Delayed Evacuation

[Messy]

I am involved with a proposal to change an emergency plan so that during an evacuation, staff have to carry out certain 'close down' procedures before leaving the premises.

In my opinion the revised procedure is unsuitable as it may add several minutes to the evac time and relies on the phrase "if safe to do so' when staff in this very large building have no way of knowing if conditions are 'safe' below them on their moe.

I recall a cash in transit operator in west London being prosecuted in the 80s when they effectively locked staff in to secure cash during a fire. Sadly I cannot recall sufficient details to carry out a search on this incident

Does anyone know of a successful prosecution relating to an unsuitable process where staff are excessively delayed.

The attititude of this employer is best described by a quote from them when I was raising my concerns when a manager said "our business is more important than our staff"!!  I am not sure if that statement appears in their H&S policy!!!!

[Dinnertime Dave]

The attititude of this employer is best described by a quote from them when I was raising my concerns when a manager said "our business is more important than our staff"!!  I am not sure if that statement appears in their H&S policy!!!!

I thought it was a one off when I was told the same. At least we had the option of terminating their lease.

[kurnal]

True story- as an inspecting officer I visited a small 5 bed care home dedicated to the care of people with behaviour and mental health issues. The staff said that two service users were prone to unpredictable and violent behaviour. As a consequence it was considered  too dangerous for staff to approach them in the event of a fire alarm at night so their fire procedure in the event of a fire was to lock the bedroom doors from the outside and to give the firefighters the key. In the event of the key being mislaid they said the fire service could break the door down with axes. No problem then. 

On the other hand there are many situations where delayed and or staged evacuation can safely be managed, to enable systems and processes to be closed down, or in care situations persons to be moved to a safe area, security offices and control room staff to carry out their duties etc. This is always subject to adequate risk control measures, training and management in place. Oh and a policy and managerial training setting out the correct management arrangements and priorities.
If in this case if staff could be at risk from a fire below them then no doubt arrangements can be made to deal with this before changing the procedures.  Or maybe the available safe evacuation time could be sufficient to allow for the additional duties to be carried out?

[Mike Buckley]

It would also depend on the reason for the close down procedure. If the close down procedure is required for the benefit of the firm then it can't be justified. I have come across cases where the issue was that cash was being counted in finance office and the requirement was to return all the cash to the safe. My answer was to have a big bag and sweep all the cash into the bag then lock it in a car boot outside.

However if we look at a factory environment then there may be process which have to be closed down as if left running and unattended the process could cause a hazard either to fire fighters entering the factory or running out of control itself. If this is the case then I would be looking at protecting the MOE from that area to allow for the time delay needed.

[Messy]

I agree about safeguarding processes etc, but no this is a premises that handles high value stock. Staff have been told is must all be secured away - process that may take many minutes to achieve.

The evacuation strategy uses a phased voice alarm system so only those at risk will be moved. My view is that when a non evacuate message is broadcast, stock should be secured. But an evacuate means just that.

There is no way an individual can assess if it is safe to delay their evacuation as they cannot know what is happening many floors below. But the phased fire alarm does and should be treated as their eyes and ears re maaintaining there MOE

[Mike Buckley]

Without knowing what the stock is and how it is moved. The other option is the same as using flammable materials only the amount immediately needed to be outside the secure storage, then make sure the fire compartmentation is top notch so that the fire will not spread and affect the means of escape and look at automatic fire suppression systems.

The other side is a comparison of the value of the stock verses the very large fines via both the Fire Authority and the HSE if things go wrong not to mention a period as a guest of HM in one of her holiday homes.

[Messy]

The other side is a comparison of the value of the stock verses the very large fines via both the Fire Authority and the HSE if things go wrong not to mention a period as a guest of HM in one of her holiday homes.

I already have my holiday planned which is why I am keen not to accept HM's offer now or in the future.

Suppression is not a possibility as it would cost 10s of ?millions  and beefing up the separation would not be cost effective. IMO its must be managed by procedure, which is that upon an evacuation message - everyone leaves without securing the goods.

We have worked hard to minimise the amount of uWFSs at this building which stood at about 20 to 40 and is now down to perhaps 4 - 6 per annum despite having nearly 3000 heads, VESDA and beam detection. So when the evacuation message is given, there is a high likelihood there IS a risk of fire

The main reason for my original post was to enquire if anyone knew of any prosecution for such a delay being caused by staff securing items before leaving. I know there was one in London many years ago, but am struggling to get any details of his or other cases I could use when developing a business case for change.

Can anyone point me in the right direction??