CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONOURS)
SPORTS DEVELOPMENT
TITLE
A CASE INTO THE MANAGMENT OFHEALTH AND SAFTEY IN PUBLIC
SECTOR LESUIRE CENTRE
NAME
HAZEL MCANDREW
UNIVERSITY NUMBER
09001955
NAME: HAZEL MCANDREW
STUDENT NUMBER: 09001955
SCHOOL OF SPORT
UNIVERSITY OF WALES INSTITUTE CARDIFF
A CASE INTO THE MANAGMENT OF HEALTH AND SAFTEY IN PUBLIC SECTOR
LESUIRE CENTRE
Cardiff Metropolitan University
Prifysgol Fetropolitan Caerdydd
Certificate of student
I certify that the whole of this work is the result of my individual effort, that all
quotations from books and journals have been acknowledged, and that the word
count given below is a true and accurate record of the words contained (omitting
contents pages, acknowledgements, indexes, figures, reference list and
appendices).
Word count:
11998
Signed:
Date:
Certificate of Dissertation Tutor responsible
I am satisfied that this work is the result of the student’s own effort.
I have received a dissertation verification file from this student
Signed:
Date:
Notes:
The University owns the right to reprint all or part of this document.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
i
Abstract
ii
Glossary of terms
iii
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Rational
2
1.2 Purpose of the Research
4
1.3 Aims and Objectives of Research
4
Chapter 2 Review of Literature
2.1 Legislation and Regulations
6
2.2 Risk Control
10
2.3 Creating a Safety Culture
13
Chapter 3 Method
3.1 Introduction and Overview
17
3.2 Research Sample
17
3.3 Instruments and Equipment
18
3.4 Pilot study
18
3.5 Procedure
19
3.6 Data Analysis and Synthesis
20
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 Observations of Employees Involvement in Health and Safety
25
4.2 Observations of Staff Competency
28
4.3 Observations of Safety Culture in Llantrisant Leisure Centre
32
4.4 Observations of Employees Knowledge of Legislations and
33
Regulations
4.5 Observations of How Regulations Effect Workers
38
4.6 Observations of Risk Control in Llantrisant Leisure Centre
42
Chapter 5 Discussion
5.1 Health and Safety Responsibilities
44
5.2 Competency of Staff
45
5.3 Safety culture within Llantrisant Leisure Centre
47
5.4 Legislations, Regulations and Policies
49
5.5 Risk Assessment and Control
52
Chapter 6 Conclusion
6.1 Areas of Best Practice
55
6.2 Areas for Improvement
55
6.3 Limitations of Research and Areas for Further Research
56
References
57
Appendices
64
Appendix A Key Elements of Health and Safety Management.
64
Appendix B The Ratio of Major Accidents Compare to Non-Injury
65
Accidents
Appendix C Prosecutions by HSE
66
Appendix D Three Day Injuries
67
Appendix E Noise Measures
68
Appendix F A Simple Risk Estimator
69
Appendix G A More Complex Rank Rating System.
70
Appendix H A Quantitative Risk Estimator
71
Appendix I A Theoretical Model of Risk in a Leisure Environment
72
Appendix J The Bounded Approach to Decision Making
73
Appendix K The Organisational Triangle
74
Appendix L Overview of Process for Developing and Implementing
75
Workforce Involvement
Appendix M Full List of Original Semi-Structure Interview Questions.
76
Appendix N The Information Sheet Provided to Participants.
83
Appendix O Consent Form
86
Appendix P Example of Physical Reactions Recorded
88
Appendix Q Example of Transcript
89
Appendix R Seven Stages of Enquiry
92
Appendix S Personnel Structure at Llantrisant Leisure Centre
93
Appendix T Five Steps to Training
94
LIST OF TABLES
4.1 A table to show employees response when asked about their
23
involvement in health and safety.
4.2 A table to show employees response when asked their competency of
26
health and safety.
4.3 A table to show employees response when asked the safety culture
within Llantrisant Leisure Centre.
4.4 A table to show employees response when asked about the
29
32
legislations and regulations that Llantrisant Leisure Centre follow.
4.5 A table to show employees response when asked about how
34
regulations that Llantrisant Leisure Centre follow impact on their work.
4.6 A table to show employees response when asked about risk control
Llantrisant Leisure Centre.
39
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank and acknowledge the assistance from everyone who has helped
me in some way, however small that may have been, towards the final production of
this work; unfortunately this is not practical. So to all of you whom I do not mention
below, I apologise unreservedly.
My deepest gratitude and heartfelt thanks go to John Rawlings for, without doubt, his
guidance, advice and inspiration have been an integral part in this submission. I will
continue to learn from his words of wisdom and sound advice.
To all the volunteer participant, I offer my deepest gratitude. I will be forever
indebted to their commitment and willingness to help me out. A special thank goes
to Gary Dalton for allowing me to spend so much time with his staff.
Finally thank you to my parents and their continual support to my education and
career.
i
Abstract
The aim of this case study was to identify and analyse policy, procedures and risk
assessment within a public leisure centre. To further this aim, a number of specific
research objectives were identified;
i.
Identification of the methods used for risk rating and analysing the
organisations approach to risk assessment
ii.
Critically appraise the implementation of risk control systems
iii.
Identify areas of good practises and suggest areas for improvement.
The study was conducted at Llantrisant Leisure Centre, Rhondda Cynon Taff.
Interview subjects (n=4) were identified to represent a range of job roles,
responsibilities and functions. The study focused on their experiences of health and
safety management at Llantrisant Leisure Centre. All participants completed a semistructured
interview.
Transcripts
of
the interviews were
created and
the subsequent analysis found that Llantrisant Leisure Centre adhered to advice
given by the Health and Safety Executive, legislation and regulation such as the
Health and Safety at Work Act (1974) and the Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations (1999). Llantrisant Leisure Centre’s areas of good practice were
staff training and risk assessment, in particular COSHH assessment. Areas for
improvement include, staff supervision - to ensure that staff are working in
accordance with training and instructions. The employer should also use the
feedback from supervision to retrain, or discipline members of staff whom are found
to not be acting in accordance with training and instructions.
ii
GLOSSARY
Management
Includes the recreational manager and the assistant managers.
Staff
Includes all members of staff excluding the management.
Workforce
Everyone that works in the leisure centre.
iii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Rationale
The first law on health and safety in the UK was passed in 1802 regarding working
hours, overcrowding, cleanliness and health of employees. It was an Act for the
Preservation of the Health and Morals of Apprentices and Others Employed in
Cotton and Other Mills and Factories, it only applied to textile mills (Meiklejohn,
1959; Byrne et al., 2006). After this Act parliament began to address health and
safety in the work place as the current legislation did not cover all workplaces. A
landmark report was conducted by the Government Committee of Inquiry into Health
and Safety at Work (1972). It was chaired by Lord Robens. The reports findings and
recommendations were immediately followed by the introduction of the Health and
Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974. The legislation states “It shall be the duty of every
employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and
welfare at work of all his employees” (HSE, 1974 [regulation 2 paragraph 1]). The
HSWA (1974) is still used as the national framework for health and safety today.
More specific regulations have been published to provide further information on
responsibilities that organisations have health and safety. For example: The
Provision and use of Work Equipment Regulations (1998), The Management of
Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) (1999) (HSE, 2003a). MHSWR
(1999) extends the legislation, as it requires additional procedures to be undertaken,
for example employers are required to carry out risk assessments, implement
necessary measures and appoint and train competent personnel (HSE, 2003b).
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published Successful Health and Safety
Management (1991) to provide guidance to employers on how to manage heath and
safety (Arrow Leisure Service, 2002). The guidance provides a systematic approach
to health and safety (See appendix A). “Policies should provide a clear direction for
organisations to follow” (HSE, 2011a, p7). When managing health and safety in a
leisure facility staff should understand the reasons why policies and procedures are
implemented (Arrow Safety, 2011). Managers should provide a framework which
encourages contribution from individuals and groups. There should be a top down
approach, with managers setting an example to employees. Consequently, the
combination of these factors creates a safety culture. Culture can be defined as the
employees of an organisation having the same attitudes, beliefs and ways of
2
behaving towards health and safety within that organisation (HSE, 2009). The
promotion of a health and safety culture is a recurring theme throughout the literature
(Quest, 2011; Guldenmund, 2010; Arrow Safety, 2011; HSE, 2001b). Arrow Safety
(2011) advises that a safety culture should be developed to encourage staff to be
vigilant towards health, safety and wellbeing in the work place.
To manage health and safety effectively procedures must be put in place in to
ensure compliance with the organisations policy. Risk assessments should follow
three stages; Hazard identification, risk assessment and risk control (HSE, 2011a).
Risk assessment should be a dynamic process resulting in an organisation’s
procedures being regularly reviewed and revised. It is also essential that risk is
prioritised with relevance to meeting minimum legal standards. Risk control is
implementing the risk assessment under gone by the organisation. Risk Control
Systems (RCSs) can be used to conduct risk assessments. RCSs have three levels
input, process and output. Input involves minimising hazards and risks entering the
organisation. Process is about containing any risks or potential risks that the hazards
may cause. Output addresses the prevention of risks effecting the service or product
supplied by the organisation. RCS also standardise risk assessments (HSE, 2011a).
Managers should ensure that all staff are competent to actively contribute to the
health and safety policies of an organisation. Good management is not solely about
health and safety knowledge but ensuring the knowledge you have is reaching the
appropriate people (Wolsey and Abrams, 2011). Competency is achieved through
training employees and providing opportunities for employees to apply their
knowledge under supervision to allow employees to gain experience (HSE, 2011a).
It has been found that the way in which health and safety training is delivered can
affect the learning of the recipients (Burke et al., 2006). The aforementioned study
finds the most engaging methods of teaching health and safety have the biggest
impact on behaviour, for example feedback interventions. However it was also
identified that when training is mundane or involves routine tasks the simplest
methods were still an effective teaching methodology for example, lectures. It has
been suggested health and safety performance and behavioural variability between
full–time and part-time staff could be further investigated (Burke et al., 2006).
