FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Hunter on February 25, 2008, 11:38:33 PM
-
I work for Mark & spencer and i am also a Health & Safety Officer for one of my store. I have only started the job two months. I am hearing impaired person and without my hearing aids on i am completely deaf!! I am abit concern about most of the stores have not got flashing lights in the customers toilets + disable toilets to warn them of when a fire alarm go off!!! In my store only one person can go in the toilet!!! If the fire alarm go off while the deaf person is in there, that person had no warning about it!!! 1. No point of knocking on doors because they can't hear. 2. U can't put any thing under the doors to let them know that something had happen. 3. we can't open the doors because it could be a woman!!!
I have recomend that a flashing lights to be put in all the toilets which is usefull for customers with hearing imparied or completely hard of hearing!! But they say that it not needed etc..... plus if they have to put it in my store then they would have to put it in all stores!!! I said' well yes of course!!!
Can someone please help me with this!!!!
-
It may be better to give the hearing impaired staff a vibrating pager linked to the fire alarm system. They can also give you a text message as well giving the location of the alarm or specific pre-planned instructions. In the short term if you can get hold of a phone with a vibrate function you could team up with a colleague as a buddy to call you with a text.
Have you seen the governmant guidance note no 12- here
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/fire/firesafetyassessmentmeans
-
This is only for customers that come in and used the toilet. Not for a member of staff!!
-
Yes then you are right Hunter if offering a service to the Public there is a duty under the DDA to make reasonable adjustments to buildings to ensure that all members of society are able to use the service, and that under the Fire Safety Order all customers and staff are "Relevant Persons" and there must be a suitable and sufficient means of raising the alarm of fire and an evacuation plan that works for all. If providing a visual sounder there must also be a sign to explain what it means and what to do if it operates.
Usually such organisations use fire wardens to search areas such as toilets if an evacuation takes place, usually the fire wardens will have a security key giving access to toilet cubicles if locked- however nobody wants to outrage a persons dignity.
-
Hunter, the fire risk assessment that was done for your store should have identified your need as a vulnarable person. Worth asking if you can see a copy.
-
If it was a new store it would have beacons in the loos. For an exisitng store your FRA would pick up that there werent any and then you would need to decide what to do.
You could make sure that fire wardens check the loos when evacuating the stoe or you could by a few beacons etc.etc.
-
Yes the fire risk asessment should identify persons with specific "needs" (I don't like using that word) but you know what I mean.
Everyone should be entitled to resort in a public place safely. In the store area (excluding changing rooms the use of beacons could be excluded so long as staff did a sweep.
Changing rooms and loos should have a beacons I would suggest as you shouldnt have a member of staff bursting in on anyone in the changing rooms / loos.
-
Here we go again - spending vast sums of money on very small risks - it's disproportionate.
Sure if you are replacing the system or you have concerns about effective procedures then maybe we should upgrade. But you cant keep replacing things every time a code gets updated.
-
as a person who is registered disabled (if you are) your employer should have undertaken a PEEP personal emergency evacuation plan and introduced measures accordingly - this is as well as the separate assessment for members of the public
-
Here we go again - spending vast sums of money on very small risks - it's disproportionate.
Sure if you are replacing the system or you have concerns about effective procedures then maybe we should upgrade. But you cant keep replacing things every time a code gets updated.
I think thats a very sceptical view and to be completely honest I take offence at it. What would be the cost implication for a few beacons in strategic areas? The words 'reasonably practicable' spring to mind. Not alot for someone like M&S really in the greater scheme of things. It's easy to mock perceived politically correct policies but having suffered hearing damage from working in a foundry for 15 years let me tell you that you soon wish health and safety regs were more stringent back then. I have got permanent tinatus and I cant hear certain frequencies, you cant imagine what its like to have good hearing which is then lost. Im not a moaner but what I do strongly object to is being told just because i have a hearing imparment im not as important or entitled to be as safe as able bodied persons or that policies designed to give me equal rights are OTT. As a risk assesor my job is to give my clents safe solutions at a sensible price. I do that and I think I do it well. Whilst code huggers do my head in you should and must do everything reasonably practicable to maintain everyone's safety. By your argument old established hotels shouldn't have AFD installed in them.
