A Guide to Manual Handling at Work
More than a quarter of work related accidents reported each year to the enforcing authorities are associated with manual handling – the transporting or supporting of loads by hand or by bodily force.
Whilst fatal manual handling accidents are rare, accidents resulting in a major injury such as a fractured arm are more common, and even more commonly accidents involving back injuries be it a soft tissue injury, sprain, strain or involving the spine or discs.
A full recovery from a back injury in particular is not always made, the result can be an impairment or even permanent disability resulting in the injured person having to seek an alternative form of employment or in some instances be unable to return to employment at all, and the individual may be entitled to personal injury compensation.
There is now substantial acceptance of both the scale of manual handling problems and methods of prevention, particularly when lifting heavy weights. Modern medical and scientific knowledge stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach in removing or reducing the risk of manual handling injury, i.e. “fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job.”
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 January 1993.
The Regulations place duties on employers to –
a) Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practical – this may be done by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load, or by automating or mechanising the process.
b) Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided; and
c) Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practical – particular consideration should be given to the provision of mechanical assistance, but where this is not reasonably practical then other improvements to the task, the load, and the working environment should be explored.
DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS UNDER THE REGULATIONS
Injury – not necessarily the back. Account shall be taken of physical properties of loads which might either affect grip or cause direct injury, e.g. slipperiness, roughness, sharp edges, extremes of temperature.
Load – a movable object. This includes, e.g. a human patient receiving medical attention, or an animal during husbandry or undergoing veterinary treatment, and material supported on a shovel or fork. An implement, tool or machine – such as a chainsaw – is not considered to constitute a load whilst in use for its intended purpose.
MANUAL HANDLING OPERATIONS
Regulations apply to the manual handling of loads, i.e. by human effort, as opposed to mechanical handling by crane, lift truck, etc. The human effort may be applied directly to the load, by pushing, transporting, supporting, pulling, lifting, dropping or even throwing the load. It can also be indirectly applied by hauling on a rope or pulling on a lever. Manual handling operations also include steadying or positioning a load, when human effort is required, but mechanical assistance such as a powered hoist is also involved.
The application of human effort for the purpose other than transporting or supporting a load does not constitute a manual handling operation. For example, turning the starting handle of an engine or lifting a control lever on a machine is not manual handling, nor is the action of pulling on a rope whilst lashing down cargo on the back of a vehicle.
EMPLOYERS’ DUTIES
The extent of the employer’s duty to avoid manual handling or to reduce the risk of injury is determined by reference to what is “reasonably practical”. Such duties are satisfied if the employer can show that the cost of any further preventative steps would be grossly disproportionate to the further benefit that would accrue from their introduction.
It is however not sufficient simply to make changes and then hope that any potential injury risk has been dealt with. Steps taken to avoid manual handling or reduce the risk of injury should be monitored to check that they are having the desired effect in practice. If they are not, alternative steps should be sought.
In relation to manual handling of an employer’s employee away from the employer’s premises, there is still a duty on the employer. Where possible the employer should seek close liaison with those in control of such premises. There is still a duty to apply the Regulations, and although there will sometimes be a limit to employers ability to influence the working environment in such instances, often a load will remain within their control or their employee’s control, as will the provision of effective training, so it is still possible to establish a safe system of work.
Employers and others in control of premises at which visiting employees have to work also have duties towards these employees, particularly under the Health & Safety at Work Act, the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992, and the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
Employers and employees can seek further information regarding the avoidance of manual handling, assessment of risk and completion of an assessment by way of reference to the Health & Safety Executive Manual Handling Guidance Notes on the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.
LEGAL DECISIONS INVOLVING THE MANUAL HANDLING REGULATIONS
There have been numerous decisions since the implication of the Regulations, this article’s intention is only to give a flavour or example of such decisions and the circumstances of the manual handling operation in question.
McIntosh –v- City of Edinburgh Council – A worker injured himself whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weight 50kg to his van. It got stuck in grass causing him to lose his balance. The ladder was considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1). A man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury. This case called for Debate on the Defender's Motion to dismiss the action prior to any court hearing on evidence. It was disputed by the Defenders that the incident in question came under the terms of the Manual Handling Regulations and that there was foreseeability of risk. The case revolved around a worker who injured himself whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weighing 50kg to his van. It got stuck in grass, causing him to lose his balance. The Judgment confirmed that the ladder was considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1), and that a man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury, therefore the pursuer was allowed to proceed to the Proof Hearing on the full evidence of the case.
Fraser –v- Royal Mail Group – At Debate it was held that the operation of closing a lorry tailgate was, under the terms of the Regulations, capable of being a manual handling operation, on the basis that the Regulations were not designed merely to deal with the lifting of heavy loads, but were designed to cover a much wider range of hazards, including something secured by a hinge to another thing.
Walsh –v- TNT UK Ltd. - A failure to have a worker on a refresher course for manual handling put the employers in breach of 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulations. The claim for compensation for injuries sustained was therefore upheld and the amount of £6650 in damages awarded together with interest to the pursuer.
Jaffrey –v- Grampian Test and Certification Ltd. – The Defenders had carried out a risk assessment in relation to the work process involved, which later resulted in injury. The work involved the forming of a loop in a metal cable. The Pursuer had general instructions when starting work but none on this operation, and had not been shown the risk assessment. A case was successful under the Manual Handling Regulations. It was deemed in this case that there was one process of pushing and pulling the wire, this operation could only be done manually so although there was no breach of 4(1)(a), there was a breach of 4(1)(b) because the risk assessment was neither suitable nor sufficient and no steps were taken to prevent or reduce the risk of personal injury.
Whilst fatal manual handling accidents are rare, accidents resulting in a major injury such as a fractured arm are more common, and even more commonly accidents involving back injuries be it a soft tissue injury, sprain, strain or involving the spine or discs.
