Working in a very hot enviroment

SarEl

honeypop wrote: »

Sorry to hijack the thread a little, but is the bit about providing drinks covered by an actual regulation anywhere? (or allowing access to water?)

Just interested to know, as where DH works he collects a van each morning from the depot (that may or may not have functioning air con), drives round for approx 9 hours making deliveries and collections, and during that time cannot exit the van for anything other than a scheduled stop (one of his deliveries/collections).

He takes bottles of water with him, although they soon heat up in the van (they are not allowed to take bags on), the air con never gets the chance to get going properly as he is never driving for long enough before having to stop again (the windows cannot open), and what with having to wear a helmet and body armour, these drivers are literally burning up all day long in this weather. They are not allowed to get off the van to buy drinks, so what they manage to carry onto the van in the morning is all they have.

Due to the heat, amongst other things I worry about him fatiguing which would actually be deadly if it affected his driving and he caused an accident, or even while off the van on one of his jobs if he gets robbed (a frequent occurance in the job).

He has suggested to the management that they allow them to take on board more drinking water (even perhaps providing it for them), but they say its not something they have to allow/consider. I think this is putting lives at risk, dramatic I know, but true in this job.

If there is is a union I would suggest that they ask for a risk assessment on health and safety grounds. This is a special circumstance and so there won't be specific rules about it I doubt. However, there is an argument to be made as part of a risk assessment that it is not just about the duty of care to employees - if they become a damger to members of the public (such as loosing control of their vehicle) and it came out that the driver had become dizzy due to inadequate water/ventilation/ cooling, then the implications for the company being sued would be huge.

Meestapink

Anyone concerned with heat issues should read all above, there are many sound responses and as far as legislation goes. Unless you collapse you are !!!!!!ed. Hence Tell your employer about your concerns and solutions.

MP

Forgetful

Judas wrote: »

I take the OP has never been on holiday before to a hot environment.

I have been many times to the far east with temperatures of 35 to 38 oC, but work and play are 2 different things altogether!!

ChefBungle

honeypop wrote: »

Sorry to hijack the thread a little, but is the bit about providing drinks covered by an actual regulation anywhere? (or allowing access to water?)

Just interested to know, as where DH works he collects a van each morning from the depot (that may or may not have functioning air con), drives round for approx 9 hours making deliveries and collections, and during that time cannot exit the van for anything other than a scheduled stop (one of his deliveries/collections).

He takes bottles of water with him, although they soon heat up in the van (they are not allowed to take bags on), the air con never gets the chance to get going properly as he is never driving for long enough before having to stop again (the windows cannot open), and what with having to wear a helmet and body armour, these drivers are literally burning up all day long in this weather. They are not allowed to get off the van to buy drinks, so what they manage to carry onto the van in the morning is all they have.

Due to the heat, amongst other things I worry about him fatiguing which would actually be deadly if it affected his driving and he caused an accident, or even while off the van on one of his jobs if he gets robbed (a frequent occurance in the job).

He has suggested to the management that they allow them to take on board more drinking water (even perhaps providing it for them), but they say its not something they have to allow/consider. I think this is putting lives at risk, dramatic I know, but true in this job.

How regular are your hubbies deliveries/collections?
Is he seeing the same people every day/same day every week?
Does he have a good relationship with the 'clients'?

Only reason I ask is my work use a cash collection service and we have a great relationship with most of the guys and we would have no problems in giving them a cold drink if they asked nicely.
Or is this against the rules as well?

dickydonkin

SarEl wrote: »

If there is is a union I would suggest that they ask for a risk assessment on health and safety grounds. This is a special circumstance and so there won't be specific rules about it I doubt. However, there is an argument to be made as part of a risk assessment that it is not just about the duty of care to employees - if they become a damger to members of the public (such as loosing control of their vehicle) and it came out that the driver had become dizzy due to inadequate water/ventilation/ cooling, then the implications for the company being sued would be huge.

The OP has indicated she works in a 'chippy' therefore I would not expect her to be union represented and as for a risk assessment being carried out, unless it is one of the large chains of restaurants, I suspect that this will not be the case either.

If a risk assessment was undertaken, it would be likely that extremes of temperature would be identified with control measures (many of which have been discussed here) implemented.

However......... It obviously does not need a risk assessment to determine that it will be hot in a 'chippy' in the summer so if the duty holder was a decent employer, many of the control measures should ideally be in place by virtue of the likelihood the same 'heat' problem occurs on a regular basis.

Ultimately, it will be down to resources - just like many larger employers, they will not take action until forced to do so following an accident or enforcement notice.

SarEl

dpassmore wrote: »

The OP has indicated she works in a 'chippy' therefore I would not expect her to be union represented and as for a risk assessment being carried out, unless it is one of the large chains of restaurants, I suspect that this will not be the case either.

If a risk assessment was undertaken, it would be likely that extremes of temperature would be identified with control measures (many of which have been discussed here) implemented.