Therefore the following study will interview full and part time employees. It is
becoming evident that for fear of accidents and heavy handed approaches to health
3
and safety regulations has become an issue. For example the closing of the
Wimbledon hill ‘Murray’s Mount’ to prevent accidents, lead to Judith Hackitt, the
chairman of HSE to write a letter of complaint. Balance is needed in order to prevent
negligence or heavy handed approaches to health and safety, (Winett, 2011).
1.2 Purpose of the Research
This research project will investigate approach and deployment of health and safety
in a Rhondda Cynon Taff leisure centre. The primary focus of the study will be to
identify where and when the facilities have completed risk assessments and how the
risk assessments have been used to reduce risk. HSE have identified five steps to
risk assessment to minimise risk in an organisation. It would be impractical to expect
all risks to be eliminated, organisations have to ensure that risk is minimised so that
people are protected as far as reasonably practicalable (HSE,2011b). This project
focuses on risk assessment to ensure it is concise and manageable (Long, 2008).
The project will help determine whether employees are complying with the
procedures set out by the organisation.
1.3 Aims and Objectives of Research
This study will identify and analyse policy, procedures and risk assessment within a
public leisure centre. To further this aim, a number of specific research objectives
have been identified;
i.
Methods used for risk rating and analysing the organisations approach to risk
assessment
ii.
Critically appraise the implementation of risk control systems
iii.
Identify areas of good practises and suggest areas for improvement
4
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Legislation and Regulations
The Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) (1974) and The Management of Health
and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR; 1999) are the national framework for
health and safety. This study provides an insight to the deployment and
implementation of this frame work at a local context; Llantrisant Leisure Centre
(LLC), Rhondda Cynon Taff (RCT; RCT, 2010). Llantrisant LC health and safety
policy identifies thirteen individuals as the competent persons, which complies with
the HSWA (1974). Llantrisant LC uses the following statement to outline the
responsibilities of the named personnel: “Health and safety is the responsibility of all
employees, the actions or inactions of every member of staff can have a negative or
a positive effect on the health and safety and welfare of fellow colleagues, members
of public and contractors” (RCT, 2011, p1). This furthers the responsibility of health
and safety to all members of staff. The HSWA (1974) also identifies duties of
employers to employees; duty of employees to themselves; duty of care to persons
involved with the premises other than employees (HSE, 1974).
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) published the annual National Statistics
report (HSE, 2010). The report gives details of fatalities, injuries and prosecutions
from workplaces across Britain. Between 2009/2010 it was reported that there were;
152 fatalities at work; 121,340 injuries were reported under Reporting of Injuries,
Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR; 1995). The report also
stated that there were 1,033 enforcement offences prosecuted by HSE and Office of
Rail Regulations of which 287 were prosecuted by Local Authorities (LAs). There
were 15,881 enforcement notices that were issued by all enforcing authorities (HSE,
2010). Llantrisant LC’s health and safety policy identifies that the majority of
accidents are preventable (RCT, 2011). This is supported by HSE who says
accidents can be predicted. The HSE Accident and Prevention Advisory Unit
identified that there was always a larger number of near misses than serious
accidents. Consequently if the number near misses are reduced the number of
serious accidents will reduce (see appendix B; HSE, 2011a). Risk is defined as
likelihood that a hazard will actually cause adverse effects (HSE, 2011b).
Management and risk assessment should try and make people ‘risk aware’ not ‘risk
adverse’ (HSE, 2002).
6
There is increasing pressure for extensive and effective health and safety policy in
public leisure services since the change of the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (HMSO, 2007), this can lead to organisations being
charged and prosecuted (BSI, 2007). The deployment of health and safety is a
reoccurring issue that receives regular media coverage: “The try that cost a rugby
club £54,000” (Daily Telegraph Reporter, 2011), “New Helmet law in the Alps after
spate of deaths” (Haslam, 2009), “Is rugby safe for children to play?” (Kervin, 2011).
The HSWA (1974) extends to people who maybe effect by health and safety but are
not in employment, for example customers. The government identified Britain’s
“perceived compensation culture” as something that must receive intervention (Arrow
safety,2011b, p.4). The Common Sense- Common Safety report (2011), published
by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) proposes: “Clarification (through
legislation if necessary) that people will not be held liable for any consequences due
to well-intentioned voluntary acts on their part” (DWP, 2011, p.8). This statement is
supported by the national statistics report 2009/2010; the number of prosecutions
and convictions have decreased over the past decade (see Appendix C) dropping
from 840 convictions to 735 in five years (HSE,2010).
Regulations that have been published in order to provide further guidelines and build
upon the HSWA (1974). Regulations LLC used includes (but is not limited to):
Manual Handling Operations Regulations (1992); Personal Protective Equipment at
Work (1992); The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (1998); Control
of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH; 2002); The Control of Noise at Work
(2005). The MHSWR (1999) states that “every employer shall make a suitable and
sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which
they are exposed whilst they are at work; and the risks to the health and safety of
persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by
him or his undertaking” (HMSO, 1999 [regulation 3, paragraph 1]).
Manual Handling Regulations are a necessity as it was identified that more than a
third of three day injuries are due to manual handling (see appendix D). There is a
need for employers to consult (and include) the work force in the health and safety
procedures, to ensure they know where the risks are in the workplace and consider
the risks of manual handling. The regulations require employers to avoid the need for
manual handling as far as reasonably practicable (HSE, 2004). For example, “Each
7
employer shall so far as is reasonably practicable, avoid the need for his employees
to undertake any manual handling operations at work which involve a risk of their
being injured” (HSE, 2004b [regulation 4, paragraph 1]). The employer must also
assess the risk from any manual handling and reduce the risk as far as reasonably
practicable. Although all staff should be vigilant to risks, the final responsibility falls
to the employer to identify risks. Also, mechanical aids should be provided if it is
reasonably practical to do so in order to reduce risk of injury and unnecessary lifting.
Training should be provided for manual handling to help the workforce identify any
risks, and good handling techniques for lifting, pulling and pushing. However training
cannot be a replacement for a lack of mechanical aids, or employees having to lift
unsuitable loads (HSE, 2004).
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) (1998) require
that the equipment provided for use is; suitable, maintained, only used by trained
personnel and has equipped with suitable safety features. The regulations cover a
range of equipment from hammers to motor vehicles as well as covering the uses of
equipment: repairing, modifying, maintaining, servicing, cleaning and transportation.
Equipment should also be inspected to ensure that it is safe for use. Inspections
need to be carried out by a competent person and a record of the inspection should
be kept until the next inspection is carried out. This requires employers to develop
procedures, training and supervision that meet the demands of health and safety
regulations. The risk created by the equipment within the organisation and identified
by the inspection should also be eliminated where possible (and controlled where
not). The PUWER suggest two ways to deal with risk: ‘hardware’ methods, for
example, emergency stop buttons or ‘software’ methods, for example training and
instruction ideally a combination of both hardware and software methods should be
used (HSE, 1999). “Every employer shall ensure that work equipment is so
constructed or adapted as to be suitable for the purpose for which it is used or
provided” (HSE, 2008 [regulation 4, paragraph 1]), the above regulations included
making it as safe as possible to carry out the task for which it is intended to be used
(Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1998). Employees do
not have any specific duties to undertake as a result of PUWER, however employees
do have duties under HSWA (1974) e.g. to take care of themselves and be aware of
8
others that may be affected by their actions and should be used alongside PUWER
(HSE, 1999).
Llantrisant LC’s health and safety policy identifies the importance of COSHH (2002)
and for all employees who may come in contact with substance hazardous to health
to comply with their COSHH training and the importance of carrying out COSHH
assessments (RCT, 2010). This is in direct compliance with the COSHH regulations
(2002):
“An employer shall not carry out work which is liable to expose any employees to
any substance hazardous to health unless he has made a suitable and sufficient
assessment of the risk created by that work to the health of those employees and
of the steps that need to be taken to meet the requirements of these Regulations”
(HMSO, 2002 [regulation 6 paragraph 1]).
“By law, as an employer, you must assess and identify measures to eliminate or
reduce risks from exposure to noise so that you can protect the hearing of your
employees” (HSE, 2005, p11). The Control of Noise at Work Regulations (2005)
requires an employer to: indentify risks to employees from noise at work; reduce the
noise exposure that produces risks; provide employees with hearing protection when
noise cannot be reduced; not exceed legal limits on noise; ensure all employees
have received training; carry out health surveillance where necessary. Overexposure
to loud noise can cause a loss of hearing, tinnitus and sleep disturbance. “Where the
risks are low, the actions you take may be simple and inexpensive, but where the
risks are high, you should manage them using a prioritised noise-control action plan”
(HSE, 2005, p 11).
The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1999) states that
employees must act in accordance to their training and wear Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) to keep themselves and others safe (HSE,1999). PPE must be
provided by employers “Every employer shall ensure that suitable personal
protective equipment is provided to his employees who may be exposed to a risk to
their health or safety while at work except where and to the extent that such risk has
been adequately controlled by other means which are equally or more effective”
9
(HMSO, 1992a [regulation 4, paragraph 1]). The following steps should be
considered before PPE:
1. Eliminate the use of a harmful product or substance and use a safer one
2. Use a safer form of the product, for example, paste rather than powder.
3. Change the process to emit less of the substance.
4. Enclose the process so that the product does not escape.
5. Extract emissions of the substance near the source.
6. Have as few workers in harm’s way as possible.
7. Provide personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves, coveralls and a
respirator. PPE must fit the wearer (HSE, 2009b, p. 5).
PPE should be a last resort. Risks should be controlled through the earlier steps first.
Where this is not possible PPE must be provided (HSE, 2009b).
2.2 Risk Control
Risk assessment is not solely completed for legal reasons; risk assessment can also
act as a tool to help produce policies and procedures (Arrow Leisure Service, 2002).
