The electrical trade is far from the worst industry sector. The Joint Industry Board (JIB) carries out an annual survey on accidents affecting member firms. Its year 2000 report covered 378 firms employing 19 679 site electricians, labourers and apprentices. A total of 212 (204 of which were part of the 378) covering 4672 agency-supplied and self-employed electricians also responded. While this represented only 18·45% of JIB members, it covered 67% of employees.
Disappointingly, there was a higher frequency of accidents in 2000 than in 1999. There were no fatalities and many of the accidents did not involve electrical incidents. There were 235 accidents reported in JIB firms with over 31 employees: 101 of these involved falls; 41 were handling or carrying injuries; and 38 were caused by stepping on or striking against other objects. Only 15 were specifically electrical, involving shocks or electrically-operated hand tools. The pattern was similar among smaller firms.
The cause of the accident may be important to inspectors or statisticians, but it is of no comfort to the person injured. There is no reason for complacency. There is no acceptable level of accidents.
Safety must be an integral part of the business process. Once it is seen as something separate or "to be left to the safety people" it is effectively marginalised, which is inexcusable.
Safety should not be seen as an add-on cost, still less as one part of a tender that can be subject to economies when pricing a job. Once it is seen as a cost that can make a bid uncompetitive, the site has already incurred some danger.
There are statutory penalties affecting safety. Some of them, especially the requirements of the Construction Design and Management Regulations, have criminal penalties attached to them if they are not properly observed. The Government has made it clear that it intends to introduce a corporate killing law, probably in 2003.
The former home secretary Jack Straw indicated about a year ago that the new law – which draws on recommendations made by the Law Commission in the late 1990s following some horrific transport accidents – will be based on two principles.
Safety must be an integral part of the business process. Once it is seen as something separate it is effectively marginalised, which is inexcusable
The first is that companies will become accountable in criminal law when their safety performance falls far below the standards that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.
The second is that individuals will be personally liable where they have shown recklessness or gross carelessness, with the possibility of action against individual company officers if they had personally contributed to the management failure that had been the cause of death.
Jack Straw also made it clear that a balance must be struck between protecting employees and the public, and making conscientious firms so risk averse that they decide not to continue in business at all.
At a conference last summer a distinguished lawyer specialising in safety warned that if a case involving a death or serious injury came before a jury, the likelihood was that they would prefer the cause of the grieving family to the protestations of a company director. This new law must be taken very seriously. It will not only involve fines on companies. It may mean directors and managers going to gaol for long periods.
There is no excuse for anyone to be ignorant of safety best practice: the ECA and the AEEU, as partners in the JIB, have developed an excellent safety course in conjunction with the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health.
Both the ECA and the AEEU have long been proactive over safety. The new course was a specific response by the parties to the challenge by the deputy prime minister John Prescott at February's construction safety summit, that the whole construction industry should put its house in order or face new legislation.
Source
Electrical and Mechanical Contractor