Author Archive

All security staff have faced the same question, which at the time they don’t pause to think about the consequences of what is sure to come next.

A fight breaks out between two or three groups of people, they are 10 to 12 in number and it is less than two metres from your premises, someone hits the floor and the pack set on him/her with kicks and stamping or weapons.

What do you do?? Intervene or let that person suffer huge injuries or even lose their life

Most times these decisions occur in milliseconds, The security team step in to save the person and try and stop the fight. You know what happens next? Now your fighting with the whole lot of them.

The fight has stopped, hopefully, none of the security team is injured, then the Police turn up!

First thing that is requested is the CCTV, then they speak to the D.P.S, then they speak to the Head of security, then the local Police Licensing unit arrives and they take over – at this stage they are looking at the conduct of the Security staff and whether or not they went too far, used excessive force etc.

Let us look at common sense and realistic approach, 1. ‘Most security staff’ work this job as the main job, 2. They train hard and keep themselves fit, 3. they train in some sort of martial art, 4. they are sober! The Security team should have come off better and the ones who wanted and started to fight have lost and are now wanting to make a complaint to the Police.

LAW

As a member of the public you are permitted to ‘prevent a breach of the peace’ which dates back to 1361., this is a common-law offence and that means that any person can try and stop this and has the power under the law, to do so.

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, breach of the peace is descended from the Justices of the Peace Act 1361,^[10] which refers to riotous and barratous behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King. More modern authority defines a breach of the peace as “when a person reasonably believes harm will be caused, or is likely to be caused, to a person or in his presence to his property, or a person is in fear of being harmed through an assault, affray, riot, unlawful assembly, or some other form of disturbance”. (Wikipedia)

You are also permitted to defend yourself against an attack (Self defence) or the defence of another. This does not give you the permission to use excessive force, the law has a line and IF you cross it you will find the Police will be glad to help you to the cell!

The right way

There is the question I have been asked so many times and the problem is not just a legal answer it is also ethical and moral. Too many times in my 30 years of working busy venues has taught me a lot of things – but never the right answer to whether or not to tell the security to intervene. I have been told too many times to remember the number by Police Licensing in Merseyside that the Security should ‘NOT LEAVE THE STEP’. ‘Sorry Officer to contradict your ‘request’ but me personally I cannot stand by and see some 18-year-old getting pasted in front of me!’

I would not let a Police Officer take a beating either and to be honest, I would not sleep at night by ignoring this sort of incident, so the suggestion by the Police is sometimes not the best or involving any sort of thought process, what if the same officer dispensing such advice found himself in front of you taking a beating and standing there saying ‘If only I could leave the step’.

I have been called upon as a consultant by a number of venues who have staff that have intervened and then been threatened with prosecution for Affray and assaults and have to explain that this is all about ‘excessive use of force’ and if it helps one person to read this and keep out of trouble then this post was worth it!

Self-defence – The SECOND that the attacker has backed away or is under restraint on the floor or upright then YOU CAN NOT KEEP HITTING HIM/HER. IF you hit them just once more you CANNOT use self-defence, this becomes an assault by YOU. You can only use sufficient force to stop the attack on you or another person that’s it plain and simple.

The same applies to the incident we made up!! Earlier, once they are not fighting with you or others, or you restrain the person then that is the end of the power you have, you can’t ‘punish’ the person and that is when it takes the control and professionalism that you should show and lets face it if a sober highly trained member of security can’t restrain a drunken 18-year-old without punching him then I would have them consider a different career!

There is no linear line here on this subject, even the High Courts cannot give a definitive answer to what is excessive force, so to try and give some understanding, iF you are trying to take down a fully trained SAS officer in his prime then you would need to use more force than on an 18 year old 10 stone wet student? That is the best analogy – Be professional and treat each person as if they were your little brother or sister.

If your staff could use some ‘common sense’ training please feel free to contact me, with 30 years plus licensing experience I can help with a wealth of advice, if your an existing Client then this training may fall under part of your subscription

An engineering company has been fined after two workers were seriously injured after being thrown from the chuck of a large vertical boring machine.