‘Risk assessments should follow three stages; Hazard identification, risk assessment
and risk control’ (HSE, 2011a, p.41). A hazard is defined as something that can
cause adverse effects (HSE, 2011b). Once a hazard is identified, the risk related to
this specific hazard should be assessed. Risk is defined as likelihood that a hazard
will actually cause adverse effects (HSE, 2011b). Risk should be minimised as much
as is reasonably practicable (HSE, 1974). The interpretation of reasonably
practicable can lead to variation of the interpretation of legislation (Löfstedt, 2011).
Risk Control Systems (RCSs) can be used in order to ensure risk precautions are
implemented appropriately within an organisation. For example, emergency
operating procedures such as fire alarm protocol is known by all members of staff.
RCSs can follow three stages; input, process, and output (HSE, 2011a). MHSWR
(1999) suggest risk assessments should be carried out in order to identify risks.
Once the risk assessment is completed, action to reduce the risks identified should
follow (HSE, 1999). In order for this to happen MHSWR (1999) states that “Every
employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with adequate health and
10
safety training, when recruited and any time there is a new risk that leads to a
change respecting a system of work already in use within the employer’s
undertaking” (HMSO, 1999 [regulation 13, paragraph 2]).
HSE (2006) published the document ‘5 Steps to risk assessment’ to standardise and
to help ensure appropriate risk assessment occurs within the workplace, identifying
the five steps as:
1. Identify the Hazards
2. Decide who might be at harm and how
3. Evaluate the risks and decide on the precautions
4. Record the findings and implement them
5. Review the assessment made and update if necessary
(HSE: 2011b)
Both existing and new hazards should be identified. Hazards can often be identified
by looking back at old accident books. This could indentify long term hazards such
as noise (HSE, 2011b). Llantrisant LC’s health and safety policy states that health
and safety is the duty of ‘all employees’. It also says that LLC will continually revise
their risk assessments, this helps to indentify new hazards and indentify hazards that
have not be reduced (RCT, 2011; HSE, 2011b). Deciding who might be harmed is a
requirement of MHSWR (1999), it states that “employers have to make suitable risk
assessments to both employees and people who are not in his employment” (HSMO,
1999 [regulation 3, paragraph 1]).
When undertaking risk assessment it is essential that evaluation is conducted and
not undertaken to produce a list of every conceivable risk possible, that would not be
‘reasonably practicable’ (Löfstedt, 2011). Two different methods of evaluating risks
can be used by employers, qualitative or quantitative. Qualitative risk analysis is
becoming the foundation for risk assessments (Cox et al., 2005). At its simplest form
you simply rank the risks, high medium or low to determine a rating of risk. The
British Standards Institute (BSI) offers an alternative to the basic system, a simple
risk estimator (see appendix E). It rates risk on two scales likelihood of harm and
severity of harm, resulting in a risk rating. The rating ranges from trivial risk to
intolerable risk. The simple risk estimator describes risk not only by severity but also
by likelihood, making it more detailed and complex than the simplest ranking system.
11
In contrast, qualitative risk rating simplifies risk assessment by reducing inputs and
calculations, whist offering a logical and easy to apply method (Cox et al., 2005; BSI,
2008; Arrow Leisure Services, 2009). A third system, the rank rating system
recommended by Arrow Leisure Services (2009), involves risk being ranked on both
likelihood and consequence, two scores are multiplied to give the final risk ranking
as a rough quantitative estimate (see appendix F). The rank rating system allows
organisations to track history of risks and to determine if the same risk has increased
or decreased over time. However, despite the risk rating system beginning to
quantify risk it is not a comprehensive approach to quantitative risk assessment.
Unlike a fourth system, quantitative risk assessment can be formulated using
mathematical functions (see appendix G). The use of numeric systems can lead to
confusion, resulting in organisations not using it. It is often hard for an organisation to
decide on a method of rating risk assessment due to the number of different
available risk rating methods available, with there being no one gold standard
approach. It is essential that managers research all the available systems and
decide on a method that is appropriate for the particular needs of their organisation
(Cox et al., 2005; Arrow Leisure Service, 2009), as the law requires employers to do
everything that is ‘reasonably practicable’ to protect people from harm (HSE, 2011b).
Risk assessments must be recorded. If an employer has five or more employees the
findings must be converted into writing (HSE, 1974; HSE 2011b). Good health and
safety records lead to maintenance and development of a company’s customer base
and increase the likelihood of keeping staff (Arrow Leisure Services, 2002).
Organisations should use their RSCs to help them prioritise risk and then design an
action plan to reduce the risks identified. The action plan should include solutions to
reduce long term risk, for example, incorporating employee training. In order to keep
an organisations policy up-to-date annual renew of the policy should be undertaken.
It should also be updated when new equipment is introduced that could result in
changes to a system of work (HMSO, 1999; HSE, 2011b).
12
2.3 Creating a Safety Culture
Encouraging a positive health and safety culture is a reoccurring theme in literature
(Guldenmund, 2000; HSE, 2001b, Gadd 2002; Arrow Safety; 2011b). Arrow Safety
(2011b) advises that a culture should be developed which encourages staff to be
vigilant to hazards in the work place. However workplace culture can be taken for
granted and maybe over looked with time (Mennino et al., 2005). Culture is a
complex issue in any organisation culture consists of learned attitudes perceptions
values and beliefs.
Safety culture can provide a prescription for ways in which
employees should approach health and safety in an organisation. “Total Quality
Management (TQM) concerns a shared vision among all in an organisation and a
continuing process of organisational improvements” (Torkildsen, 2011, p453).
Quality management and health and safety go hand-in-hand with quality
management referring to risk assessments and HSE Approved Codes of Practices
as a means to improve quality (Egan, 2002). Safety culture is a direct predictor of
safety performance (Harvey et al., 2002). Quality management systems are used by
organisations to audit and benchmark quality of their organisations against others
There are four ‘C’s associated with creating a positive health and safety culture:
competence, control, co-operation and communication (HSE, 2011b).
Competence is whether the person has the skills and training needed to carry out the
health and safety procedures of the work place. This is achieved by training and
assessing all employees (HSE, 2011b). By understanding why accidents happen
successful risk assessment can be conducted. The theoretical model of risk
suggests that accidents occur when the physical characteristics of a leisure centre
and the behavioural characteristics of leisure customers differ (see appendix H).
This theory supports that training leads to a decrease in accidents as training results
in a decrease in unpredictable behaviour. This theory over simplifies behaviour
characteristics and does not consider anomalies. For example, even trained
personnel can still behave out of character (Grainger-Jones, 1999). The way in
which training is delivered can affect the learning of the people in receipt of the
training. (Burke et al., 2006). Robinson (2007) uses a bounded approach to explain
decision making (see appendix I) the approach is more complex than GraingerJones’s (1999) theoretical model. The model accounts for the uncertainty involved
indecision making and also the number of options that a person may have to choose
13
from (Robinson, 2004). Consequence of risk can influence decision making more
than actual risk due to the tangible nature of real consequence that can play on
emotions (Woodruff, 2005).
Experience can improve employees approach to
procedures, however advisory support should also be offered to employees on a
regular basis (HSE, 2011b).
Control involves the employer allocating responsibilities, instructing and supervising
their employees. Managers should deploy a top down approach demonstrating
commitment and providing clear direction (HSE, 2008; HSE, 2011b). The employer
has a responsibility to ensure that any employee with a responsibility of health and
safety must be knowledgeable, trained and experienced within their role, once this is
achieved the employee be deemed competent (HMSO, 1999; HSE, 2011b). To be
successful in controlling a safety environment, employers should make sure that the
workforce, know their health and safety responsibilities and have the time and
resources to carry them out (HSE, 2011b). When controlling health and safety in a
leisure facility it is essential that the workforce understand the reasons why the
policies and procedures are in place. Understanding can improve the standard of risk
assessment (Arrow safety, 2011). The organisational triangle identifies three factors
that affect behaviour in the workplace; structure, culture, and processes (see
appendix J). For example, if the structure is changed in an organisation behaviours
may change. The limitations of the model are that the model simplifies the factors
that affect behaviour (Guldenmund, 2000).
Co-operation is needed between the individuals and groups of the organisation. Cooperation can be encouraged by appointing a chair of the organisations health and
safety committee. The workforce should be involved as equal partners in the
planning and the reviewing of the written procedures (HSE, 2011b). A good risk
assessment structure is dependent on the views and perceptions of the employees
that work within the organisation (Hronek & Spengler, 2002). Employers should
actively seek the workforces’ views and value to challenge pervious management.
This will help support and sustain the partnership between employer and the
workforce. Resulting in positive and effective involvement in all areas of health and
safety (HSE, 2001). Involvement will encourage trust and commitment in the safety
measures the organisation implements (Harvey et al., 2002). Co-operation involves
both individual and collective responsibilities of health and safety. Incorporating
14
workforce involvement is an ongoing process involves a number of stages (see
appendix K). In order to develop co-operation successfully there must be vision,
goals, teamwork and benchmarking (HSE, 2011a). Communication is about spoken
communication
within
the
organisation,
written
communication
of
policies,
procedures risk assessments and auditing. Visual communication provides notice of
information to both employees and persons who may be on the premises but not part
of the organisation (HSE, 2011b).
To achieve organisational excellence, excellent behaviour should be rewarded. This
suggests that in a safety culture safe behaviour should be rewarded. Rewarding
appropriate behaviours is not always practical or conducted. Short contract
employees often do not experience behaviour reward resulting in the short contract
staff feeling low morale and commitment opposes the characteristics associated with
safety culture. Achieving a safety culture may mean changing the workforces’
attitudes to health and safety (Harvey et al., 2002).