A full recovery from a back injury in particular is not always made, the result can be an impairment or even permanent disability resulting in the injured person having to seek an alternative form of employment or in some instances be unable to return to employment at all, and the individual may be entitled to personal injury compensation.
There is now substantial acceptance of both the scale of manual handling problems and methods of prevention, particularly when lifting heavy weights. Modern medical and scientific knowledge stresses the importance of an ergonomic approach in removing or reducing the risk of manual handling injury, i.e. “fitting the job to the person, rather than the person to the job.”
The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 came into force on 1 January 1993.
The Regulations place duties on employers to –
a) Avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably practical – this may be done by redesigning the task to avoid moving the load, or by automating or mechanising the process.
b) Make a suitable and sufficient assessment of any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided; and
c) Reduce the risk of injury from those operations so far as is reasonably practical – particular consideration should be given to the provision of mechanical assistance, but where this is not reasonably practical then other improvements to the task, the load, and the working environment should be explored.
DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN TERMS UNDER THE REGULATIONS
Injury – not necessarily the back. Account shall be taken of physical properties of loads which might either affect grip or cause direct injury, e.g. slipperiness, roughness, sharp edges, extremes of temperature.
Load – a movable object. This includes, e.g. a human patient receiving medical attention, or an animal during husbandry or undergoing veterinary treatment, and material supported on a shovel or fork. An implement, tool or machine – such as a chainsaw – is not considered to constitute a load whilst in use for its intended purpose.
MANUAL HANDLING OPERATIONS
Regulations apply to the manual handling of loads, i.e. by human effort, as opposed to mechanical handling by crane, lift truck, etc. The human effort may be applied directly to the load, by pushing, transporting, supporting, pulling, lifting, dropping or even throwing the load. It can also be indirectly applied by hauling on a rope or pulling on a lever. Manual handling operations also include steadying or positioning a load, when human effort is required, but mechanical assistance such as a powered hoist is also involved.
The application of human effort for the purpose other than transporting or supporting a load does not constitute a manual handling operation. For example, turning the starting handle of an engine or lifting a control lever on a machine is not manual handling, nor is the action of pulling on a rope whilst lashing down cargo on the back of a vehicle.
EMPLOYERS’ DUTIES
The extent of the employer’s duty to avoid manual handling or to reduce the risk of injury is determined by reference to what is “reasonably practical”. Such duties are satisfied if the employer can show that the cost of any further preventative steps would be grossly disproportionate to the further benefit that would accrue from their introduction.
It is however not sufficient simply to make changes and then hope that any potential injury risk has been dealt with. Steps taken to avoid manual handling or reduce the risk of injury should be monitored to check that they are having the desired effect in practice. If they are not, alternative steps should be sought.
In relation to manual handling of an employer’s employee away from the employer’s premises, there is still a duty on the employer. Where possible the employer should seek close liaison with those in control of such premises. There is still a duty to apply the Regulations, and although there will sometimes be a limit to employers ability to influence the working environment in such instances, often a load will remain within their control or their employee’s control, as will the provision of effective training, so it is still possible to establish a safe system of work.
Employers and others in control of premises at which visiting employees have to work also have duties towards these employees, particularly under the Health & Safety at Work Act, the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations 1992, and the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
Employers and employees can seek further information regarding the avoidance of manual handling, assessment of risk and completion of an assessment by way of reference to the Health & Safety Executive Manual Handling Guidance Notes on the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.
LEGAL DECISIONS INVOLVING THE MANUAL HANDLING REGULATIONS
There have been numerous decisions since the implication of the Regulations, this article’s intention is only to give a flavour or example of such decisions and the circumstances of the manual handling operation in question.
McIntosh –v- City of Edinburgh Council – A worker injured himself whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weight 50kg to his van. It got stuck in grass causing him to lose his balance. The ladder was considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1). A man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury. This case called for Debate on the Defender's Motion to dismiss the action prior to any court hearing on evidence. It was disputed by the Defenders that the incident in question came under the terms of the Manual Handling Regulations and that there was foreseeability of risk. The case revolved around a worker who injured himself whilst trying to return a 3 piece ladder weighing 50kg to his van. It got stuck in grass, causing him to lose his balance. The Judgment confirmed that the ladder was considered a load in terms of Reg.2(1), and that a man lifting a ladder this way involved a foreseeable possibility of injury, therefore the pursuer was allowed to proceed to the Proof Hearing on the full evidence of the case.
Fraser –v- Royal Mail Group – At Debate it was held that the operation of closing a lorry tailgate was, under the terms of the Regulations, capable of being a manual handling operation, on the basis that the Regulations were not designed merely to deal with the lifting of heavy loads, but were designed to cover a much wider range of hazards, including something secured by a hinge to another thing.
Walsh –v- TNT UK Ltd. - A failure to have a worker on a refresher course for manual handling put the employers in breach of 4(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulations. The claim for compensation for injuries sustained was therefore upheld and the amount of £6650 in damages awarded together with interest to the pursuer.
Jaffrey –v- Grampian Test and Certification Ltd. – The Defenders had carried out a risk assessment in relation to the work process involved, which later resulted in injury. The work involved the forming of a loop in a metal cable. The Pursuer had general instructions when starting work but none on this operation, and had not been shown the risk assessment. A case was successful under the Manual Handling Regulations. It was deemed in this case that there was one process of pushing and pulling the wire, this operation could only be done manually so although there was no breach of 4(1)(a), there was a breach of 4(1)(b) because the risk assessment was neither suitable nor sufficient and no steps were taken to prevent or reduce the risk of personal injury.
| posted by Quantum Claims at 1:32 AM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home