Modified tool at friend's work

getmore4less

If he cannot do his job because of the new guard that should be reported to management in writing.

Then the jobs that need the guard removing should not be done until this is resolved by proper process. 

Dakta

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said: Yes, he is the only one who uses the tool and he has informed his line manager that he intends to remove the guard. She has not objected.

I hope he has that in writing because removing a guard is a serious disciplinary offcence. In most workplaces that would be gross misconduct.

It'd certainly make any post-accident investigation interesting.

'someone identified a hazard hence the guard being installed, someone didn't like it and removed it'

Superfuse

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said: Yes, he is the only one who uses the tool and he has informed his line manager that he intends to remove the guard. She has not objected.

I hope he has that in writing because removing a guard is a serious disciplinary offcence. In most workplaces that would be gross misconduct.

Indeed, he has presented his case in writing to his line manager. She has no objections.

I should imagine modifying a tool and not creating/updating a risk assessment is also unacceptable in most workplaces.

Superfuse

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said:

My friend has been unable to obtain a risk assessment from the individuals whom modified the tool. He's going to remove the added guard. He doesn't think it makes the tool any safer and it actually reduces the depth of material that can be passed through the saw.

Your statements make little sense. You say the guard prevents things passing into the saw blade but don't see how it makes the tool safer to use. Don't you think it might prevent say an arm from passing into the saw blade?

  I see what you mean. I meant, the new guard reduces the depth of material that can be passed through, as it is not adjustable. The modification does not seem to increase safety as the tool has a factory fitted guard already. I understand, you can adjust the original guard so only sufficient blade is visible. I'll ask my friend if the new guard prevents arms being passed through.

Hasbeen

Superfuse said:

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said:

My friend has been unable to obtain a risk assessment from the individuals whom modified the tool. He's going to remove the added guard. He doesn't think it makes the tool any safer and it actually reduces the depth of material that can be passed through the saw.

Your statements make little sense. You say the guard prevents things passing into the saw blade but don't see how it makes the tool safer to use. Don't you think it might prevent say an arm from passing into the saw blade?

  I see what you mean. I meant, the new guard reduces the depth of material that can be passed through, as it is not adjustable. The modification does not seem to increase safety as the tool has a factory fitted guard already. I understand, you can adjust the original guard so only sufficient blade is visible. I'll ask my friend if the new guard prevents arms being passed through.

Had a quick glance through post so sorry if I missed any thing.

It is adjustable by using the wing nuts.

Your friend is leaving himself wide open to any accidents / disciplinary procedures by removing a safety guard.

Superfuse

Dakta said:

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said: Yes, he is the only one who uses the tool and he has informed his line manager that he intends to remove the guard. She has not objected.

I hope he has that in writing because removing a guard is a serious disciplinary offcence. In most workplaces that would be gross misconduct.

It'd certainly make any post-accident investigation interesting.

'someone identified a hazard hence the guard being installed, someone didn't like it and removed it'

Indeed. However, they would probably also ask why no paperwork was raised following the identification of the perceived hazard and why no paperwork has been raised following the modification of a powerful tool.

Superfuse

Hasbeen said:

Superfuse said:

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said:

My friend has been unable to obtain a risk assessment from the individuals whom modified the tool. He's going to remove the added guard. He doesn't think it makes the tool any safer and it actually reduces the depth of material that can be passed through the saw.

Your statements make little sense. You say the guard prevents things passing into the saw blade but don't see how it makes the tool safer to use. Don't you think it might prevent say an arm from passing into the saw blade?

  I see what you mean. I meant, the new guard reduces the depth of material that can be passed through, as it is not adjustable. The modification does not seem to increase safety as the tool has a factory fitted guard already. I understand, you can adjust the original guard so only sufficient blade is visible. I'll ask my friend if the new guard prevents arms being passed through.

Had a quick glance through post so sorry if I missed any thing.

It is adjustable by using the wing nuts.

Your friend is leaving himself wide open to any accidents / disciplinary procedures by removing a safety guard.

No worries, thanks for your comments. I believe it can't be slid upwards despite the wing nuts. That may have been the original plan but I suspect the actual pillar drill guard eventually hits the tool if you raise it.

I've checked with my friend. He's going to leave it all in place until he's had more input from everyone. Maybe someone up the good chain will force the person who did the modification to create a risk assessment for it.

My original post was related to the lack of process. I was concerned that someone would identify a potential hazard and modify a tool without raising any paperwork, or signing anything. Presumably, if you modify a tool, there needs to be an associated signature.

getmore4less

Superfuse said:

Dakta said:

bap98189 said:

Superfuse said: Yes, he is the only one who uses the tool and he has informed his line manager that he intends to remove the guard. She has not objected.

I hope he has that in writing because removing a guard is a serious disciplinary offcence. In most workplaces that would be gross misconduct.

It'd certainly make any post-accident investigation interesting.

'someone identified a hazard hence the guard being installed, someone didn't like it and removed it'

Indeed. However, they would probably also ask why no paperwork was raised following the identification of the perceived hazard and why no paperwork has been raised following the modification of a powerful tool.

Removing the guard does not fix the paperwork problem.

The correct thing to do is probably stop using this tool un till everything is in place for the modification.

if he does go down this route he needs paperwork that instructs him to remove the new guard.
 writing I want to remove it an then relying on my manager did not object is not good enough.

theoretica

If the guard is stopping the saw being used on thick materials then one request to raise up the chain is 'I need an appropriate tool to saw this thick stuff'. 

Lomast

That type of guard is primarily to provide protection from flying shards not direct protection from contact with the blade