with their employer which resulted in a scaffold being erected in order to allow the work to continue in a safe manner.

Inadequate access arrangements were provided for painting this property

17


We will endeavour to meet our target of responding to 95% of complaints about working conditions or working activities within five working days.

Our response will be in accordance with our complaints policy.


Case study - concerns raised by tenants

Complaints were received from a number of tenants of a block of flats which was undergoing refurbishment.

The subsequent visit by an Inspector identified that the contractor needed to improve access arrangements, protection for tenants, and ensure that staircases were not obstructed.

The concerns expressed by the tenants highlighted the need for contractors to pay particular attention to the needs of tenants when carrying out major refurbishment of blocks of flats which remain occupied during the course of the work.

18


Enforcement

Inspectors have a range of measures that they can use to require action to be taken. These measures include:

Verbal advice;

Written advice;

Issuing administrative notices, termed Improvement Notices, which require improvements to be made within a timescale determined by the Inspector; and Prohibition Notices, requiring work to be immediately stopped; and

Preparing reports for the Attorney General for his consideration on whether to instigate a prosecution for an infraction of health and safety legislation.

The circumstances which determine the action that is taken is set out in the Inspectorate’s Enforcement Policy, which has been agreed by the Attorney General and is available online at http://www.gov.je/SocialSecurity/HSI/ About+Us/enforcementstatement.htm

In 2008, Inspectors issued 20 Prohibition Notices and 7 Improvement Notices.

Although there is a right of Appeal to an Independent Appeal Tribunal against the serving of a Notice, no such appeals were made in 2008.

During 2008, two Companies were prosecuted in the Royal Court for health and safety offences, both relating to work involving asbestos.

The prosecution of two further Companies, Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd. and Heitkamp GmbH, commenced in the Royal Court in December 2008 with sentencing taking place in February 2009. This prosecution, which resulted in record fines totalling £75,000 with £5,000 costs, took place as a result of repeated infractions of health and safety legislation involving the risk of serious injury, both to persons working on the site and members of the public, during the construction of the Royal Yacht Hotel, Weighbridge Place, St Helier.

19



The difficulties faced by the Inspectorate when encountering a poor performer were highlighted by the inadequate arrangements which were in place for managing health and safety on the Royal Yacht site.

Both Companies formed part of a joint venture responsible for the construction of the hotel extension, with each being responsible for managing health and safety on the site. During the project a number of Prohibition Notices were served as a result of Inspectors observing working practices which resulted in a risk of serious injury to operatives.

The aim behind the use of administrative notices is to provide a speedy resolution to a health and safety problem, with a right of appeal against the serving the notice available through the independent appeal process. Normally, the experience of the Inspectorate is that the issue of a Notice will have the necessary salutary effect and act as a catalyst for improvements.

This was not the experience with the Royal Yacht Hotel project where, despite the numerous contacts and the issue of Prohibition Notices, unacceptable working practices continued, resulting in the continuing risk of serious, if not fatal, injury.

The Inspectorate was therefore left with no alternative but to submit a report on the poor management of health and safety of the project to the Attorney General.

The Royal Court strongly condemned the performance of both Deerglen (Jersey) Ltd. and Heitkamp Gmbh, resulting in higher fines being considered by the Court than were originally moved for by the prosecution.

Following consideration of Company accounts submitted to the Court, the fines imposed on Heitkamp were doubled with the fines imposed on Deerglen not increased due to their financial position.

The work created by having to address the failings of the manner in which the project was managed, resulted in less time being available for the Inspectorate to carry out other reactive or proactive work. In this way a “poor performer” can have implications for others because of the need for the Inspectorate to ensure that the minimum health and safety standards required by legislation are maintained.

Whilst every attempt is made to encourage employers to respond to advice and guidance provided by the Inspectorate, they should also be aware, as in this instance, that the Inspectorate will not walk away from challenging situations, but will continue to pursue whatever

20


action is necessary to ensure that “poor performers” are taken to task for their failings.

This prosecution also demonstrates that accidents do not have to occur for a prosecution to take place of an employer for not complying with health and safety legislation.

