|
|
Post by Wheldale on Dec 17, 2014 5:49:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by andyexplorer on Dec 21, 2014 7:52:20 GMT -5
I dont understand why in the case of the mining museum , if you employ a company/ companies to carry out a contract , you are then resposible if something goes wrong
Does that mean if i employ a painter at home and he falls off his ladder , i am responsible ?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Dec 21, 2014 9:00:04 GMT -5
I dont understand why in the case of the mining museum , if you employ a company/ companies to carry out a contract , you are then resposible if something goes wrong Does that mean if i employ a painter at home and he falls off his ladder , i am responsible ?
BUT, in mining, the company is 100% responsible for everyone who enters the mine under mining law. So if a contractor isn't obeying the mine laws, it's up to the appointed Deputy to stop them working and report the incident to the Manager.
In mining, everyone has to be authorized in writing by the Manager, including contractors, so if someone hasn't had the requisite training on a particular job/machine and someone gets injured, the Manager and company are liable.
We had a lecture by the mining officials when I was at British Gypsum when the new mining laws came out around the mid 1970's. We were told that under the new regs, each of us would be more responsible for our own actions, BUT, if we were caught by an official doing something stupid...ie using an oil barrel to stand on instead of a stepladder, the official was to kick our butts bigtime, or even report us to the Manager of the mine. That was to cover the company.
Another example, say the electricians defeat the interlocks on switchgear with power on, that's a violation of the Act. Now if he is caught or someone gets electrocuted, then the elec and the company can be prosecuted, reason being that there appeared to be a lack of training and disregard of safety by the company.
It's up to the company to prove otherwise in court by proving they have always come down heavy on anyone who breaks the rules. Although, I haven't worked for any company that did come down on me for breaking the rules apart from the old NCB, and even they turned a blind eye a lot of the time. |
|
Clive
Shotfirer.
Posts: 168
|
Post by Clive on Dec 24, 2014 13:28:50 GMT -5
I dont understand why in the case of the mining museum , if you employ a company/ companies to carry out a contract , you are then resposible if something goes wrong Does that mean if i employ a painter at home and he falls off his ladder , i am responsible ? Basicy Andy you are.. We clean windows and use the long poles. people just cant understand is that if their window cleaner on a ladder falls off whilst doing their windows, he can sue them....great legislation isn't it! |
|
|
|
Post by andyexplorer on Jan 1, 2015 5:24:22 GMT -5
The world's gone mad !
Can you imagine these guys who are trying to set up new mines , and the sheer weight of health and safety legislation they will have to comply with
makes you wonder why anyone even bothers to try
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 1, 2015 8:17:15 GMT -5
The world's gone mad ! Can you imagine these guys who are trying to set up new mines , and the sheer weight of health and safety legislation they will have to comply with makes you wonder why anyone even bothers to try
When I worked at Angus Place Colliery in NSW, I had two sheets of what I was authorized to carry out, to install, maintain and test electrical equipment, to be a lamproom officer, to be the appointed person to isolate and restore the power underground from the surface switchgear, and many other things.
When I was appointed Leading Hand, aka chargehand, I was given a new set of authorizations, to be in charge of the mine when there were no men underground, to supervise electricians, to enter the main 66Kv switchyard and control room, to be the person to isolate HV underground to affect testing maintenance etc.
To carry out anything you are not authorized at a mine and anyone, including oneself, can lead to a prosecution of both the company and oneself.
I was called to an incident when I was a Leading Hand, one of my electricians had got burned and was sent to hospital, so no chance of even thinking of covering anything up. I went by the book and had the accident area fenced off, it was U/G, I didn't disturb anything, but made notes for an accident report.
I had to write up a three sheet in triplicate report, one for the Mines Inspector, one for file and a copy for myself.
The Inspector wanted a prosecution for "working on live equipment underground, and complete failure to adhere to the Coal Mines Regulation Act" There were mitigating circumstances, and my boss talked him out of it, BUT, it was on one condition, new safety practices to be implemented ASAP.
Within a week, all electricians, elec shift engineers and Leading Hands were given the Elec Engineers in charge, new rules and practices which must be adhered to and we all had to sign that we had received these new work practices.
Violation, if caught that is...LOL Meant losing our jobs, or worse if an accident happened, court appearance. |
|
|
|
Post by smshogun on Jan 1, 2015 20:25:09 GMT -5
John: you are wrong.
It used to be this way years ago, but when the M&Q regulations and The Acts were swallowed up by the HSE everything changed and in the UK we don't have any mining legislation these days, just H&S legislation with a section covering mining in general and not specifically which means the entire HSE catalogue now applies. |
|
|
|
Post by smshogun on Jan 1, 2015 20:41:17 GMT -5
Clues can be found in the story, words such as "administration" and "construction" give it away as it is an administration error or deficiency on the part of the mining museum and as it was classed as a construction project its covered by the CDM regulations which are about to be updated yet again.
Under CDM everyone has a role to play and paperwork is key (I do this daily as part of my job) and while it seems like generating paperwork its all about mitigating liability and showing you have done so, so lets look at an overview to understand it.
Under CDM the client (museum) has specific duties and these are to provide a scope of work and to identify ALL risks and mitigate them as well as can practibly be done and provide the paperwork to show this by identifying each risk and giving a safe method of working and they can do this by becoming the "main contractor" by virtue of their own expertise.
OR
They can appoint a main contractor who will then effectively become the client, but you pay a small fortune for this service due to the extra risks and potential liabilities.
Now we have scenario 1 which is that if they appoint a main contractor they have a legal duty to appoint a competent person or company as main contractor, but as there was an accident they haven't fulfilled this duty which means they are culpable.