Birmingham Magistrates’ Court heard that on 5 September 2018, two employees of Sulzer Electro Mechanical Services (UK) Limited, were standing on the chuck of a large vertical boring machine at a site in Bordesley, Birmingham, to set it. The start button was inadvertently pressed and, despite the interlocked perimeter fencing access doors being open, the chuck started to rotate.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident found that the interlocks on the perimeter fencing access doors were not working, and there were no safety checks in place to ensure that the interlocks were in working order.

Sulzer Electro Mechanical Services (UK) Limited of Camp Hill, Bordesley, Birmingham pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The company has been fined £86,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,111.48.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Christopher Maher said “We hope that as a result of this case, industry will better understand the importance of maintaining effective control measures.

“It is important that guarding arrangements, including interlocks, are checked regularly, to ensure that they are in good repair and efficient working order.”

HSADD Say’s: This case is a typical one where the Company has failed to make sure that checks were made to ensure that the interlocks work as they should do, regular checks on these should be a daily, weekly or monthly dependent upon the risk involved.

An easy to deal with the issue that could easily have been dealt with by way of our ISITCHECKED paperless checklist system.

Doing the Math, the fine and costs, plus a likely 20% increase in Insurance premium for the following few years would pay for ISITCHECKED for around 102 years!! Makes our product seem very cost-effective!!

Credit to the article to HSE https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/29/engineering-company-fined-after-two-workers-suffer-serious-injuries-2/

A Lincolnshire metal fabrication company has been fined for not complying with three improvement notices issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Boston Magistrates’ Court heard that, in December 2018, W S Barrett & Son Limited was issued with three improvement notices relating to testing wood dust and powder coating local exhaust ventilation (LEV), and providing LEV for welding fume extraction on its site in Boston, Lincolnshire. Improvement notices are legal documents requiring improvements to be made by a specified date. WS Barrett & Son Limited failed to comply with all three notices by the completion date.

An investigation by HSE found that the company was first advised of the problem in February 2018 but did not act following receipt of a Notification of Contravention letter. A further visit by HSE in December 2018 found the company had still not made the necessary improvements. A subsequent follow-up visit in April 2019 showed they still had not done the work to meet the improvement notices.

W S Barrett & Son Limited of Marsh Lane, Boston pleaded guilty to breaching Section 33(1) (g) of the Health and Safety At work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £12,000.00 and ordered to pay costs of £1,740.40.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Giles said, “The failure to comply with an improvement notice is a serious offence. If you receive a notice, you should ensure you take appropriate action to correct the health and safety problems and breaches that are identified in the notice.”

HSADD Says, The number of businesses that get improvement notices and then look at the due date and think ‘Got loads of time for this’ or think that it’s ‘Just a suggestion’! whether from LA, Fire Officer or especially HSE – NO it is not – you need to get onto this straight away and deal with it!

The fine and court costs, plus Solicitors likely in this case exceeded the cost of actually doing the job right the first time!

Credit to HSE – https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/25/metal-fabrication-company-fined-for-failing-to-comply-with-improvement-notices/

I haven’t posted any HR posts for a while so here we go.

Was a dismissal for trade union activities automatically unfair because of the involvement of a senior manager, when both managers who heard the disciplinary and appeal hearings were ‘innocent’ of this?

Yes, held the EAT in Cadent Gas Limited v Singh.

The Claimant, a gas engineer, was dismissed for gross misconduct because he responded to a call-out for a gas leak one minute outside the Respondent’s policy. He brought a claim that his dismissal was due to his trade union activity. The Claimant had 29 years’ service and an unblemished record. He was also a health and safety representative and trade union shop steward. He had previously raised a number of grievances that he had been unfairly allocated work. On the day of the call-out he had worked on a complex and demanding job, had not eaten all day, and had less than 2 hours’ sleep. On his way to the call-out he had stopped to get food.

The tribunal upheld the Claimant’s claim. It noted that a senior manager, the subject of some of the Claimant’s complaints, had driven the investigation towards dismissal. Although he was not the investigating officer, he had amended the terms of reference and given incorrect information to HR, and he told the Claimant that the case was one of gross misconduct before the investigation had concluded.

The Respondent appealed. The tribunal had found that the managers at the disciplinary and appeal stages had no prejudice against the Claimant because of his trade union activities. The Respondent argued that only the ‘mental processes’ of the decision-makers could be considered.

