• HSE issues violence notice (well almost)
• Asbestos in Imperial College
• AGM sets priorities for the incoming government
• Threat to pioneering project

HSE issues violence notice (well almost)

In an amazing move, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has given formal notice to the Camberwell district Employment Service Jobcentre (ESJ) that they intend issuing a Crown Improvement Notice over poor risk assessments after a recent assault on a Camberwell ESJ worker.

This case illustrates the on-going dispute between the Employment Service and the unions CPSA and PTC over the removal of security screens in Jobcentres and Benefits Agency Offices (see Daily Hazard No. 51).

According to the CPSA, since the Jobcentre screen removal programme started in 1988, the number of assaults on staff in ESJ's nationally has risen nine fold and the number of violent incidents has risen 14 fold. Workers are rightly worried that with the introduction of the Job Seekers' Allowance, a much tougher new benefit system, assaults will increase above the current unacceptable level. ESJ staff want to be given the option of the re-introduction of protective screens, while their bosses are adamant they will not do this.

The Camberwell ESJ has had its share of violent incidents. Notably, two years ago a 45 year old man who soaked himself in petrol was prevented from setting himself alight in the Jobcentre by a member of staff who wrestled him to the ground.

In June 1996 the local Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor was called in by the Camberwell ESJ bosses. In a letter the advisor states: "it is likely that on occasions conflict might occur" and "an ideal situation would be to have a permanent barrier between the staff and the public". But he noted that: "I understand this is not likely to happen" and "in this case it is impossible to give advice that would guarantee safety from attack". He did however suggest some other preventative measures to "reduce chances" including double width desks etc. The ESJ bosses have not acted on this advice.

The event which sparked the current HSE action occurred in July 1996 when a benefit claimant was, in accordance with standard procedure, refused a replacement giro by a member of staff. The claimant's friend then assaulted the member of staff, smashed VDU screens, and used various objects, including a fire extinguisher, a barrier and a CCTV monitor as missiles. The worker's physical injuries were, thankfully, not serious but they were very badly shaken, with them having to take considerable time off work.

The incident happened on 18th July but was not reported by ESJ bosses to the HSE until 19th August. It should have been reported as required by the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) and HSE has since asked the ESJ bosses to review their reporting procedures.

During their investigations the HSE inspected the ESJ's violence risk assessment and its review in the aftermath of the assault. The HSE found it lacking, saying it was a good starting point but not sufficiently detailed and systematic to cover all areas of concern.

The inspector wrote to Paul Hume, Branch Chair CPSA ES Inner London South Branch, and told him they were going to issue a notice of intent to issue a Crown Improvement Notice: the areas they wanted addressed were the panic button alarm procedure, layout of the office area, securing equipment so it can't be used as missiles, lack of staff training and, "the appropriateness or otherwise of the provision of a screened environment for specified tasks or clients."

Currently, before taking formal action over a health and safety issue, HSE and local authority inspectors are required to inform employers being served a notice they have two weeks to make representations on the issue before a formal notice is issued. The system is known as a "minded to" notice, or more formally an Intention to Issue an Improvement Notice. It's like a copper telling a bank robber during a bank raid they are minded to nick them in a couple of weeks time but the bank robber has two weeks to prepare arguments against a nick !

The HSE gave the ESJ the "minded to" notice on the 16 September and have discussed the issue with the ESJ bosses. But as we go to press it is over nine weeks since that notice was issued and the HSE has neither withdrawn it or issued the Improvement Notice.

"This is the fourth time VDU screens have been thrown since this office opened three years ago and the second time an injury has been caused by a phone being used as a weapon against a member of staff," said Paul Hume. "When will the ES provide us with a safe working environment ?"

Asbestos in Imperial College

How do you manage asbestos in an organisation with 11,000 people spread over ten big buildings? At London University's Imperial College, action by the Manufacturing, Science and Finance (MSF) branch has led to the setting up of an asbestos management programme which many others could learn from. MSF safety representative Paul Garden told us about it.

Imperial College is a mixture of Victorian and modern buildings, like many colleges, hospitals, town halls and similar institutions around London. Over the years, asbestos has been incorporated at first in the fittings and then in the fabric. In 1994, the college had no asbestos policy or written procedures for managing asbestos. An asbestos survey was carried out but, as events were to show, this missed a lot. There had been occasional piecemeal removal. Asbestos was constantly disturbed by small fitting and maintenance works going on all the time.

In 1994, MSF safety representatives requested health surveillance for estates staff. Any who had worked at the College for more than five years and who thought they might have been exposed to asbestos while looking after the buildings, were invited to have a lung function test followed by an X-ray at Brompton Hospital. Of the 50 staff who were examined, five had one of the two kinds of scarring which asbestos causes in the chest wall around the lung, known as pleural plaques and pleural thickening. Most were in their fifties and long-term employees of the college. Compensation claims were started by MSF Legal Department.

Health surveillance was arranged for more department staff and showed a similar pattern. Of 53 examined, 7 showed asbestos related lung abnormalities: including a carpenter, an electrician, a computer technician (who had drilled walls for cabling), a workshop technician and plumbers. Most were aged 50- 65, but one was in his thirties, though in this case the relationship with asbestos is still being investigated.

On the basis of this evidence, the MSF safety reps called for new surveys for asbestos dust. Tunnels and plant rooms came out as hot-spots. "For example, a valve might have gone u/s," said Paul, "and in the past when they replaced it, fitters would cut asbestos lagging away around it to get access, and that would go on the floor and get kicked around." The boiler rooms were surprisingly uncontaminated, and no boiler house staff have been found to have any symptoms.