The main contractor will then issue the scope of works to sub-contractors who will provide the main contractor with a risk assessment and proposed method statement for their section of the work and if this fails to identify any risks and mitigates them sufficiently, both are culpable; if the subbie fails to follow the agreed method statement then they are culpable and by virtue of the main contractor not supervising the work correctly they then become jointly culpable. So both become culpable many times.
Now here is the real issue, ask the HSE to give you a safe method of working and they will not give this; they will give every excuse under the sun but not a safe method of working. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 2, 2015 7:07:20 GMT -5
John: you are wrong.
It used to be this way years ago, but when the M&Q regulations and The Acts were swallowed up by the HSE everything changed and in the UK we don't have any mining legislation these days, just H&S legislation with a section covering mining in general and not specifically which means the entire HSE catalogue now applies.
Yeah I gathered that by your last post, things have certainly changed, for the worse it seems. Trust the government to over complicate things. |
|
|
|
Post by smshogun on Jan 2, 2015 8:13:57 GMT -5
Its all about money John, the emphasis is more on paperwork these days and get the paperwork wrong and it carries more of a penalty then someone getting killed.
In addition the legislation is derived and written in such a way as to be over complicated so its almost impossible to comply with so unless you never do the job the HSE always have a way of catching you and of course making you pay. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 2, 2015 9:21:10 GMT -5
I was at British Gypsum when the laws on mining were being changed and recall being told by one of the mining side shift foremen that the new laws would start to make the individual more responsible for his own actions, and his job would be to kick someones ass big time if he caught anyone committing unsafe practices.
I don't recall too many changes when I worked at Boulby though, although Management were pretty strict on safety, after 79 I was in Oz. They had the 1913 Coal Mines Regulation Act, which was a bit antiquated but very similar to the M&Q Act. It was completely overhauled around 1984, problem was when it was passed ito law there were no copies of the Act for anyone to study!!!!
My boss managed to scrounge some extracts, elec, mech and mining to copy and train us all with. Some of the biggest changes were tradesman and engineers qualifications. Those had amendments or most mines would have had a severe tradesman shortages, added was a rider that anyone who had been employed for so much time pre the Act would still be recognized as tradesmen.
We had a fair number of none mining elecs and fitters in the industry.
All shift engineers after the Act had to have a "Mine Electricians" ticket or a "Mine Mechanics" ticket, same as UK Elec or Mech Engineers ticket, prior to that, most companies promoted Leading hands who were capable to those positions.
The company I worked for was owned by the NSW government, so all of our shift elec and mech engineers after a certain date held the Mine Electricians ticket, the new Act required it, any who were in that position were granted an exemption similar to the old "green ticket" in UK coal mining after the 1954 M&Q Act.
When we read the extracts, we were stunned, as the way they read, we would all be out of a job!! But our Engineer pointed out the Inspectorate had seen and revised the qualifications required for Elecs and Mechs. Once the Act had been implemented, all apprentices had to pass their final exams before being authorized, and it became impossible for companies to employ any new tradesmen unless they carried mining qualifications or had previously worked in a coal mine.
I'm not sure it's still the same, as I have noted the CMRA has been overhauled again since I left Australia.
|
|
|
|
Post by smshogun on Jan 3, 2015 7:49:58 GMT -5
Its all a crafty ploy because under HSE requirements it makes everyone legally responsible, you then have the multiple option of prosecuting any one of a much larger number of people at all levels, basically its go for the individual as they are the soft target and in much less of a financial position to defend themselves unlike a large multi-national with their bottomless pit of money and fancy lawyers, you then have "vicarious liability" which means the employer is then liable for the employee; its based on the old master/servant relationship.
So prosecute anyone of your choice easily and fairly cheaply.
Use vicarious liability and you automatically have the employer cheaply and without a court case. |
|
|
|
Post by andyexplorer on Jan 3, 2015 11:20:15 GMT -5
It all follows on from the top
someone is always at fault, but never the government they always clear themselves by setting up quango's or committees to take their blame and if something slips through their net , they set up an enquiry usually chaired by someone with a favourable view to the outcome they want
corruption at the highest level gets worse year on year
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 3, 2015 11:47:33 GMT -5
I was always careful about breaking the rules, I wasn't perfect, I did break them!! But, when it came to taking risks that could cause others injury, then it was a no no!
One I recalled at Boulby, the conveyor that fed the No2 ore bin, the signal cable had got damaged and No1 bin was full, so all the belts were standing, problem was it was a very dusty place, sometimes you couldn't see your hand in front of your face. I was asked to short the signals out to let the belts go, I refused, the shift supervisor was arguing with me, and I said "while you're arguing with me, you're wasting production time, are you going to let me go and get a new length of cable or keep arguing the toss" Needless to say he gave in and let me get on with my job. Like I told him, if anyone got caught up in a roller, it would be my neck on the chopping block.
Another case, I stopped a face from producing one shift as the automatic methane detector had failed, both the main and spare cables had faults on them and we didn't have a spare cable, so the UM asked me if keeping the Deputy at the T/G end of the face with his oil lamp and D6 methane detector would be ok...."NO!!" The face stands until we get the detector working.
Although we had low concentrations of methane, it still wasn't worth my life or the men I worked with to bridge the detector out.
It's short cuts that cause injuries and breaches of the rules, plus bad practices.
I'm glad to say no one got injured through anything I did or didn't do, as I say, I'm no angel, I rode belts and I did things I wasn't supposed to do, but I weighed the risks and used common sense.
|
|