15
CHAPTER 3
METHOD
3.1 Introduction and Overview
The research was conducted in to order provide an insight into the health and safety
procedures of a public sector leisure centre. The research is qualitative. Qualitative
research is defined as research that “uses text as empirical material... is interested in
the perspectives of participants, in everyday practices and everyday knowledge
referring to the issue under study” (Gibbs & Flick, 2009, p2). This definition fits well
with the research in hand. The researcher interviewed staff in a public Leisure
Centre, asking about their experiences of working there. The research conducted is
a case study. A case study was appropriate as the research only looks at a single
organisation. The advantages of a case study are that motives, values, beliefs and
opinions of working within LLC will be identified. However, with only focusing on one
case the research should not be generalised or extended to other organisations, it
provides only and insight into LLC (Thomas & Brubaker, 2000).
3.2 Research Sample
The sample used for this study was a theoretical sample. This means that the
sample selected had a particular interest in the research phenomena: Health and
safety within Llantrisant Leisure Centre (Gibbs & Flick, 2009). The participants were
four employees of Llantrisant Leisure Centre: The manager, two full time employees
and a part-time employee. Interviews were used as they build an in-depth picture of
the organisation (May, 2003). The Manager was selected to be interviewed as the
regulations often refer to management as the person responsible for ensuring that
the staff are aware and acting in compliance with present legislation, regulations and
the organisations health and safety policy and also as he is the author of the health
and safety policy for the Leisure Centre (HSE, 1974; HMSO, 1999; RCT, 2011).
Both full time and part time staff were interviewed, as research has suggested that
there is a variance between the ways in which full time and part time staff
incorporate training and use their training in the work place (Burke et al., 2006). All
participants took part in a semi-structured interview (see appendix M). For example,
how different members of staff feel about the safety culture within LLC. The
interviews are confidential and neither they nor any other person they may talk about
will be identifiable. A dominant approach to confidentiality was used, removing
17
names, places or any information which could lead to a reader indentifying the
interviewees (Kaiser, 2009).
3.3 Instruments (Equipment)
The interviews were conducted in the Leisure Centre. The semi-structured interviews
were conducted in a private room where the participants would not be over heard.
The interviews included the same themes and questions, but they were not
addressed in the same order. Themes include; Knowledge of regulations, knowledge
of the Leisure Centres policy, the processes used in risk assessment at the Leisure
Centre, safety culture within the Leisure Centre. The order of questioning was
determined by the interviewee’s response (Dearnely, 2005). Semi-structured
interviews reinforced a conversational approach to the interview helping the
interviewee to feel more comfortable and offer their true opinions (Grantton &Jones,
2004; Dearnely, 2005; Kvale, 2009). The interviews were recorded with a digital
dictaphone and notes were made of physical reactions of the interviewee. A digital
dictaphone was chosen so that the interviews could be quickly uploaded to a
computer and transcribed. Also pauseing the audio instantly reducing the need for
rewinding when transcribing (Gibbs & Flick, 2009).
3.4 Pilot study
A pilot study was conducted prior to the research in the leisure centre in the same
county to increase the reliability and validity of the research (Mauch & Park, 2003;
Maxwell, 2005). The sample was one full-time member of staff from the same leisure
centre. The interview was conducted in a private office within the leisure centre. The
results of the pilot study showed that the questions were understood by the
interviewee. The pilot study increased the research validity, as the questions were
correctly
interpreted
which
will
reduce
the
chance
of
other
participants
misinterpreting the questions. The pilot study was shorter than anticipated, so the
need to probe was identified. Both the clarification of open-ended answers and the
elaboration of short answers will increase the information provided by the
interviewee. (Mauch & Park, 2003; Gratton & Jones, 2004; Maxwell, 2005). Gibbs
and Flick (2009) encourages the continuous analysis of themes and questions
throughout qualitative research in order to increase the volume of data. The themes
18
did not change as a result of the pilot interview, but more questions were introduced
to increase the data that the interview provides on each theme. As a result a broader
understanding of the employee’s views on health and safety within the Leisure
Centre will be found in the research. The pilot study also identified that the office
used was an appropriate location for interviews to take place as there were no
disturbances (Maxwell, 2005).
3.5 Procedure
The data was collected by approaching Llantrisant Leisure Centres Manager. An
information sheet was provided to the interviewees with a brief overview of the study,
the aims of the study and also what the study is trying to find (see appendix N). This
study identifies and analyses the policy, procedures and risk assessment within a
public leisure centre. To further this aim, a number of specific research objectives
have been identified;
1. Methods used for risk rating and analysing the organisations approach to
risk assessment
2. Critically appraise implementations of risk control systems
3. Areas of good practises and areas for improvement
The interviewee’s were then provided with a consent form to sign (see appendix O).
Having received the information sheet and having had an opportunity to ask the
researcher any questions about the research, the participants were in a position to
give informed consent as to proceed or withdraw from the study (Bloomberg &
Volpe, 2008). The Leisure Centre staff were asked about their views on health and
safety, their daily approach to health and safety the approach of the leisure centre as
an organisations to health and safety. Semi-structured interviews allowed a flexible
approach to interviews, enabled unexpected information to emerge, whilst still being
able to keep the interview on track and still covering all themes (Gratton & Jones
2004; Dearly, 2005). The use of semi-structure interviews may add bias to the
research as the participants may answer untruthfully, or answer in the way that they
think the research wants the interviewee to respond. To reduce this participants were
asked to answer the questions truthfully (Gratton & Jones 2004). The interviews
were recorded with a digital dictaphone, notes were also made of physical reactions
of the interviewee (see appendix P). The interviews were then transcripted ready for
19
anaylsis (see appendix Q). The transcriptions are very detailed and include
coversational features, for example: pauses and repetitions. This is so that the
coversational context is as close to the dictaphone recordining as possible (Gibbs &
Flick, 2009). The interviews were transcribed by the researcher which increased
familiarity with the data and prevents breech of confindentialty that may occur if a
third party were to transcribe the interviews (Dearly, 2005). The tracscriptions were
checked thoughrly so they do not include any mistakes which could lead to incorrect
interpretations being included in the research. The interviews provoide the rich data
that were anaylised in order to give the ‘why’s’ and ‘hows’ that the questionnaire
cannot (Patton, 2002).
3.6 Data Analysis and Synthesis
This study is qualitative and provides an in depth view into the health and safety of a
Llantrisant Leisure Centre. The research does not look to generalise across sectors
or even other samples. It is a case study (Flick, 2009). The research followed the
’Seven stages of an interview enqiury’ (see appendix R) it is a linear progression that
can be used from ‘Thematizing’ to ‘Reporting’ (Kvale ,2009). The transcript of the
interviews were analysised by coding themes within the transcipts. The themes were
identified in the interview guide prior to the interviews being conducted (see
appendix M). This process increased the information on the transcripts and allowed
patterns to develop. The patterns were then cross-compared (Flick, 2009). It is
essential in the interviews that monotalities and differnces are identified (Patton,
2002).. Sample bias was kept to a minimum. The manager was asked not to make
any changes to the rota as a result of the interviews taking place. The interviewees
will be selected at random off the rota with no input by the manager (Gibbs & Flick.
2009). The four interviews provided an indeth view of the employees of the Lesuire
Centres’ views on health and safety. However due to the small, not random sample
and the reseaerch being conducted in one lesiure centre, the results should not be
generalised. The study provies an insight into health and safety within a leisure
centre and does not hope to be generalised to the wider population, however the
research does internaly generalise (Flick, 2009; Gibbs & Flick. 2009). The internal
generalisation refers to genralising within the staff only at LLC. The sample size is
small due to resources and time however as the research is a case study and
20
provides an insight in to the views of LLC and does not wish to generalise to a
population outside the organisation, the sample size is appropriate (Gratton & Jones,
2004).
21
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
22
The participant’s responses to the interview questions were compared across themes and across question. The results are shown
below.
4.1 A table to show employees response when asked about their involvement in health and safety.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Full-time Staff
Our assistant manager.
Casual Staff
I’m assuming the managers.
Who is responsible
All employees are, responsible
for health and safety
for health and safety within the
in the leisure centre?
work place.
The centre manager.
What are your health
I’m, within this facility I, I’m in
Obviously to check my own area
Coaching and looking after the
and safety
charge of COSHH, which is the
and I have to do pool tests.
kids in my group who I am
responsibilities?
Control of Substances
Responsibility of the fitness side
responsible for.
Hazardous to Health
with regards to the fitness suite and
Making sure there are no glasses
all the classes.
on tables that can fall over and
locking up.
How do you feel
Like I say it is pretty much a
I am yerh, because I work a twelve
By the time the kids get there then
about the time given
scan.
hour shift.
things have only just been set up
to carry out your
I’ve properly got to make time. It
so we can’t do any checks which
health and safety
would be nice to have allocated time
we should do.
responsibilities?
every week.
How do you feel
If obviously, there has not been
The assistant mangers and the
23
We tend to go to the people
about the support
seen by myself during daily
head attendants are really good
directly to the top. They wouldn’t
given to carry out
inspection and they pick it up
because we have got head
know if we checked it or not.
your health and
then obviously they can make a
attendants that have worked here
With both the bar and the
safety
note on their sheet but more
for twenty years.
gymnastics I don’t think we have
responsibilities?
often they would come and see
It’s just expected of us. I suppose I
ever been supervised. I don’t
me straight away.
am supported in the respect if I
think anyone has ever watched
need anything I can go to my line
the way we work to know if it is
manager.
right or wrong or to make and
comments really.
How do you and
If there is an issue they are
I have in all the time I have been
In all that time we have had
other staff input into
pretty proactive and that they
here. I am asked opinions. It makes
meetings but never to do with
the health and safety
are, forth coming in letting
you feel that your job is worth doing.
health and safety.
procedures in LLC?
management know.
The is something called an ESS
which is an ‘Employment
Suggestion Scheme’, that any
employee can fill out recommend
suggestions.
