Mobile cranes and hardhats in WA.

[Scooter]

I was just wondering if anyone can tell me what the laws are for dogmen/riggers in WA if hardhats are mandatory when slinging loads?
Reason I ask, is we use a mobile crane in our Perth workshop, and no one uses a hard hat when slinging a load? Nor do contractors when they come in to do heavier lifts? What is Worksafes or a Mines inspectors take on this?
I can not find any up to date info on this when I Google search?

[GTBenny]

Without actually knowing WA's regulations I would make the assumption that if a risk assessment deemed that there was a risk of being struck by an overhead falling object or load then it would be required that a hardhat is worn.

Benny.

[HI PSI]

I think that it would be a site specific.

[Scooter]

This is what makes it unclear to me? As we are not a site as such, just a workshop, is it law or is it up to the requirements of the company? Basically I want to know if it is law or just a rule?

[Brent]

Mate, it seems that you need to wear a high viz vest when mowing the lawn now, so its a pretty safe bet that your guys should wear hardhats when slinging overhead loads. If I were an employer, they'd be wearing them, irrespective of legislation. Period. One less thing to be blamed for/sued by the WorkCover Nazis if something happened.

[happyjack351]

hi,wait till you get hit in the mouth and head with a stray hook,youll wear one.

[Mercury 8]

No offence but probably a good idea to get up to date with workplace health and safety laws.They may be over the top but rest assured if you are not compliant and something happens the **** will hit the fan. Chain of responsibility springs to mind. In Brisbane they must use scanners as I have seen them turn up just after the ambo's get there without an incident even been reported.

[aussiblue]

See http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation..._homepage.html OHS Regs 1996.

Probably not as black and white as you might like but I think 3.33 covers it adequately - i.e. a risk assessment would suggest that a protective helmet would reduce the risk of death or injury from an object falling from the crane.

Division 2 — General duties in relation to personal protective clothing and equipment
3.32. Risks to be reduced in first instance by means other than protective clothing and equipment
When a person is considering, for the purposes of regulation 3.1(c), the means by which a risk may be reduced, the person is to —
(a) firstly consider the means other than the use of protective clothing and equipment by which the risk might be reduced; and
(b) then consider the use of protective clothing and equipment to the extent that it is not practicable to reduce the risk by means other than the use of protective clothing and equipment.
3.33. Personal protective clothing and equipment, standards applicable to
(1) If a person —
(a) is required under any of these regulations to identify a hazard at a workplace and to assess the risk of injury or harm to a person resulting from the hazard; and
(b) concludes from the assessment process that a risk might be reduced by any of the personal protective clothing or equipment set out in column 1 of the Table to this regulation,
then the person must ensure that the personal protective clothing or equipment is in accordance, and complies, with the relevant requirements of each Standard set out opposite the clothing or equipment in column 2 of the Table.
Table
Column 1 Column 2
Means of protection Standard
Safety helmet AS/NZS 1801
Eye protection AS/NZS 1337 and
AS/NZS 1338
Gloves AS/NZS 2161
Footwear AS/NZS 2210
Skin protection by way of sunscreen
AS/NZS 2604
Clothing for protection against heat and flame AS/NZS ISO 2801 and AS/NZS 4501.1
Clothing to protect skin against toxic or volatile chemicals
AS 3765
Penalty: the regulation 1.16 penalty.
(2) A person does not commit an offence under subregulation (1) if, proof of which is on the person, the protection provided by the person in relation to a particular risk is of an equivalent or higher standard than the means of protection referred to in subregulation (1).
(3) Nothing in subregulation (1) affects any requirement in the Act or in these regulations to provide such protection as will protect a person from a risk if the means of protection referred to in subregulation (1) would not provide adequate protection in relation to that risk.
[Regulation 3.33 amended in Gazette 10 Jan 2003 p. 63; 14 Dec 2004 p. 6018; 2 Nov 2010 p. 5499.]
3.34. Person concluding personal protective clothing or equipment should be used, duties of
(1) If a person is required under any of these regulations to identify a hazard at a workplace and to assess the risk of injury or harm to a person resulting from the hazard and the person concludes from the assessment process that personal protective clothing or equipment should be used at the workplace then the person must ensure that —
(a) the person who uses the clothing or equipment is instructed in relation to the correct fitting, use, selection, testing, maintenance and storage of the clothing or equipment; and
(b) the person who uses the clothing or equipment is informed of the limitations in the use of the clothing or equipment; and
(c) the clothing or equipment is maintained in good working order; and
(d) the clothing or equipment is replaced —
(i) when it no longer provides the level of protection required to protect the wearer or user against the particular hazard; or
(ii) when the safe working life, as specified by the person who manufactured the clothing or equipment, has expired; or
(iii) subject to subregulation (2), when it is damaged and cannot be repaired;
and
(e) the area of a workplace at which the clothing or equipment is required to be used by a person other than the person who provides the clothing or equipment is identified by signs in accordance, and complying, with AS 1319.
Penalty: the regulation 1.16 penalty.
(2) A person does not commit an offence under subregulation (1)(d) if, proof of which is on the person, the clothing or equipment is repaired rather than replaced and —
(a) the repair is done by a competent person; and
(b) the repair is done according to the specifications of the manufacturer of the equipment; and
(c) any replacement part used in the repair is that which is specified by the manufacturer of the equipment as the correct replacement part.
[Regulation 3.34 amended in Gazette 14 Dec 2004 p. 6018.]
3.35. Person issued personal protective clothing or equipment, duties of
A person to whom personal protective clothing or equipment is provided or made available for use at a workplace —
(a) must use the protective clothing or equipment in a manner in which he or she has been properly instructed to use it; and
(b) must not misuse or damage the clothing or equipment; and
(c) must, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of any —
(i) damage to; or
(ii) malfunction of; or
(iii) need to clean or sterilize,
the clothing or equipment, notify the person providing the clothing or equipment of the damage, malfunction or need to clean or sterilize the clothing or equipment.
Penalty: the regulation 1.15 penalty.
[Regulation 3.35 amended in Gazette 14 Dec 2004 p. 6016 17.]
3.36. Safety helmets at construction site, main contractor’s duties as to
If there is a risk of a person being struck on the head by a falling object at a construction site then the main contractor must ensure that —
(a) at all times when the person is at risk, the person wears a safety helmet complying with the relevant requirements of AS/NZS 1801; and
(b) there is displayed at each entrance to the site a safety sign bearing the words “SAFETY HELMET AREA — HELMETS MUST BE WORN AT THIS SITE” and that otherwise complies with AS 1319.
Penalty: the regulation 1.16 penalty.
[Regulation 3.36 amended in Gazette 10 Jan 2003 p. 64; 14 Dec 2004 p. 6018.]

