Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

For my sins, and back in the day, I used to be an H&S rep for the EEPTU. The number of reports I poured over was interesting to say the least, I was also responsible for making sure my members had attended the various H&S Training courses, besides many other things at the time.

The biggest factor with H&S was (and still is, I guess) the lack of its understanding in the workplace; some managers thought it was a waste of time, and it just got in the way of production.

 

I agree, I think I may have oversimplified the process, and even that can and does go wrong at times, as a side issue, I wonder how many railways produce an induction pack for new volunteers?

 

I understand. It is important that the board is informed. It’s also important that doesn’t become a way in which the management is undermined.

New joiner induction is important. I think a fair few now do so this in different ways.

One of the key issues worth noting is that very often Trustees or Directors will undertake multiple roles. For example a Director who is also the safety manager. Now this can create immediate issues. The GM might report to the Director, but also manage the safety manager. Even if the Director/Safety Manager and the GM are clear which role they are fulfilling at all times, others will not be so clear. The GM will likely be the duty holder, and they should be final arbiter, but if the Director/Safety Manager and the GM say different things how does anyone else react?

As Sir Humphrey said “it’s all a question of hats”. Wearing multiple hats is highly undesirable.

 

Post withdrawn.

 

In an ideal world, then I would agree; however, what I was trying to get at is the period after joining, but before you go for your first volunteering session. This is where I think a volunteer induction pack would be useful, in such a pack you could give basic H&S information and what sort of PPE equipment you should bring with you (ie steel-toe, capped boots, overalls, gloves, eye protection and a hard hat, all basic H&S equipment). I am aware that under the H&S regulations, companies are supposed to supply basic equipment, but if that member only goes once and does not like it, then the used PPE should be destroyed, which can be expensive to the railway.

The railway, I suppose, could issue Hi Vis clothing (ie jacket or a vest if you are working trackside) if you are just trying this out for the first time, with the option of buying your own via the railway afterwards, this could be seen as good practice since in the first place, the railway has provided you with the Hi Vis equipment which if you want to, you can then buy from the railway, this has the advantage that the member is more likely to look after this equipment if he has ownership of it.

I am not having a go, but Hi-Vis clothing needs to be looked after. Yes, I realise that trackwork and engineering workshop environments can and will become filthy, but that is no excuse for allowing such clothing to become or remain dirty. It is, in the main, your first line of defence, and that is why I suggest that if the membership owns something, it is more likely to remain in good condition, and you have a better chance of leaving the site at night with both hands, eyes, ears and feet all still attached to your body.

It is a bit ironic in the voluntary sector world, in that it has to comply with rules and regulations set out for fully blown commercial enterprises in mind, yet it relies on attracting people to carry out work for free as a hobby in their spare time. It is no wonder that H&S Regulations are seen as a grey area, and each incident is treated as case law.

 

Don't worry, all is taken care of at Woody Bay in that regard

 

When proposed, before it was introduced, the 1974 Act was never intended to become the behemoth it is today. Unfortunately, once multiple QUANGOs were spawned what followed was inevitable.

 

Yes it is exactly the problem

 

Just a couple points on this; any PPE (including your High-Vis) is always your last line of defence against a hazard. I.E there should be other controls that have failed by the time the driver is applying an emergency to not run you over after spotting a high Viz.

I'm curious about this grey area? I think the act is quite clear, if you have one or more employees (like most of our organisations do) then you are required to protect your volunteers in the same way you protect your employees.

Could you give an example of a case where an organisation has been absolved of responsibility because it is only a volunteer that has been injured?

 

I doubt there are any such cases. As I understand it, a landowner even has a duty of responsibility towards the safety of trespassers, let alone volunteers.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the principles espoused, and any organisation should be abiding by those principles, regardless of legal obligation. However, I note that the quoted passages refer to employees, which may be considered to leave a grey area where volunteers are concerned.

As one of the underlying issues in employment legislation is to avoid employees being made responsible for employers' duties, whether legally or financially*, I'd question whether the "railway must provide free of charge" interpretation necessarily applies to volunteers in all cases and at all times.

* - The legislation banning "truck" is an early example of this.

 

Thank you - as I suspected, an identical duty to consider volunteers and employees, but a subtly different legal regime regarding the provision of PPE

 

Thanks, that clarifies the question that was nagging at ne

 

For clarity, I was referring to legal duties, as opposed to what would simply be good practice.