If you wanted to
Yes obviously like I say know,
Say for instance the floor is coming
Well the only one that you would
express any views or
it’s a two way process to health
up I will literally go up to whoever is
get anywhere with is one of the
concerns about
and safety of the facility. If there
on duty and say ‘look my flooring is
managers. You can tell people but
health and safety in
are any health and safety issues
coming up’ and I have been asked
it doesn’t go anywhere.
24
LLC, who would you
that need to be brought forward
in the past.
Sometimes then only if we are
approach?
then obviously if employers
I’ve approach them in relation to the
lucky then things get done.
need to notify like myself then
free weights area. Concerns that it
actions can be made to rectify
is not actually manned, it’s
any health and safety issues.
supported by cameras.
What procedure
When there are issues that need I would normally go to whoever is
We tend to go to the people
would follow?
to be addressed they are not
above me be it a assistant manager
directly to the top.
backward in coming forward.
or head attendant or whatever. I
would also use the wonderful form
of technology, emails.
4.1 Observations of Employees Involvement in Health and Safety
The Manager identifies all employees as responsible but both full time and casual staff feels the managers are responsible.
However despite feeling that managers were responsible all staff identifies varying personal duties for health and safety. Most
employees felt pressure from the time that they were allocated to complete their responsibilities adequately. All staff would
approach mangers if they had any quires or needed support. However no supervised observations by management are in place to
act as support. There was varying levels of input into health and safety procedures in the Leisure Centre. The Manager and the full
time staff agree in a proactive involvement in staff but the casual staffs feel they have little input into procedures. Despite this all
staff would approach managers if they had any health and safety issues that they wanted to report. The full time staff are more
confident to do so than the casual staff. The procedures are clear if there is an issue the manger is told.
25
4.2 A table to show employees response when asked their competency of health and safety.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Full-time Staff
Casual Staff
What health and
Life guard training, there is a
Manual handling. I’ve got first aid at
From my private courses that I
safety training have
wet side session with that
work. I’ve obviously been given all
have done with gymnastics yes.
you received?
session then the trainer
the COSHH sheets for all the
With regards to the leisure centre
assessors underline health and
chemicals that I use
training, nothing for the bar or for
safety procedures and pool
On the job training as in, we’ve had
gymnastics it’s all from our own
The last man handling course
electrical job safety training in as a
experience or our private courses
was couple of years ago. The
course in the past NVQs we do a
assessment sheets [COSHH].
small bits about that.
Well we do staff training.
It would be me saying we use this
It’s all from our own experience or
for whatever job and we use that
our private courses that we have
and, and it’s done like that.
done.
How was training
conducted?
If it’s fitness equipment it would be a
fitness technician, the one who was
installing it would show us how to
use it. But as for job specific it’s
probably on the job training.
How often do you
receive training?
On a weekly basis.
It is only if there is a query that has
No one comes up to see me at
come up
any point really to be honest.
26
How do you receive
It’s forwarded to the appropriate
We are either shown, or we are
No the only thing that they have
instructions on new
staff any new employees i.e.
either shown or we have to read the
ever bothered with was my first
health and safety
casuals and obviously given the
list and read it. If we have anything
day when I was there, they told
procedures?
document with the underlined
different I have training. We did
me not to wear flip-flops and
NOPs and EAPs. Full time staff
have a new thing into the plant
things and showed me where
should have them handed out
room; I did have training on that.
everything was.
every year or after reviews.
What are the normal
Our NOPs and EOP’s are
I actually come in, in the morning
It’s my common sense really with
operating procedures
reviewed on a, on an annual
and I literally go round the whole of
things; I make sure everything is
(NOPs) for the
basis. As well, they are
my area and check that there is
out of the way. We’ve got a big
facility?
proactive then you know, you
nothing kind of out of place. Put
T.V. up the bar which is a big
know obviously then there
down things like the safety matting
plasma T.V., make sure that is
always time keeping and very
and everything go and turn
steady and can’t fall on any one,
active after an incident and what
everything on and then I check
just basically things that I would
not obviously with amendments
everything is right. We’ve got forms
do in my own home then
to the any NOPs or EOPs.
that we sign on a daily basis and a
weekly basis to say, everything is in
order.
What are the
Well if had somebody ill or
Up the bar the only way I know to
emergency operating
something down here then I have
get out if there was an emergency
procedures for
got alarms that I press. In a fire I
is through the back stairs. As for
27
(EOPs) the facility?
have to take people out of here
customers I am guessing that I
which ordinarily you would think
would call them and say “come
well, go up the corridor, well you
with me”. With gymnastics we
don’t you go out on to the back
know that we have to use the fire
stairs.
doors and then, line up in the car
We don’t have them as regular as
park but I only know that from a
we like
sign that is above one of the fire
alarms in the room.
Who is the
With regards for the person at
Assistant Manager/ COSHH
Not health and safety wise. As I
competent person?
the top of the tree in relation to,
manager) but maybe (Facility
say the first person that we would
you know, the final say is the
Manager).
go to is the manager. We haven’t
centre manager. Obviously that
That would be the centre manager
been told that there is a
filters down to the assistant
or the RCT manager
designated person for health and
mangers
safety.
4.2 Observations of Staff Competency
Employees have had health and safety training from a number of mediums; on the job; through demonstrations; through private
courses. The training was both formal and informal. The way training was conducted was dependent on the situation. Only the pool
staff received regular weekly training. Other members of staff said that they only had training if there was a ‘query’. The full time
staff seem confident that they receive instructions as needed. The casual staff felt they are never instructed. NOPs are consistent
across the facility with common sense being the underlying feeling from staff. EOPs are known by all staff but reassurance is
28
needed, to improve staff confidence, in their knowledge of EOPs. The competent person is unknown to all staff with competency
being assumed as the highest managers.
4.3 A table to show employees response when asked the safety culture within Llantrisant Leisure Centre.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Full-time Staff
Casual Staff
What do you think a
Being aware and making other
I would assume it is where you
Everyone knows, everyone
safety culture is?
people aware you know. There
become more aware of your
understands, they know
is certain standard that must be
surroundings and things.
procedures.
maintained. Having yourself as
I suppose if you’ve got the
a manger and having your team,
mechanisms in place for, for
drill in you know, this is the way
things to be safe for things to be
health and safety is within the
used really.
facility and if it’s not then it
needs to be addressed.
Do you think
Competence is paramount the
You have to be competent in your
I would think it would affect health
competence, control,
employees need to be
job because you’ve got peoples life
and safety because I think the
co-operation and
competent in and morally
in your hands. I’ve come in off a
more competent you are the more
communication are
competent in where and health
shift and somebody hasn’t done
you know. The more courses you
important in a safety
and safety management.
their job before me and I have
have been on to increase your
29
culture?
There are certain control
complained about that person not
competence
then
on
those
measures that need to be
doing the job properly. I then had
courses you’ll be told health and
maintained and maybe set in
cooperation from my management
safety operations and things so
place and maintained.
team, who have then spoken to the
definitely. It is used within the
It’s [communication] a two way
person concerned and it has been
coaches that are within gym, it is
process to health and safety of
resolved.ESS forms you know the
nothing to do with the managers it
the facility.
employment suggestion schemes
is something that we have done
that’s probably a good way of
on our own/
communicating.
How do you
Positive I think. All leisure
I would have said slightly
I don’t really know. I don’t know if
perceived LLC safety
facilities are under scrutiny,
nonchalant. It’s kind of there in that
it is negative or not. It’s just not
culture?
because the amount of people
none of us would have anything
very vocal then.
who use the facility. If there is
dangerous but it’s not so over the
issues I ensure that I don’t shy
top that it’s like wheoooo.
away from rectify them.
Does LLC encourage
You can be seen to motivate
I don’t know if it would because I
It’s not, you’re not made aware of
or reward a positive
staff by means of patting them
don’t think that there is any major
it when you come to the building
safety culture?
on the back and being diligent
problems health and safety wise
you’re not made aware of it when
regarding to any areas that have here.
you come to interviews.
been rectified that could have
caused risk, as a manager I
30
motivate by means of saying
well done.
Do you think it would
I don’t think you should really be
So after twenty years you kind of
Defiantly, if once every six months
be beneficial to
rewarding moral behaviour, as I
know what you’re doing and know
every three months if they pulled
reward good health
say health and safety is
who to go to.
all members of staff, to go over
and safety practices?
something for everyone you
I think it would have big benefits.
health and safety rules, what is
know.
expected of them. What
procedures are in place
How are staff made
There are day-to-day sheets
I’m not aware of a manual there
Defiantly, if once every six months
aware of health and
with regards to structural. A
probably is a manual but I’m not
every three months if they pulled
safety in LLC?
daily task sheet which then was
aware that there is one. Basically
all members of staff, even if it was
to be completed by the staff with
there are plenty of signs up for
over two or three days, to go over
the day ward tasks to be
health and safety. There are
health and safety rules, what is
completed by teams on am shift
induction forms that all staff get and
expected of them what
and pm shift.
fill out.
procedures are in place.
31
4.3 Observations of Safety Culture in Llantrisant Leisure Centre
The entire workforce have a common definition on what a safety culture at Llantrisant Leisure Centre means: making sure everyone
is aware of health and safety procedures. The workforce agree that 4 C’s are important but different emphases on order of
importance. However competency was the one all staff felt was most essential. The Manger feels that the safety culture in
Llantrisant is positive. Whilst all staff feel that there is not really a safety culture within the facility. Safety culture is not actively
encouraged or rewarded; this is identified across the work force. Management do not feel it would be beneficial to reward positive
safety behaviour but all staff can identify the benefits of rewarding a safety culture. Varying answers about if staff are made aware
of health and safety unsure if staff are made aware.
4.4 A table to show employees response when asked about the legislations and regulations that Llantrisant Leisure Centre follow.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Do you know any
Provision and maintenance of
legislation,
plant storage, maintenance and
regulations or
transport of chemicals
guidance that LLC
instructing, a vision for training.
Full-time Staff
No not out of my head.
Casual Staff
The most we were told in our
interviews as what to wear safety
No I could do with training on that.
wise that’s about it
follow?