-
OOps I've ofended somebody - oh well I've got over it.
You think it makes sense to fit strobes in every shop toilet in the country and that this won't cost much. Do you sell them? Do you only want M&S to do it cos they are loaded?? I'm glad you think you do your job well.
You need to evaluate a risk and deal with it proportionately. Sure sometimes its gonna make sense to stick a few strobes in the bogs but in most cases you can handle it quite adequately with a management procedure.
-
Am I being daft or aren't most toilet doors in public or work places fitted with indicator bolts to show whether the "position" is vacant or engaged? Have a look at one from the outside and you'll probably find a slot at the centre of the spindle which is intentionally there to enable the door to be opened from the outside with a coin (or similar).
Management procedure...
Steal a 2p from the till before checking the building is empty!
-
So are we going to have female staff walk into gents toilets? Are we going to have male staff walk into female loos and wave a sign underneath the cubicle doors. What? Come on boys what do you suggest?
-
Do you think that may be embarrassing for the hearing impaired person sat on the toilet?
-
Risk Analysis!
Option 1
Male staff interupts male - no risk
Female staff interrupts female - no risk
Male staff interupts female - risk of embarrasment
Female staff interupts male - risk of embarrasment
Option 2
Flashing lights / sirens etc - risk of cost
Option 3
None of the above - risk of death
Shall we take a vote???
-
Do you think that may be embarrassing for the hearing impaired person sat on the toilet?
Yes i do very much so, my point exactly.
-
well we've managed perefectly well for years without these beacons - being hearing impaired is not a new phenomenon.
As I have said (several times but you are mostly all missing the point!) -
in a new building - yes,
when upgrading or refurbing the alarm - yes,
If you cant get your act together - yes
Any other time just use an evac sweep.
Another alternative is not to bother providing loos for your customers. that way all the health and safety fascists will leave you alone to run your shop in peace.
That would be a great step forward wouldnt it???????!!!!!!!!!
-
well we've managed perefectly well for years without these beacons - being hearing impaired is not a new phenomenon.
As I have said (several times but you are mostly all missing the point!) -
in a new building - yes,
when upgrading or refurbing the alarm - yes,
If you cant get your act together - yes
Any other time just use an evac sweep.
Another alternative is not to bother providing loos for your customers. that way all the health and safety fascists will leave you alone to run your shop in peace.
That would be a great step forward wouldnt it???????!!!!!!!!!
Now come on Wee Brian... what would happen if I was caught short in Tescos after my usual saturday lunchtime liquid lunch - it could get messy and no one should have to see that when doing their shopping
-
Why what has Messy done to you?
-
Now come on Wee Brian. At this rate you'll cause a reduction in shop prices and council taxes. More importantly it will reduce my profits in supplying quite a few products that are, too often, superflous!
As Clevelandfire says 'What would be the cost implication for a few beacons in strategic areas? As long as we don't also factor in the cost of the wheelchair ramps, automatic opening doors, disabled toilet alarms, assistive hearing induction loop systems, DDA 'compliant' door entry systems etc. etc. If we did that we might then all see just how much it is costing shops (actually costing their customers!) in total and, even more so, the council tax payers of local authorities who are meeting their interpretation (or most likely the superflous equipment manufacturer's and the 'rule enforcers' intepretation) of the DDA recommendations.
Is it any wonder council tax is continually rising? Is it any wonder that prices for goods are continually rising? 20 years ago my relatives living in Sweden would come to the UK to buy toiletries because they were 25% cheaper. Now it's the other way around. We now come back laden with cheap day-to-day necessities from our regular visits to Stockholm!