Following Royal Mail Group v Jhuti, the EAT rejected the appeal. It held that there are circumstances where the motivation and knowledge of someone who is not a decision-maker may be attributed to the employer if (as here) that person is engaged in and had manipulated the investigatory process

Credit –  www.danielbarnett.co.uk

Nazareth Care Charitable Trust, a registered charity, was today fined after an elderly resident of one of its care homes was fatally injured when she fell down a set of stairs.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard that on 16 May 2017, Sheila Whitehead, an 87-year-old resident at Nazareth House, Hill Head, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian, a care home operated by Nazareth Care Charitable Trust, fell down a stairwell. She suffered a fractured skull and subdural haemorrhage, which ultimately resulted in her death.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Nazareth Care Charitable Trust failed to identify and implement adequate measures required to control the risk of care home residents falling down the stairs. The stairwell involved in the incident consisted of a flight of six steps, which descended from the main corridor on the ground floor down to the entrance of the boiler room. It was found to lack an effective physical barrier that prevented access to the stairwell, in an environment where many residents, due to their conditions and ailments, were at an increased risk of suffering a fall.

Nazareth Care Charitable Trust of East End Road, East Finchley, London pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £40,000.

Speaking after the hearing, Nikki Jack of HSE said: “This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out correct control measures.

“Organisations should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”.

HSADD SAYS: Another preventable death, with a simple solution to prevent, guess the cost per floor of less than £100.00. This needs people to think about the possible risks for the groups concerned, in this case, elderly and infirmed people who have less balance than normal.

I have spoken to both residential care establishments and Child daycare centres when advising on safety and all too often a risk shows itself and they wonder why didn’t I think of that? The short answer is that ‘Yes, you should have’!

Sourse https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/05/registered-charity-fined-after-resident-of-care-home-fell-down-a-set-of-stairs-and-was-fatally-injured/

Whether you are organising a one-off event or a yearly outside even you still need to be fully compliant with all Health & Safety regulations, employee training, Risk Assessments and everything that is needed for a permanent venue – most times even more.

HSADD staff have a wealth of experience of outside events from the preparation and planning to liaise with Local Authority, fire service, Police, we have software systems that will smoothly and effortlessly record staff training and we will retain all records for four years in the event of any claims.

HSADD has industry-leading contacts that can provide a vast knowledge base and access to specialist event insurance to ensure that your event proceeds successfully.

Is this one of the sentences that always greets you when you are trying ‘improve’ your workplace systems and protect the business?

That is why we improve and continuously develop, otherwise we would still be working ‘like this’ and never improve

The University of Edinburgh has been fined for its failings which led to animal research workers, who were already sensitised to laboratory animal allergens (LAA), being at risk of suffering from adverse health effects as a result of exposure to LAA.

Edinburgh Sheriff Court heard how the researchers both began work at the University of Edinburgh in 2003. Both declared that they were already allergic to rodents around the time of taking up these positions. Over the years both continued to work with rats and were exposed to various levels of LAA, a respiratory sensitiser and a substance hazardous to health.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that The University of Edinburgh failed to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments of the exposure to LAA, particularly when it was known that the research workers were already sensitised to LAA. They failed to ensure suitable health surveillance was carried out at regular intervals (not more than 12 months apart) and that sufficient information, instruction, supervision and training was provided to the research workers.

The University of Edinburgh of Chambers Street, Edinburgh pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2 and Section 33 (1) (a) of the Health and Safety at Work Act etc 1974 and was fined £10,000.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Susan Donnelly said: “This was a case of the University completely failing to grasp the importance of risk-based health surveillance.

“If the University had implemented a system of risk-based health surveillance, it would have ensured that an Occupational Health Management system was in place which would monitor worker’s fitness for work. Such systems can prevent an employee’s health condition becoming severe and life-altering.’’

HSADD SAYS: When I see cases like this one, I also think of what other industries could this issue also effect, in this case, not just animal research but NHS Labs and to a degree other trades that need LEV (Local exhaust ventilation), spray booths, welding etc. The long period sensitisation is a big problem as it can be sneaky in it’s approach, but with health monitoring, in place, it can be avoided.

Source https://press.hse.gov.uk/2019/11/01/university-fined-after-research-workers-exposed-to-risk-of-suffering-adverse-health-effects/