Legislation states
Reasonable practical just doing
Giving someone time you know and
I think standard procedures
you have to do as
facility checks on a day-to-day
making sure that they are aware of
should be in place that everybody
32
much as ‘reasonably
basis to make sure everything is
their surroundings and they are
is aware about. Mainly the basics;
practical’, what is
up and running as it should be,
aware of the facilities. You’ve got
what to do in a fire; what to do in
‘reasonably
we put in, inspection sheets just
form to sign.
an accident; if any one got injured
practical’?
to cover ourselves.
How often is the
Annually. All the legislations are
Annually along with the risk
I have no idea. I have never seen
leisure centres policy
in place and filed away in the
assessments.
a policy.
updated?
back office. It’s there to cover
in any situation.
ourselves.
4.4 Observations of Employees Knowledge of Legislations and Regulations
Manager has a sound knowledge of legislations and policy; staff have a basic knowledge of legislations and policies. The manager
stated that ‘reasonably practicable’ was, being fit for purpose; the staff thought it was meeting the criteria of a basic day. Manager
and full time staff know when the policy is updated, yet the casual staff did not know that the leisure centre had a policy.
33
4.5 A table to show employees response when asked about how regulations that Llantrisant Leisure Centre follow impact on their
work.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Full-time Staff
Casual Staff
When do you use
Identifying the chemicals that we Pool testes.
At the bar we are meant to at the
COSHH?
have, constructing COSHH
Check the chemical levels are right
end of erm every shift we are
assessment sheets. With each
in the Jacuzzi.
meant to make sure the work tops
chemical we get a data sheet to
Disinfectant spray that we use on
are clean so obviously we come
say whether or not the chemical
the machines to clean on a daily
into contact with some chemicals
is corrosive, whether it’s
basis.
then. The only thing we do to deal
flammable, the assessments
with that is probably wash our
sheets are stored within the
hands afterwards.
chemical storage areas.
Have you receive
Knowledge of COSHH I’ve been
I’ve got a folder out the back that
No training for that. Again from
any training with
working in leisure industry now
has got all the chemicals I use. If I
home if you use chemicals you
regards to COSHH?
for about twelve years. We have
get a new chemical in, the COSHH
wash
been made aware via years
manager will come down with the
gloves.
gone by my predecessors, I’m
sheet go through the sheet with me
pretty sharp on my COSHH and
and ask if I have any questions.
your
hands.
You
that’s down to training.
What chemicals do
I use bromine and pH.
34
No I have never actually been
use
you use?
we’ve got like an anti-bacterial spray injured but I have used bleach
Have you ever been
that we use, like disinfectant spray
and my skin has really dried out
injured using
that we use on the machines to
and things, but never actually
chemicals?
clean on a daily basis
things have harmed me.
Where do you use
There are two halls are on one
Well we use it quite a lot and I use it
Within the gym sometimes we get
manual handling in
level with a storage room in
down here. Well obviously I know
there a little bit earlier and help
the leisure centre?
between. The movement of
that I check the load of it before I
the staff set the gym out because
certain apparatus is close to
move it.
it’s a gym that actually goes away
hand. There are classes that
A daily basis on the free weights
and comes out. Yerh, so if we are
incorporate the use of weights.
area, when we have to lift all the
there early enough we put some
Prior to the class the appropriate weights and tidy up at the end of the
stuff
out we sometimes stay
amount of kettle bells need to be shift.
behind then as well to help but
moved obviously a certain part
stuff away if there are things in
of the facility.
after us.
Have you got manual
We’ve got trolleys and there is
There is nothing down here that
We’ve got some roller wheels that
aids?
no shortage of implements we
needs lifting that’s too heavy.
we can use on the beam and the
use to move if in relation to if its,
vault they help you because you
out of somebody’s capability.
Trolley that carries things.
don’t have to push them.
Have you ever been
It’s a common sense measure.
With lifting. Because I was probably
I learnt all that on the coaching
injured through
If something is too heavy for
one of the people who would lift
courses. Never actually you know
lifting? If do how?
them there’s no hardship in
using my back rather than using my
broken a bone or anything like
35
Do you know the
saying “I’m not moving that”.
legs all the time.
correct way to lift?
that. But I have pulled my back
out.
Have you ever
I think the last man handling
I’ve got an up-to-date manual
received any manual
course we had was a couple of
handling
handling training?
years ago and I think it needs to
Not from the leisure centre no.
be renewed every three to five
years.
Has any equipment
It’s not an acronym I am familiar
been adapted for
with. [Interviewer explains
years ago now the first set that we
your safety or to
PUWER in more detail]. We
had if you know if you can
make it easier to use
have a weight box upstairs
imagine what the bars look like.
as a result of
which holds dumbbells and it’s a
We would have to use or get top
Provision and Use of
nightmare to lift. We went to a
of the boxes, hard boxes to stand
Work Equipment
company to supply us with a,
on to reach some of the gymnasts
Regulations
device with, a design of metal
to lift them up. But the new bars
(PUWER)?
frame to put on top so it can be
that we have got have got a built
jacked up so it can slide under
in stand
Not in my area.
We bought a set of bars a few
the trolley so easier for
manoeuvrability.
Who maintains the
Our head leisure attendants and
Outside companies, if it is our
When it is put away it is in the
equipment in the
with it being of a robust nature
equipment then it is maintained by
leisure centres hands for what
36
facility?
then it would be reported to
us. Otherwise it would be external
management then reported to
contractors
happens to it after we leave.
the appropriate engineer to
rectify.
When there is new
We just bought a new machine
It would come from the person who I
have
also
watched
other
equipment how do
floor scrubber, well the
supplies it. To make sure we are coaches but it is nothing to do
you know how to use
gentleman we purchased it off
fully aware of what instructions are with health and safety in the
it properly?
gave everybody like a half hour
there but that the manual that we leisure centre we have just been
demonstration on it, how it’s
have there to fall back on the health kind of left to our own devices.
used, how it’s stored.
and safety part of it.
Who provides the
We get recommendations from
The council supply it.
Personal Protective
the people who use them i.e.
using bleach] Not that I could see
Equipment (PPE)?
our head leisure’s. they forward
they were not readily available
the recommendations we act on
they may have been in some
them then and purchase them
draws but they weren’t provided
[ask if gloves were provided when
to me
What PPE do you
Gloves plant room work in
use?
overalls, wellingtons
What are your
feelings about
wearing PPE?
Wellies, masks, and eye goggles
Gloves
Well received [interviewer]?
When I first came here it was like
Well it protects my skin and if it
Yerh, Defiantly.
ergh, what a fuss. But as you use
protects anything else. I would
things you realise what they can do
rather have it than not to be
37
to you. A couple of years ago with
honest.
the strain of the MRSA in gyms and
things.
4.5 Observations of How Regulations Effect Workers
All staff members use COSHH in their day-to-day jobs, however there is varying degrees of use for each staff member. The
manager and full time staff have a sound knowledge of COSHH through training and information provided to them. However the
casual do not have the same knowledge. There was a variety of chemical that the staffs come into contact with, with only the
casual staff having been injured, but with all staff having examples of someone else who had been injured. All staff use manual
handling within the facility. The entire workforce knows of manual aids available and uses them where necessary. The entire
workforce know how to lift, but have learnt from a variety of courses. Again the casual staff is the only one who has been injured
through lifting. Mangers and full time staff attended a manual handling course but the causal staffs did not.
Some modified equipment where necessary in compliance with PUWER. Equipment is maintained where possible by the leisure
facility on site. Staff learn through demonstrations, from either external personnel or their peers. Llantrisant LC act in coherence
with PUWER yet the workforce were unfamiliar with the regulation. Varying responses, the council supplies the PPE from
recommendation, however the casual staffs is unaware of where it is kept. The entire workforce uses PPE, the degree varies.
38
4.6 A table to show employees response when asked about risk control Llantrisant Leisure Centre.
Participants response
Question
Manager
Full-time Staff
Casual Staff
What procedures do
As a rule of thumb managers
There is a standard form provided
We run our risks assessments in
you follow when
obviously, have control of the
by the council and it is on a
our own way, making sure that
conducting a risk
inspection sheet because they
weighted scorning of one to four and they [equipment] are assembled
assessment?
do a scan at the start of the day.
basically, it’s there is a score at the
properly but as I said before, only
end of it.
as
and
when
we
can.
We
sometimes rely on the staff and
trust them into thinking they’ve put
it up properly.
What are LLC risks
Where there is any activity you
Dependant on how urgent the risk
Nothing that the leisure centre
reduction plans?
risk assess you assume then
is. If it’s a major risk then it gets
has done but we will obviously
there are potential hazard and
dealt with straight away, if it is a
there are things like mats with
what the likelihood of the
minor risk then it will get put on a
hoops, things that are played with
hazard. Obviously you assess
sort of support maintenance list,
in the classes that can be on the
the diverse you obviously look at where it can be done over time on
How are risk ranked,
each area, each room and
the high level of risk. It could also be
underline the likelihood for harm
staff training that could reduce a risk
and hazards as well.
as well.
Put it into a matrix. There is a
They would be done in priority I can
39
floor.
I suppose that it’s up to us there is
so you know which
severity rating of one to six
see which is more dangerous a
nothing written that says we have
ones to deal with
you’d think that a six is a fatality
screw hanging out or a light bulb not
to deal with the highest risk first.
first?
but six is multiple fatalities
working. It is a point scoring system
But we would say if there was a
believe it or not. But like I say
basically if, the higher the score the
spillage or something on the floor
there is a PSR scale which is a
higher the risk.
we would deal with that before we
Possible Severity Rating and a
went and moved a little hoop on
PLR which is a Possible
the floor.
Likelihood Rating, so you times
the two. Anything above a nine
is an area that you need to look
into so anything above a nine.
If an accident took
We’d do risk assessments.