I could give you a number of examples of products that are being manufactured and being specified by architects and local authorities to meet the Disability Discrimination Act that are, quite frankly, largely useless. Can you blame me for supplying them if they are being made and being asked for? At least I'm earning a bit more to cover the increases in council tax and shop prices! I don't know what everyone else can do about it - pay up with a smile, I suppose!
-
Why what has Messy done to you?
Oi! - keep me out of this!
For the record, I tend to side with WB's view that the risk is so small that management procedures would be sufficient until a refurb or changes are planned.
I have this theory when I am determining risk (likelihood) of an event, I look at a statement and count the 'ifs'. When there are 3 or more, then you have to start doubting how likely this event would be.
For instance, in this example: IF there's a fire in this M&S, and IF the store is occupied, and IF the fire involves the toilet (or escape route from) and IF at that time there is a deaf person who happens to need the toilet, and IF the fire warden (or other management system) fails to evacuate this person, they will die.
When you analyse that statement you'll find 5 'IFs'. So it is possible, but I would argue, unlikely. And it's this 'low risk' that allows the RP to wait until a refurb before amending the AFD system and not to rush into unreasonable changes.
-
Hi Messy
I get the idea. You mean like IF there was a wooden football stand and IF they didnt have regular cleaning procedures and IF people dropped litter beneath and IF someone happened to drop a lighted cigarette end and IF it happened to set fire to the accumulated litter and IF the stewards did not see the fire to tackle it and IF the exits at the rear of the stand were locked people may die.
Hindsight has a habit of generating more ifs than foresight. I see where you are coming from though but I think a liklihoodxconsequence approach may be more reliable
-
I'm totally with Wee Brian on this...new build yes...otherwise what else can we identify that should be fitted retrospectively...common sense chaps and chapesses...please!
-
Hi Messy
I get the idea. You mean like IF there was a wooden football stand and IF they didnt have regular cleaning procedures and IF people dropped litter beneath and IF someone happened to drop a lighted cigarette end and IF it happened to set fire to the accumulated litter and IF the stewards did not see the fire to tackle it and IF the exits at the rear of the stand were locked people may die.
Hindsight has a habit of generating more ifs than foresight. I see where you are coming from though but I think a liklihoodxconsequence approach may be more reliable
Fair comment Kurnal, but I wasn't suggesting this rule of thumb method should be used in isolation!!!
But you are referring to an event which occured where seemingly no assessment of risk or suitable control measures were in place. (and I am sure we could all list many similar events)
My example is a tool to check that, when assessing risk, unreasonable demands (as an IO) are not made on a punter, and of course other 'measurements' such as liklihood x consequence approach would have to be considered
-
Question for Wee B and PhilB
If you have an employee with a particular special need - in this case someone who has a hearing impairment- you really have a duty to ensure that they are not placed at risk as a result of this. Yes you can create a buddy system and make sure they are accompanied at all times but isnt that a bit demeaning?
Is it not reasonable to forsee that they may have to visit the loo from time to time and they may feel intimidated if they have to ask their buddy to look out for them, or never know whether a well meaning fire warden may burst in on them?
A strobe in the loo and in the mess room is surely not unreasonable- say £8 for the strobe and £50 to connect it up to the alarm. When employers are paying a fortune for corporate identities and uniforms, think nothing of paying for PPE which only protects one person then I would say in this case it sounds absolutely reasonable to expect them to upgrade the alarms, if only in key areas and to meet the actual known needs of existing employees.
-
Boys and girls. With regard to the above debate I think you all need to get out a bit more. Talk about making a science out of a pretty simplistic problem. Yes its great to gather different opinions but please some of you remind yourselves of the meanings of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk'.
-
Question for Wee B and PhilB
If you have an employee with a particular special need - in this case someone who has a hearing impairment- you really have a duty to ensure that they are not placed at risk as a result of this. Yes you can create a buddy system and make sure they are accompanied at all times but isnt that a bit demeaning?
Is it not reasonable to forsee that they may have to visit the loo from time to time and they may feel intimidated if they have to ask their buddy to look out for them, or never know whether a well meaning fire warden may burst in on them?