Among the worst sites were the tunnels connecting the buildings, rarely or never cleaned, where estates staff had to work in the service ducts. At the edge of the floor under one length of pipe, the dust contained 25-30% asbestos. Some sites where asbestos had been stripped in the past also had high contamination levels, showing that the stripping had been botched.

It also became clear that previous surveys had missed asbestos hidden in ceiling and floor voids. Asbestos materials could take unusual forms: "We had things that looked like marble window sills that contained asbestos!" A 1960's top-floor extension was almost entirely built of asbestos materials.

It was around this stage in June 1995 that Paul contacted the Centre. Following up 15 months on, we found that there had been changes. "Once the college realised the scale of the problem, they were very co-operative," said Paul. After a survey a full scale asbestos management programme has been implemented.
* a specialist asbestos management firm on site with analysis staff
* a full asbestos register which is updated whenever more is discovered
* a removal programme which prioritises asbestos in poor condition
* an asbestos awareness programme for all permanent and contract staff
* anyone, staff or student, can request assessment of a suspect material and receive a copy of the results.
* outside contractors are given instructions and if necessary a written work method on dealing with any asbestos; sometimes air monitoring is set up to check their adherence to it
* where there is a choice, work is done in a way which avoids disturbing asbestos
* where disturbance is unavoidable, the asbestos is removed and replaced with a suitable substitute
* medical surveillance is available to every employee; staff already surveyed will be offered another surveillance in five years
* a clear written procedure in case of suspected disturbance of asbestos
* regular meetings between Estates Management and trade union safety reps to discuss potential problem areas and exchange information

The big remaining problem is that not all works are controlled from the estates office. Departments have their own works budgets and there are always small jobs going on somewhere. Ensuring control of "the man with the van" who's employed for half a day to drill a couple of holes, is essential. "What we need is buildings manager for each building to control work and ensure procedures are being adhered to."

Even where the contractor has been given a work specification, they may not stick to it. The day before we talked to Paul there had been a typical incident. A contractor's employees installing water and waste pipes had cut through the corner of an asbestos panel. Ignoring verbal instructions to avoid the asbestos by going though breeze-block wall, they had tied handkerchiefs over their face and gone by the easiest route.

A member of staff who had been on an awareness course alerted the local manager who stopped the work. The room was sealed off and cleaned up, at a cost of 300, and the company has been asked for its asbestos policy. Staff and contractors regularly report such situations now, showing how the asbestos awareness programme provides a final safety net.

Staff at the college will be living with the legacy of asbestos for a long time. The surveillance findings grimly bear out the prediction in the Centre's Asbestos Hazards Handbook: one in ten building workers in their 50s is at risk of dying of asbestos related disease. This year, a recently retired worker died of mesothelioma. Asbestos continues to turn up and Paul has become an expert on likely (and unlikely) locations. A wired glass pane in a door, for example, is a good indicator of asbestos in the door or frame. "Where asbestos is concerned this is just an average workplace," Paul points out. "We weren't exceptional. There are lots of similar places such as big hospitals." It would be good to know that they were taking a lead from Imperial College.

Information

Captions:

AGM sets priorities for the incoming government

With a general election on the horizon none of the political parties have yet made firm, detailed commitments to fundamentally improving health and safety at work and in the community. Delegates to the Centre's conference and annual general meeting, held on 16 November, felt that now is the time to start prioritising the long list of demands that trade unions, tenants organisations and health and safety activists have accumulated in recent years. Many of these demands are in the "Hazards Charter" adopted by this year's National Hazards Conference. AGM delegates decided to give priority to the following issues:

* Trade union recognition and improved safety representatives rights. There should be a statutory right to recognition of trades unions by employers where a majority of employees request this and employers should then negotiate with the union on all employment and health and safety matters. Safety Representatives rights must be strengthened with "Roving" Safety Reps being allowed to represent workers in small or dispersed workplaces.

* Enforcement. More resources should be allocated to enforcement agencies to increase their programme of workplace inspections. Although workers already have the right to leave work in the case of imminent danger, union health and safety representatives should be given powers to issue prohibition notices in this situation. Other proposals include: make offences under sections 2,3,4,5 of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 liable to prison sentences; drop Crown Immunity - a double standard for too long; inform and educate people on their rights to request enforcement action from their local authority environmental health departments.

* Corporate accountability. This principle, which enjoys public support, should be developed so that companies, directors and managers can be brought to justice for negligence in health and safety matters resulting in deaths or serious injury. Although six directors of small companies have been imprisoned for health and safety-related offences in the past eighteen months, attention should also be focused on larger companies with more complex management structures. The Management of Health and Safety at Work (MHSW) Regulations 1992 say those responsible for health and safety should be identified in the organisation's health and safety policy.

* Asbestos. A new asbestos law should ban the import and use of asbestos in this country; set up a national public registry of buildings with asbestos; institute a programme of removal; and provide proper care for those suffering from asbestos-related diseases.

Threat to pioneering project

As we go to press, Camden and Islington Occupational Health Project (CIOHP) is threatened with the axe by the local Health Authority. The Project's three part-time staff work with general practitioners, practice nurses and patients to increase awareness of the occupational causes behind much of the ill-health suffered by people in these two North London boroughs. The Project provides specialist advice on health and safety at work to patients referred by doctors and other primary health care personnel. This is an important resource which should be extended rather than cut back.

For further details about the Project and how you could help them try to avoid closure, contact CIOHP at St. Pancras Hospital, 4 St. Pancras Way, London NW3 4QP; Tel: 0171-530 5421.

LHC Members