Following the action report, first aid
So what we do, next time we will
place, what
Ensure that everything is
recorded the accident basically If it
know to put an extra crash mat
procedures are follow adequate; There will be control
is somebody that has slipped on
there to make sure if they do fall
to prevent history
measures in place obviously if
flooring you then look at the flooring
that they’re not going to hurt
from repeating its
there was something that we are and perhaps look at the chemical
themselves as much but again
self?
liable for then, it’s called risk
that had been cleaned on the floor
that’s all decided by the coaches.
reactive measure. We would
whether you can reduce the risk of
have a reactive measure that we slipping. Retrain staff or give them a
would use obviously it’s used to
bit of a refresher so this incident
prevent
doesn’t happen.
40
Who is to blame?
In the event of somebody falling
Depend on what the accident was. If
As you said before with
or tripping over there’s not much
it is something that I have done then
competence the leisure centre
we can do. If it’s done accidently through my own negligence or
obviously trust us as coaches to
then the phrase we use Volenti
whatever then obviously it is my
be competent enough to deal with
non fit injuria which means you
fault.
any accidents or anything.
knew the risk of the activity
I could say a number of things for
before you took part; you can’t
I believe it could be either way I
blame but I think it all lands with
then go now, I’m going to put a
think.
the employer at the end
claim in.
What procedures do
As a rule of thumb managers
There is a standard form provided
Nothing then we just do it and if
you follow when
obviously, have control of the
by the council and it is on a
we think we need to check we
conducting a risk
inspection sheet because they
weighted scorning of one to four and literally just do it. We don’t ask
assessment?
do a scan at the start of the day.
basically, it’s there is a score at the
anybody
end of it.
haven’t been told that we have to
41
else
to
check,
we
4.6 Observations of Risk Control in Llantrisant Leisure Centre
Managers have control and staff work staff do small risk assessments. Risk reduction is dependent on the situation, from simple
tidying to a severe risk that needs maintenance. Risks are ranked by calculating, however not all staff used matrix some used
personal perception to calculate risk. The entire workforce would look back at the incident and take proactive measures to change
so that history did not reoccur. However actions taken did vary across workforce. The entire workforce agrees that the blame could
vary between themselves and the persons involved in the accident.
42
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
43
5.1 Health and Safety Responsibilities
The management stated that “all staff employees are responsible for health and
safety within the work place”. This complies with both LLC health and safety policy
and the HSWA (1974) “It shall be the duty of every employee while at work to take
reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may
be affected by his acts or omissions at work” (HSE, 1974 [regulation 7, paragraph
1]). However both full-time and part-time staff felt that over riding responsibility fell
with the managers. Employees’ feelings of less responsibility could be down to
lesser feelings of personal responsibility for safety (Geller, 2005a). However, it has
also been suggested that with moral responsibility you are guilty until proven
innocent and look to divert that responsibility onto someone else (Wyma, 1997). This
is likely to be the case within the leisure centre as the work force were able to
identify varying personal responsibilities for health and safety within the work place.
‘I’m in charge of COSHH’; ‘I do pool tests’. ‘I’m responsible for fitness’. This
demonstrates that employees know they have some responsibility for health and
safety but are reluctant to take full responsibility. The final responsibility lies with the
recreation manager.
Management and employees should have an open relationship whereby the
managers support staff and vice versa. Support can be provided through feedback.
Copper (2006) said that support feedback can be provided by regular observations
as this will provide opportunities for regular feedback. An organization is deemed to
be highly centralized when all the decisions are made by managers with little input
from the staff. An organization is considered decentralized when decisions are made
by lower managers and staff who have been empowered to do so. (Hoye et al.,
2009). Llantisant LC demonstrates primarily organisation centralised approach, staff
identified, full time staff identified that they would approach the managers with any
health and safety issues that arise “I would normally go to whoever is above me”.
Staff felt that if there was a problem the managers were the first port of call.
Llantrisant LC’s staff currently has a some input into health and safety procedures
within the facility. One full time member of staff talked about how she had been
asked on her opinions on health and safety which she thought was beneficial, “Well
yerh, because it makes you feel that your job is worth doing”. Employee involvement
44
makes employees proud; employees feel they have initiate positive change (Joffe &
Glynn, 2002). It is important that Llantrisant LC implement this throughout their
workforce, the casual staff member was resistant in providing input because she
didn’t feel it would be followed up “We tend to go to the people directly to the top.
And erm sometimes then only if we are lucky then things get done”. Thsi illustrates
how you manage employees impacts their behaviour (Torkildsen, 2009). Employees
will not input if they feel that their input will be ignored. Joffe and Glynn (2002) found
that when employees were involved they felt more valued within the organisation and
that their performance improved as a result. Llantrisant LC must involve and support
their employees to allow them to feel responsible and involved within the
organisation.
5.2 Competency of Staff
All staff had received health and safety training from either the employer or from
private courses. “I’ve got first aid at work”, “we’ve had electrical job safety training”,
“I think the last man handling course we had was a couple of years ago”. By training
all employees LLC are complying with the HSWA (1974) which states it is the
employers responsibility to provide “ information, instruction, training and supervision
as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety
at work of his employees” (HSE, 1974 [regulation 2, paragraph 2, clause 3]). The
Health and Safety Executive (2011b) identified that training helps to improve
employees competency. Staff training can be conducted in a number of manners:
giving instruction, on-the-job training, training in the ‘classroom’, in groups,
individually, computer-based or interactive learning (HSE, 2011c). However the way
in which training is delivered can affect the learning of the people in receipt of the
training (Burke et al., 2006). Training is more effective when trainees have to actively
deal with situations and deliver a desired response (Geller, 2005b). However the
interviews suggested that training mainly involves demonstrations. One interviewee
even identified issues with demonstrations when they have to pass on knowledge
“I’m of a mind I would like to get the whole team and go and learn from the person
it’s coming from rather than myself just in case I miss something”. Llantrisant LC
mainly uses instruction through methods statements and on-the job training and
45
teaching, “It would normally be informal. It would be me saying we use this for
whatever job and we use that, is done like that”. However in order to improve the
current training it is essential that the Leisure Centre checks that staff are acting in
accordance to their training. It is recommended that when training staff five steps
should be follow: the first step (1) is deciding what training your organisation needs;
the next step (2) is decide your training priorities; followed by (3) choosing training
methods and resources; then (4) delivering the training; and finally (5) checking the
training has worked (see appendix S). The Leisure Centre’s policy says that it will
“provide information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure,
so far as is reasonably practicable, the health safety and welfare of its staff and
others” (RCT, 2010, p1). It was identified in the interviews that employees are not
supervised regularly. “I don’t think anyone has ever watched the way we work to
know if it is right or wrong or to make and comments really.” By not supervising the
employer is at breach of their own policy.
The employees don’t know who the named competent persons are within the Leisure
Centre. Three of the full time members of staff interviewed were named on the list as
competent people. Llantrisnat LC’s health and safety policy identifies thirteen
individuals as the competent persons (RCT, 2009) Having a sole person to report to
provides staff with clarity and avoids staff having to deal with conflicting views
(Wyma, 1997). The MHSWR (1999) allows more than one person can be named as
competent within a single organisation. “Every employer shall appoint one or more
competent persons to assist him in undertaking the measures he needs to take to
comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the
relevant statutory provisions” (HSMO, 1999, regulation 7 paragraph 1). By outlining
thirteen people as competent LLC is confusing and it is unsurprising no one is sure
who the competent personnel are. All staff receiving health and safety training which
is in direct compliance with regulation 13 of the MHSWR (1999). However to the
competency of staff LLC could reviewed through the of supervision of all staff to
ensure that the workforce adhere to their training.
5.3 Safety Culture within Llantrisant Leisure Centre
46
A safety culture was described by the workforce of the Leisure Centre as everyone
being aware of the procedures: “Everyone knows, everyone understands, they know
procedures” was how the casual member of staff described safety culture within the
Leisure Centre. The workforce’s definition is similar to that of Schien (2004). He
defined organisation culture as the entire workforce sharing assumptions that have
been learnt and developed through history. However safety cultures are often taken
for granted and overlooked within organisations (Edmonson, 1999). This could
explain the differences in opinion between management and staff as to whether a
safety culture exists. The manager felt that the safety culture in LLC was ‘positive’
where as the staff were not sure if LLC had a safety culture, in comparison to the
managers positive description, the casual member of staff said, “I don’t know if it is
negative or not. It’s just not very vocal then, you’re not made aware of it”. The
workforce disagreed on the aspects that were important within their safety culture. All
staff did identify that competency of staff was essential. With strong views that is
must be considered in health and safety: “Competence. Obviously within a work
place it’s and the health and safety management is paramount then obviously it’s the
employees need to be competent in and morally competent in where and health and
safety management.” A full time member of staff said, “Very relevant I would have
said because you have to be competent in your job because you’ve got peoples life
in your hands in some of the parts of the centre so you got to be competent.” As did
the casual member of staff, “I would think it would affect health and safety because I
think the more competent you are the more you know. The more courses you have
been on to increase your competence then on those courses you’ll be told health
and safety operations and things so defiantly.” Competence was defined as whether
the person has the skills and training needed to carry out the health and safety
procedures of their work place. This is achieved by training and assessing all
employees (HSE, 2011b). Training is being addressed within the Leisure Centre
with all staff having received some form of health and safety training, however to
ensure that staff are competent and acting in adherence to training, assessment
must take place (HSE, 2011).
It can also be beneficial to positively reinforce the behaviour that an organisation
want to promote, in this case safe behaviour. For example it has been identified that
staff are proactive in reporting health and safety failures to management, “If there is
47
an issue they are pretty proactive and that they are, forth coming in letting
management know.” This is positive behaviour as it encourages staff to identify
areas for improvement, and prevents the Leisure Centre from waiting for the systems
to fail in order to identify weakness’ (Antonsen, 2009). By rewarding or positively
reinforcing safe behaviour staff will respond with feelings of high self-esteem,
empowerment and belonging which together can improve a safety culture.