A strobe in the loo and in the mess room is surely not unreasonable- say £8 for the strobe and £50 to connect it up to the alarm. When employers are paying a fortune for corporate identities and uniforms, think nothing of paying for PPE which only protects one person then I would say in this case it sounds absolutely reasonable to expect them to upgrade the alarms, if only in key areas and to meet the actual known needs of existing employees.
So do all shops now retro fit beacons in all their stores? Where do we draw the line? During the next refurbishment perhaps in this case it would be reasonably practicable to upgrade the alarm. But common sense must prevail.
-
If I was a women and a man came in to check toilets I would think...........life saver. If I was a man and a women came in to check toilets I would think life saver. Come on this is safety lets not go down that road!!
-
I agree with all of the above - its all about a proportional and reasonable response. I dont support the wholesale upgrade of alarm systems in all shops just in case a customer enters who is not able to hear the alarm. In these cases a sweep search by staff is appropriate and I also agree that in an emergency we cant get too fussy about gender. Thats a measured response to a possible fire safety issue. But this is different. This is an employee who we know has a hearing problem and is working for us for a number of hours per week. The duty of care is more direct, the liklihood higher and the risk of an affront to dignity also higher. I would urge the manager to set up a personal emergency evacuation plan for this individual and to consider installing strobes/ vibrating pagers or similar to the extent that it is appropriate. It will probably cost less than the uniform.
-
I'm going to agree with both wee brian and PhilB. It's not just a case of simply fitting a couple of cheap beacons and/or a pager system. Obviously all these things would have to be done out of hours (extra cost), an employee will have to stay behind to supervise (extra cost), if you recognise the issue in one store possibly all the others will need to be retrofitted too (extra cost), also you will have to consider any areas of lone working (extra cost), so what seems to be a simple upgrade can easily turn into a logistical nightmare.
If a pager system or beacon is installed, will that guarentee the person in the toilet is going to evacuate any sooner or will they leave the toilet when they've finished and evacuate as per normal anyway?
-
I look after our local church hall, which we hire out for birthday parties and other functions. The hall is fitted with an alarm system, but not so far with beacons in the toilets. (The hall and smaller meeting room are so equiped.)
My FRA for the premises recommends the fitting of beacons to the toilets, because when we hire out we do not know exactly who will be using the hall, and I doubt very much if the one-off hirer could be persuaded to check the loos or would remember to do so if the fire alarm is sounding.
And for the several deaf people we have in the congregation who regularly use the hall and it's facilities, it will be a further reassurance we are thinking of their needs.
-
Unfortunately fellas, cost and inconvenience is not a defence when considering 'reasonable adjustment'. This has been proven in court on numerous occasions.
Wee Brian referred to sundry changes to the code, but the DDA is not a code of practice like BS5839, it is legislation and it can and has been used to prosecute organisations not providing what the courts decide is equal access to goods and services. I could refer you to any number of these, including one instance where a prosecution was brought by the Disability Rights Commission (as was), who on arriving at court on the day of the hearing found that no provision had been made for fire warning or assisted hearing in the courtroom and had the hearing adjourned until such systems were installed.
Where such prosecutions have been brought, the judge will refer to BS5839 on the basis upon which the case will be decided. Is there a fire alarm system for hearing people? If so, has an equivalent system been provided for disabled people (usually meaning Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals). If not (and plainly in this case it has not) then the case will be won. This has been demonstrated in numerous actions. The payouts are not large, but the adverse publicity is not well received and in most cases the organisation will make the changes required and settle out of court.
This employee is entitiled to equivalent access to the fire alarm, irrespective of the cost. If M&S chose to employ him, it is their responsibility to assess his needs and make due amendments to their systems and business practices accordingly. A failure on their part can result in prosecution. If Hunter would like to pursue this further then he has only to call the Equality and Human Rights Commission and they will advise M&S on his behalf as to what they deem suitable.
-
Ian do you know of any websites or publications where these cases are recorded so we may learn from them?