On occasion, the Inspectorate’s work involves them coming into contact with States Departments. The Employment of States of Jersey Employees (Jersey) Law, 2005, resulted in the introduction of the States Employment Board. The Board is the legal entity, identified as the employer of States employees.

In order to ensure that there is a consistent and transparent approach taken when dealing with Departments of the States, the Director of Health and Safety is required to submit a quarterly report to the Attorney General. This report sets out all instances where Inspectors have identified apparent breaches of health and safety legislation by a States Department, together with details of the action that has been taken by the Inspectorate.

The Attorney General has the authority to overrule the decision taken by the Inspectorate and, as such, provides the necessary independence to ensure that

Departments of the States are dealt with in the same manner to employers in the private sector.

21


Case study - issue of Prohibition Notice

An employee was observed fixing slates in close proximity to the gable end of this property. As no measures were in place to prevent him from falling from the gable end, a prohibition notice was served requiring guard rails to be erected to the edge of the roof prior to work continuing.

It was understood that the erection of guard rails to this area of the roof had been discussed but not carried out because it would restrict access to the rear of the site.

The focus on the requirements for the work being carried out safely had therefore clearly not been given sufficient consideration in this case.

Gable end of the property

22


Case study – issue of Prohibition Notice

During the course of a visit to a recycling yard, a crushing and grading machine was inspected. The lack of guarding to the machine was such that there was a serious risk of employees being injured by the machinery. Unguarded machinery of this nature has resulted in employees sustaining limb amputations and being killed as a result of being drawn into the machinery. A Prohibition Notice was served on the operation of the machine requiring guarding standards to be greatly improved.

Access to dangerous parts of the machine

23



We will continue to enforce health and safety legislation in accordance with our Enforcement Policy.

We will inform individuals and organisations of the reasons for the action that we are taking and, in situations where we issue administrative notices, explain the manner in which an appeal against the notice may be lodged.

24


Public Entertainment

Although the main focus of the work of the Inspectorate is the protection of people in the workplace, health and safety legislation also sets out a duty on employers and the self employed, in respect of the health and safety of other persons, including members of the public.

As part of ensuring that appropriate action is taken to protect the health and safety of members of the public who attend public entertainment events, a member of the Inspectorate sit on the Bailiff’s Entertainment Panel. The Panel’s role is to advise the Bailiff on whether an event organiser has taken sufficient steps to ensure that members of the public attending the event are not placed at undue risk to their health or safety.

There can sometimes be difficulties where event organisers have no understanding of their legal obligations, and the expectations that they have of the emergency services and regulatory authorities to manage the event on their behalf, which is certainly not the case.

During 2008, the Inspectorate, as part of the Panel, provided advice on a number of events throughout the year including Jersey Live, the Battle of Flowers and Rock in the Park.

Ferris wheel on the Waterfront

25



We will continue to provide advice and guidance on public entertainment events though the Bailiff’s Entertainment Panel, seeking to ensure that event organisers of major events considered by the Panel, demonstrate that they have addressed the risks to the public.

Rock in the Park 2008

26


Working with other organisations

The Inspectorate comes into contact with many other organisations, in connection with both the reactive and proactive work they undertake.

The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides specialist support to the Inspectorate. In 2008, the Inspectorate contracted the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL), a specialist Agency of the HSE, to assist with two investigations into accidents which occurred in the Island.

In March, a detailed examination was required to be undertaken of a component of a jockey wheel assembly to a cable trailer, (shown on the front cover of this report), in order to determine the reason why it had failed. The work carried out by the HSL identified the reasons for the failure and helped to secure a successful prosecution.

The HSL was again contracted by the Inspectorate in August to assist in the accident which occurred to two young girls who were thrown from the Mega Bounce funfair ride operating at the Battle of Flowers funfair. On this occasion, HSL staff travelled to the Island to examine the ride on the site in order to determine the reasons why the accident had occurred. A report on the circumstances which led to the accident has been sent to the Attorney General.

Mega Bounce Fairground ride

Specialist HSE Diving Inspectors came to the Island in October 2008 to raise awareness in response to concerns that had been identified by the Inspectorate over certain types of commercial diving activities.