However......... It obviously does not need a risk assessment to determine that it will be hot in a 'chippy' in the summer so if the duty holder was a decent employer, many of the control measures should ideally be in place by virtue of the likelihood the same 'heat' problem occurs on a regular basis.

Ultimately, it will be down to resources - just like many larger employers, they will not take action until forced to do so following an accident or enforcement notice.

Errmm - I wasn't answering the original post! I was answering the post about the security drivers! I did quote it so that it would be clar that I was doing so. That's why I commented that being in a secured vehicle would be a relatively unique "workplace". And I would consider a risk assessment to be appropriate in these circumstances because there is no substantive reason why a vehicle cab has to be hot or waterless. Presumably a security company will be a relatively large employer and will have a large number of vehicles (and therefore employees) in this situation.

emmell

Going of topic slightly, but same subject, my nephew was sent home from school ill yesterday. He was feeling faint with the heat and was actually sick, the irony is, they could send him home to miss lessons but wasn't allowed to take his blazer off in school.
No blazer and an open neck shirt and loose tie would probably have prevented him from having to miss lessons.
ML.

Googlewhacker

emmell wrote: »

Going of topic slightly, but same subject, my nephew was sent home from school ill yesterday. He was feeling faint with the heat and was actually sick, the irony is, they could send him home to miss lessons but wasn't allowed to take his blazer off in school.
No blazer and an open neck shirt and loose tie would probably have prevented him from having to miss lessons.
ML.

Has his parents raised the issue with the headmaster?

emmell

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Has his parents raised the issue with the headmaster?

That's the first thing I said when his nanna (my sister) told me.

I remember a few years ago a local bus driver being suspended for loosening his tie, it was in the local paper.

When companies and schools act like this it turns into dictatorship.
ML.

dickydonkin

SarEl wrote: »

Errmm - I wasn't answering the original post! I was answering the post about the security drivers! I did quote it so that it would be clar that I was doing so. That's why I commented that being in a secured vehicle would be a relatively unique "workplace". And I would consider a risk assessment to be appropriate in these circumstances because there is no substantive reason why a vehicle cab has to be hot or waterless. Presumably a security company will be a relatively large employer and will have a large number of vehicles (and therefore employees) in this situation.

ERRRRM I consider myself reprimanded! No need to be so arsey.

It was not 'clar' to me although I should have read all of the thread more thoroughly - I apologise - but the 'chippy' scenario I mistakenly referred to will hopefully assist the OP which I thought was the original intention of the thread although I accept there are similarities with thermal exhaustion in the security drivers situation.

As for the security driver, it is certainly a unique situation; however, I suspect that this type of 'operational transport' may not be covered under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations.

It really is not in the best interest of the security company (large or small) to have their drivers fatigued and dehydrated due to the nature of the work and the potential of causing harm not only to themselves but other road users and pedestrians.

The driver working for a small security company can just as easily cause as much carnage on the road as a driver working for a multi - national.

As for the risk assessment - many people assume that a risk assessment is the be all and end all, write it out, shove the document in the cupboard and we are legally compliant - not so.

A RA only identifies risks - it is how the significant findings of that assessment are dealt with. I have seen risk assessments with serious issues raised and nothing done about it - now what is the point of that?

After a risk assessment has been undertaken (Ideally with assistance from the people actually doing the job), control measures should be implemented to reduce the risk of harm to an acceptable level or ideally, eliminate it completely.

Furthermore, the company should then implement a safe system/method of work/safe operational procedure (SOP) and ensure this is communicated to the workforce and monitored to ascertain its effectiveness and compliance.

If the employer has not done this - irrespective of the security implications, on their own head be it - but it will likely only be rectified when someone is injured.

The security company may potentially be exempt from the welfare regs, however, I would suggest section 2(e) of the HASWA may be relevant;

"the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work".

The reality is that the security company is prioritising its operations over the health, safety and welfare of the driver and that is unacceptable - irrespective of the size of the operation.

Forget about the security implications - they can be overcome I am sure - whereas a driver or pedestrian cannot be returned from the dead.

This is a special circumstance and so there won't be specific rules about it I doubt.

Section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work Act will certainly cover it.

And I would consider a risk assessment to be appropriate in these circumstances because there is no substantive reason why a vehicle cab has to be hot or waterless.

The reality is that to comply with section 3 of the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations, the risk assessment should have been undertaken BEFORE this work activity commenced, unless the situation we are referring to was not deemed as a risk in the original assessment (assuming there was one), however, any risk assessment in place must still be reviewed on a regular basis and/or amended if legislation or circumstances dictate.

As an aside, many people with H&S enquiries make this forum their first port of call and despite some very helpful asistance provided, some legislation can be complicated and open to interpretation and I was wondering if many of the contributors to this forum are aware of the hotlines and information provided by the HSE.

Their homepage provides numerous contacts either by phone or email - well worth a try. [EMAIL="hse.infoline@connaught.plc.uk"]This[/EMAIL] is their email contact.