You may also find this interesting: http://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/WorkSa..._handling.html

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by Brent

Mate, it seems that you need to wear a high viz vest when mowing the lawn now, so its a pretty safe bet that your guys should wear hardhats when slinging overhead loads. If I were an employer, they'd be wearing them, irrespective of legislation. Period. One less thing to be blamed for/sued by the WorkCover Nazis if something happened.

I know where you are coming from, but this is where the problem of lack of common sense comes in? Don't stand near the load? I believe that all loads
should only be slung by a qualified rigger/dogman too? Our company is just going through all there safety procedures and I was wondering if it was them
or law that stipulates these things? Our next topic is going to be EWP/ working at heights? Fall arresters and emergency procedues and tickets for these things!

[Scooter]

Thanks mate, that was what I was looking for! Have you done your E series sills yet?

[Mickxr8]

Can`t wait for the fall arrester test , good govco should lead by example ? , next up joolz

[aussiblue]

Have you done your E series sills yet?

No; too busy at work and too sick (9 collapsed coronary arteries and 7 stents so far - outcome dengue hemorrhage fever and shock syndrome many years ago). Getting better so maybe these holidays in March will see it done.

[MercurySilver]

the OHS manager should really do a risk assesment/matrix thingy

if its above your head
it can fall
id be putting hats on

[XR6_661]

Mate, I'd be wearing one regardless of your workplace policy.

Can't get in trouble for wearing extra PPE.

I know for a fact you'd get reamed on site where I work if you didnt have a hard hat on when slinging loads.

[MercurySilver]

youd get a written warning and a bollocking where i work

[Scooter]

Are you guys on a minesite or in a city workshop? The way I see it is there are so many grey areas. Most of the lifts we do are light objects and not very high. I agree, wearing one covers everybody involved, but what about when operating a bridge crane in a workshop? It is really no different? Our office guys are doing VOC's atm (I think that is what they are called) and all this is in review now?