A seminar arranged by the Inspectorate provided an opportunity for companies and organisations who engage diving contractors to be advised of their legal responsibilities and the steps that should be taken in order to assess the suitability of the diving contractors they use.

The opportunity was also taken to advise representatives from our emergency services of incidents which had occurred in Channel Island waters where the HSE Diving Inspectors had been involved.

27


The Offshore Islands Inspectorate Conference was held in Jersey in 2008. This annual conference, attended by representatives from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, aims to share knowledge and experiences of events and issues which have been faced by the Inspectorates in their respective Islands.

The Inspectorates of each Island also provide support to each other throughout the year, with the assistance provided to the Guernsey Inspectorate by the Jersey Inspectorate in investigating the disturbance of asbestos, (mentioned previously in this report), being an example of inter island support.

Throughout 2008, the Director of Health and Safety continued to participate in the work carried out by the Hazardous Review Group (HRG), in seeking improvements for addressing the major hazard sites at La Collette.

The focus of this work is in response to the lessons which have been learnt as a result of the fire and explosion which occurred at Buncefield in the UK in 2005. The HRG, which includes representatives of the emergency services, fuel companies and regulatory authorities, has given consideration to the implications of reports issued by the UK authorities on their findings into the Buncefield investigation.

The Inspectorate also strives to work with other organisations in improving the understanding of health and safety at work, on occasion resulting in some unusual contacts being made. The Jersey Construction Council holds an annual awards ceremony, celebrating the performance of the Industry during the previous year. One of the Health and Safety Inspectors, Lee McGurty, was asked by the Jersey Construction Council to sit on the awards panel in 2008. The Inspectorate was pleased to be involved, on this occasion in recognising good performers in the industry

28


The Inspectorate also provided advice and reassurance over health and safety concerns, to the organisers who recreated a World War 1 trench as part of the 90th

Anniversary commemorations of the ending of the war.

The main excavation of the trench was carried out by a local contractor who volunteered their services to assist the organisers.


The Inspectorate will work with and involve other organisations in striving to achieve our overall aim.

We are very fortunate to have the support and access to specialist advice from the UK HSE and will, where appropriate, also provide information to the HSE and other Island Inspectorate’s in the interests of sharing knowledge and experiences.

We will also provide advice to organisations to redress concerns over “elf and safety” in order to support an appropriate and focused approach to addressing real health and safety issues.

Recreation of WW1 Trench

29


Training of staff

One of the real strengths of any organisation is the knowledge and experience of the people who work for the organisation.

The knowledge and experience of the Director of Health and Safety, the two Health and Safety Inspectors and the Technical and Administrative Officer result from a combined total of 63 years working for the Health and Safety Inspectorate.

Despite these years of experience, there is a need to ensure that Inspectors are kept updated and aware of changes in standards and practices. There is also a need for the Inspectors to carry out continuing professional development in order to maintain their Corporate Membership of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), the professional body for health and safety professionals.

To this end, during 2008 Inspectors attended a number of seminars and underwent training, on both legal and specific health and safety topics. This training covered areas such as data protection, asbestos, work related stress, commercial diving and quarries.


Appropriate training to support the planned work of the Inspectorate will continue to be identified as part of the continuing professional development of the Inspectors. This will include an Inspector attending the IOSH conference and legal update seminar in the UK.

The nominated asbestos Inspector will also continue to undertake the necessary update and refresher training to enable her to carry out the role.

30


Legal Framework for health and safety

In February 2008, the States passed the Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos-Licensing) (Jersey) Regulations, 2008, (referred to earlier in this report.)

The introduction of these Regulations resulted in a need to revise the existing Approved Code of Practice on the Management of Exposure to Asbestos in Workplace Buildings and Structures (Asbestos ACoP). Comments were sought on the proposals for the revised Asbestos ACoP in April/May 2009.

Proposals to amend the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey) Law, 1989, to clarify the need for employers to carry out risk assessments, were developed in 2008. The amendment was passed by the States on the 12th May 2009.