-
Well, it will be a bit of a challenge without betraying commercial confidentialities, which I'm not about to do (after all, we hardly know each other - blush). I know of many of these incidents as a result of being involved in the upgrading of their fire alarm systems in accordance with the terms of the DRC's requirements.
You could try a Google search under the Disability Rights Commission's archives, but I suspect it's a long process and I've no idea whether they publicised many of the instances, most of which were settled before coming to court. The DRC was notoriously litigious however. Most organisations chose to simply carry out their required amendments, as the DRC tended to win far more often than it lost apparently and it wasn't worth arguing the toss with them. I believe I'm right in saying the courtroom incident I referred to was in Winchester.
The salient point here however is this. The OP is entirely correct to question his employers adjustments to allow equal access to goods and services. If he feels that the response is inadequate, he is able to call in the E&HRC to get their opinion. If no adjustment has been made to the fire alarm system, as would be required under BS5839, then they would take that up with the employer. It is not sufficient to simply say that it will be addresed the next time the fire alarm needs changing, or when there's a building refurbishment. The DDA is law and it's implications are current, it cannot be ignored until a more convenient time.
What is more, the company servicing the fire alarm system should be advising on any changes to the buildig structure or usage which may affect compliance with BS5839 (see section 18). If there is no provision for disabled users then this should be noted as part of that process and the client should address this if any users require access to it.
If the building is a 'public access' building, such as a library, or town hall, then the DDA 2005 - The Disability Equality Duty, puts further obligations onto such employers and service providers (although a supermarket is not covered by this piece of legislation).
-
Exactly
Wee Brian talks about how we have all become fascists and that "elf and saftey" brigade have gone OTT
This is the 21st Century
Not so long ago we thought slavery was ok, not so long ago women couldn't vote and you would have had the wee brians of this world probably saying that was perfectly ok at that the time
Someone invented the intenet not so long ago. All of a sudden it was a must have technology, and a lot of buisnesses went through the motions of getting connected to it - quite costly really I pressume. But they did it to keep up with the times, and be seen to be trendy and cutting edge.
Theyre happy to spend money when it helps get a few more pounds coming in then but oh then in the next breath they dont have the money to spend on fire precautions and are pleading poverty and poor profits.
Get real, stop moaning and grow up. The expense of fitting a strobe in a bog isnt going to cause a worldwide recession. To someone like M&S it is a drop i the ocean.
When a national company gets fined £30,000 for health and safety fences i hear a lot people saying " thats not enough, thats peanuts for a company that size"
I shouldnt wonder that Wee Brian would be moaning if all of a sudden he was incapicitated or lost his sight or hearing (i sincerely hope he doesn't) and realised the environment around him wasnt as easy to negotiate
Of course be reasonable, not OTT, but don't just start using the ELf and Safety gone mad excuse for common sense cost effective solutions for god sake.
I think some of you need to understand more about the needs of less abled persons.
Just because something has been done a certain way for years doesnt make it right. Anyone remember slavery?
-
Absolutely agree but....
"The DRC has been increasingly concerned about the growing number of unscrupulous organisations setting out to exploit the marketing opportunities of the Disability Discrimination Act (the DDA) and other equalities legislation to the detriment of the public. This takes various forms.
One is “gold-plating” – in other words, advising businesses that they must, under the DDA, provide specific adjustments (or risk being taken to court) without any regard to the circumstances. This often puts businesses – particularly smaller ones – under pressure to make expensive adjustments when, with a little imagination and forethought, a less expensive option would be just as good.
We must be vigilant in protecting the public from rogue operators who mislead the very people they profess to be helping, including both business and disabled people."
(extract from E&HRC website)
The DDA does not require anything that is not both reasonable and proportionate. One of our friends on this forum
has told us of the diffiulty in bringing cases and it is good to see all points of view expressed.
-
Unfortunately fellas, cost and inconvenience is not a defence when considering 'reasonable adjustment'. This has been proven in court on numerous occasions......
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-05c.123845.h