[klawsterfobik]

Even a light load <10kg could kill you if it fell from a meter above your head and hit you. I look at as if I was the worksafe guy, if I think he could ping me for it I try and prevent it.

[G6ET8U]

PPE in the hiearchy of controls is the final control against injury.

For those interested, it goes like this:

Elimination.
Substitution.
Engineering.
Administration.
PPE.

I am an OHS rep on commercial building sites here in Melbourne. On my site, I don't care what you are lifting, with any kind of crane, you WILL have a hard hat on. On my sites it is mandated as part of your SWMS that all persons on site have hard hats on.

I can appreciate that you work in a workshop environment but the rules of construction don't change. A load can shift and hit you when lifted. Regardless of whether you are on site or in a workshop or going to smoko, the load doesn't know where you are and what PPE you are wearing or lack thereof. I drum in to the lads on my site this exact point.

Jack

[Scooter]

Originally Posted by G6ET8U

PPE in the hiearchy of controls is the final control against injury.

For those interested, it goes like this:

Elimination.
Substitution.
Engineering.
Administration.
PPE.

I am an OHS rep on commercial building sites here in Melbourne. On my site, I don't care what you are lifting, with any kind of crane, you WILL have a hard hat on. On my sites it is mandated as part of your SWMS that all persons on site have hard hats on.

I can appreciate that you work in a workshop environment but the rules of construction don't change. A load can shift and hit you when lifted. Regardless of whether you are on site or in a workshop or going to smoko, the load doesn't know where you are and what PPE you are wearing or lack thereof. I drum in to the lads on my site this exact point.

Jack

That is fair enough, but is it law or just your policies? I just don't see the difference between the workshop bridge crane or the mobile crane in the yard? And as said above, 10kg could even kill you, well so could the hook swinging violently.

[Stefan]

There is no "law" that makes you wear PPE. The law stipulates that employers need to provide a safe workplace, the employer then implements a policy that provides for the safe work place, one of which maybe all employee are to wear a hard hat when working near a crane.

This means that different work places have different policies.

The only thing is a union or similar body may stipulate certain things in respect to safety ie the railways stipulate lace up boots, there is no law that stipulates lace up boosts but the railways policy states no lace up boots no work on their site.

[Scooter]

Thanks for that. That is what I wanted to know.

[XR6_661]

Originally Posted by Scooter

Are you guys on a minesite or in a city workshop? The way I see it is there are so many grey areas. Most of the lifts we do are light objects and not very high. I agree, wearing one covers everybody involved, but what about when operating a bridge crane in a workshop? It is really no different? Our office guys are doing VOC's atm (I think that is what they are called) and all this is in review now?

Minesite - Light Vehicles workshop...

Mind you, we can't scratch our bums here without filling out an incident report.

[G6ET8U]

Here in Victoria, under section 21 of the OHS Act...

An employer must, so far as is reasonably
practicable, provide and maintain for employees
of the employer a working environment that is
safe and without risks to health.

Last year, all of the governments around the country attempted to harmonise the OHS laws and regulations so that the same laws apply across the nation. So far everyone wants their own deal.

Harmonisation, so far, has failed. It's a shame too. In all honesty, it looks easy. Outwardly, it isn't. Hard Hats on commercial sites here in Victoria have been mandatory for 16 years.

It is still my biggest issue with blokes on site. I had one today working within 5m of a Concrete Placing Boom, his back to the machine and took off his hard hat, put it on the mesh and went on working. He didn't know I was watching.

Because of this, he is now on his last and final on my site. From my perspective, these blokes on site who flout the rules in this way are a liability in my workplace. They don't understand or care about the chain of responsibility laws, let alone the fact if they are hit and die what it's like to be in the coroners court.

Jack

[something wrong]

Originally Posted by G6ET8U

Last year, all of the governments around the country attempted to harmonise the OHS laws and regulations so that the same laws apply across the nation. So far everyone wants their own deal.

Harmonisation, so far, has failed. It's a shame too. In all honesty, it looks easy. Outwardly,

Jack

It might have failed in Vic and WA but for a person like me who works construction in QLD/NSW and ACT it has been fantastic having the same WHS Act, Regs and Codes across the 3 states, reduced paperwork and less hassle with my guys complying when they are working in different states.

Bring on SA next year and fingers cross WA and Vic come to the party on day in the future especially since they are based on the Vic legislation just slightly watered down on places.