Following a number of serious accidents on woodworking machines in recent years, a new Approved Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Woodworking Machinery (Woodworking ACoP) was proposed in 2008. The Woodworking ACoP is intended to provide practical guidance on the legal requirements relating to training, supervision and use of woodworking machinery. The Inspectorate have worked with Highlands College, who have become accredited as a centre for delivering Woodwise which is a training and assessment package which will provide employers with the

opportunity to ensure that their employees are trained to a recognised standard.

Work continued in 2008 on new Regulations to replace the existing health and safety regulations which apply to construction work. The proposed Health and Safety (Management in Construction) Regulations 20--, are intended to replace the existing regulations which are considered to be outdated and do not reflect the current employment relationships in the construction industry.


The revised Asbestos ACoP, which has already been the subject of consultation, will be considered by the Minister for Social Security in 2009.

The Inspectorate will produce guidance and information on the Health and Safety at Work (Amendment No.4)(Jersey) Law, 200-, which, following consent by Her Majesty the Queen, is likely to be introduced before the end of 2009.

Consultation on both the proposed Health and Safety (Management in Construction) Regulations 20--, and the Woodworking ACoP will also take place during 2009.

31

Accidents and Ill Health to Employees by Industry

Health and Social Work�

Agriculture and 6% Aboriculture�

6%�

Public� Construction Administration and 30%

Defence�16%�

Transport Storage, Communication�

8%� Wholesale and

Retail 13%

Hotel and Restaurants

6%

32


Part Two Claims made for Social Security benefit as a result of work related injuries and illness during 2008

Persons who are able to satisfy the contribution conditions for the Social Security Scheme are able to claim benefit for medically certificated accidents or ill health for 2 days or more off work.

In 2008 a total of 1012 claims for work related accidents and ill health were made, an increase of 38 on the total number of claims for 2007.

Of these claims, 697 were identified by the claimant as being due to an accident, with 312 due to an illness. 3 were unclassified.

302 claims were made by persons working in the construction industry with 166 claims made by persons working in the public sector. A further 128 claims were made by persons working in wholesale and retail.

The number of working days lost as a result of claims for work related accidents or ill health in 2008 was 22,451.

Accident by Cause

Falls f rom Heights 13%

Falls on Same Level 15%

Overexertion or Strenuous Movements

28%

Struck by Falling Objects�

5%�

Stepping on, Caught In or Striking Against or

Betw een Objects� Struck By Objects, 3%� Excluding Falling

Objects�20%�


When a claimant identified that the claim was due to work related accident or ill health, they were sent a short questionnaire seeking additional information. There is no legal obligation to return this questionnaire but it does assist the Inspectorate to carry out further analysis of the reasons for the accident or ill health. 675 questionnaires were returned to the Inspectorate.

In 2008, the analysis of the questionnaires that were returned indicated that the major causes of accidents were as a result of overexertion or strenuous movement and falls.

33

Ill Health by Illness

Stress Related 42%

Occupational Musculoskeletal

Disorders�48%�


The main causes of work related ill health were due to stress and musculoskeletal disorders.

34



In order to investigate whether we can improve our knowledge on work related accidents and ill health, we will carry out a review of the manner in which we collect information from the Social Security Benefit scheme.

Questions have also been included in the 2009 Annual Jersey Social Survey, which will help us to understand whether the information which we capture from the Social Security computer system provides us with a valid indication of work related accidents and ill health in the Island

35


Summary

What we intend to do in 2009

Carry out investigations into serious work related incidents, accidents and ill health.

Enforce the requirements of health and safety legislation in accordance with our Enforcement Policy.

Respond to 95% of complaints about working activities and conditions within 5 working days

Produce guidance on risk assessment to reflect the amendment to the Health and Safety at Work (Jersey), Law, 1989.

Continue the development of new Regulations for Construction work.

Revise the Approved Code of Practice for the Management of Exposure to Asbestos in Workplace Buildings and Structures

Develop an Approved Code of Practice on the Safe Use of Woodworking Machinery

Health and Safety Inspectorate Social Security Department Philip Le Feuvre House La Motte Street St Helier

Tel : 01534 447300 Fax : 01534 873791

Email : [email protected]

Web site : www.gov.je/hsi

36

www.gov.je/hsi

mailto:[email protected]

health and safety inspectorate - government of jersey · health and safety annual report 2008...

Documents