Rewarding safe behaviour will promote the feelings that together staff can make a
difference (see appendix T; Wiegand & Geller, 2004). Rewarding safe behaviour in
an organisation can also provide employees with opportunities to make decisions
and engage in tasks or situations that may be challenging. It is the responsibility of
managers to manage decision making, and staff involvement in tasks (Arnolds &
Boshoff, 2002). Rewards do not have to be expensive, hand written thank you notes
are enough. It is important to identify that reward should be used to increase safe
behaviour and used as a means for staff to exceed expectations not just meet them.
(Fell-Carlson, 2004). However positive reinforcement is yet to be fully understood by
psychologists, leading to some implications when applying this to mass populations
and there are theories that suggest negative reinforcement through feelings of guilt
can lead to behaviour repetition (Wiegand & Geller, 2004). However, when giving
reinforcement, reward or negative criticism it should be immediately after the event
(Fell-Carlson, 2004). Llantrisant LC does not currently use the technique positive
reinforcement. When asked if the Leisure Centre rewards safe behaviour, the
manager responded, “I don’t think you should really be rewarding moral behaviour”.
However, staff felt that it would be beneficial to positively reinforce within the Leisure
Centre, with a full time member of staff suggesting, “if a member of staff gave a
suggestion and it was I’d say rewarded you know just a certificate or spoken to a
person at higher level”. The Leisure Centre may want to consider positive
reinforcement and rewarding to encourage safe behaviour within LLC.
5.4 Legislations, Regulations and Policies
The manager has a good knowledge of legislation, regulations and LLC health and
safety policy. Staff have a basic knowledge. This is as you would expect. However,
you would expect all staff to have a good knowledge of the health and safety policy
48
document that the Leisure Centre follows (HSE, 2011c). The casual member of staff
interviewed was unaware that the Leisure Centre even had a policy, “I have no idea.
I have never seen a policy.” It is the responsibility of employers to provide employees
with appropriate information and training with regards to health and safety. An
employee not knowing that a policy exists is not ensuring that all staff have sufficient
knowledge and training to act in accordance to the Leisure Centres procedures.
Lantrisant’s LC’s health and safety policy should be available to all staff for them to
refer to when necessary.
The workforce had a good understanding of what ‘reasonably practicable’ means for
LLC. There has been some confusion about how much is ‘reasonably practicable’.
The definition set out by the court of appeal is:
“Reasonably practicable’ is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ … a
computation must be made by the owner in which the quantum of risk is
placed on one scale and the sacrifice involved in the measures necessary for
averting the risk (whether in money, time or trouble) is placed in the other, and
that, if it be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them – the risk
being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice – the defendants discharge the
onus on them” (HSE, no date).
This definition suggests that if LLC are only making the facility ‘fit for purpose’ then
they are not doing all that is ‘reasonably practicable’ to ensure the health safety and
well-being of employees and customers. Llantrisant LC needs to make the facility
safe for purpose as far as reasonably practicable.
Llantrisant LC states that in its health and safety policy that all employees who may
come in contact with substance hazardous to health to comply with their COSHH
training (RCT, 2010). Full-time members of staff who are confident in their COSHH
training and COSHH management within the facility: “I personally am quite happy the
way it is because if I get a new chemical in, the COSHH will come down with the
sheet go through the sheet with me and ask if I have any questions, and once you’re
using it if you’re not sure of anything ask.” More focus should be considered when
casual staff are using chemicals. The casual member of staff interviewed had never
received any COSHH training and was the only participant to report injury through
use of chemicals at work. The participant explained “I have used bleach and my skin
has really dried out and things” when asked if this because she did not wear gloves
she replied: “Yerh, because I didn’t have any gloves or anything it came into contact
with my skin.” If adequate training was not supplied LLC is in breach of HSWA
49
(1974), MHSRW (1999) and COSHH (2002). However, previously the casual
member of staff identified that she knew that gloves needed to be worn when using
chemicals through her experiences outside of work: “from home if you use chemicals
you wash your hands. You use gloves.” It could be argued that the employee was
injured through her own negligence. It is pivotal that managers check that employees
are acting in accordance to training and are aware of where any PPE is kept. It is a
similar case with regard to manual handling; again the only casual staff member who
has been injured was the casual staff member. By checking that employees are
working in adherence to their training supervision can act as a means of feedback
and can facilitate both individual and workforce improvements to safe behaviour.
However, if an individual or a team are conducting routine task, there is a lesser
need to regularly supervise as it could have the adverse effect. It could lead to
negative feelings from the staff, staff feeling spied on or untrustworthy. It is essential
that feedback is provided in order to encourage progressive learning. If learning is
seen as the outcome it minimises the need for improvement (Edmonson, 1999).
Management have a duty of care to staff to make sure that staff receive sufficient
training (MHSWR; HSMO, 1999). The manager and the staff attended a manual
handling course. Neither staff nor manager knew exactly how long the training is
valid for, or exactly when they completed the manual handling training. “I think the
last man handling course we had was a couple of years ago and I think it needs to
be renewed every three to five years.” Is this doing all that is ‘reasonably
practicable?’ The workforce were unaware of PUWER (1998): “It’s not an acronym I
am familiar with.” This raises the issue of how can they be fully complying PUWER
(1998) if they do not know what it is. The casual staff talked about a manual aid that
she used in order to move heavy gymnastic equipment. When asked if she had ever
received manual handling training her response was, “Not from the leisure centre
no.” The participant was later asked, Have you got manual aids to help you? So any
kind of machinery, pullies or trolleys? “The only thing that we have got is we’ve got
some rolley wheels that we can use on the beam and the vault; they help you
obviously because you don’t have to push them but you still do have to lift the beam
on to them, or the vault on to them. Which you have got to get down quite low to pick
them up and things, which could damage your back I suppose.” A manual handling
assessment being conducted could have reduced the injury that the member if staff
50
experienced: “I have pulled my back out or been sore the next day. But because it is
something that happens quite regularly, you’ll start aching or one of us will pull
something in our back, we’ve just never reported it.” Although the participant
stresses that the injury is not serious, it is a regular occurrence. This suggests that
the risk assessment for lifting heavy gymnastics equipment should be reassessed
(MHSWR: HMSO, 1999) Llantrisant LC may consider who was received the
appropriate manual handling training and the capabilities if individuals. So that no
body lift the gymnastics equipment, but where unavoidable only staff with the
trainings and capability to move the equipment do so.
5.5 Risk Assessment and Control
When conducting risk assessments HSE provides guidance that risk assessments
should follow three stages; hazard identification, risk assessment and risk control’
(HSE, 2011a). Managers are at the centre of risk assessment (Wiegand & Geller,
2004). It was identified that the manager has control of the risk assessment at LLC:
“we’d do risk assessments. Ensure that everything is adequate, legislation in place”,
“As rule of thumb managers obviously, have control of the inspection sheet because
they do a scan at the start of the day.” It is outlined by MHSWR (1999) that
employers have the overriding responsibility for conducting risk assessment: “every
employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health
and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work”
(HMSO, 1999 [regulation 3, paragraph 1]). Llantrisant LC’s staff conduct risk
assessments but they were not always detailed, the casual member of staff
described the process she takes when conducting risk assessment, “we run our risks
assessments making sure that they are assembled properly but as I said before, only
as and when we can. We sometimes rely on the staff and trust them into thinking
they’ve put it up properly.” Again, management should consider supervision to
reinforce that staff are acting in accordance to their training at all levels. When the
manger was asked about how a risk assessment was conducted it was described by
both the manager and a full time member of staff as a ‘scan’. A scan suggests a
51
little time taken to conduct the risk assessment. Management may wish to extend the
time allocated to risk assessment to ensure that it is suitable and sufficient.
Llantrisant LC uses a quantitative approach to risk ranking. The management
describes the approached used,
“you look at each area, each room and underline the likelihood for harm and
hazards as well. And put it into a matrix. There is a PSR scale which is a
Possible Severity Rating and a PLR which is a Possible Likelihood Rating,
you times the two so anything above a nine is an area that you need to look
into so anything above a nine we try to redeem or reduce.”
Some staff were aware of this method, but most just used perception. “They [risks]
would be done in priority. I can see which is more dangerous a screw hanging out or
a light bulb not working”. This demonstrates either employees not working in
adherence to training or a lack of knowledge. It is the employers responsibility to
ensure “the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is
necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at
work of his employees” (HSWA, 1974 [regulation 2, paragrach2, clause 3]). Risk
control needs to be addressed. Risk assessments and risk control should follow a
procedure (HSE, 2001b). An area of good practice is LLC are dealing with risk that
are identified in the risk assessments as suggested by approved code of practices
(HMSO, 1999). The results of risk assessments are kept and appropriate measures
are put in place to reduce risk identified in the assessment: “It’s my job as a manger
is to make sure that the assessments are there so that the staff can use them. If a
chemical we purchase is of a necessity then obviously wherever it’s stored, my duty
of care is to ensure that the relevant assessment sheet is there so when staff use it,
that they know what, how to use it.” Keeping records of risk assessment is also good
practice (Diamond, 2002; HSE, 2011b).
Llantrisant LC have a proactive approach to health and safety rather than a reactive
approach: “If there is an issue they are pretty proactive and that they are, forth
coming in letting management know”. When an accident does take place all staff
identified that blame was dependent on the situation. When asked who was to blame
a full time member of staff responded “Depend on what the accident was”. The
management further support the approach of blame is dependant in the situation.
The manager went on to provide details of who is to blame,
52
“Volenti non fit injuria what it means is it’s a loop hole in relation to the facility.
If somebody breaks their leg playing football then it’s not necessarily our fault
it could just be that they have gone in for a tackle and they just you know it
would be once you’ve assessed the situation obviously then if it was a damp
spot on the floor that they slipped in then it might be an area for the person to
make a claim. If it’s done you know accidently then the phrase we use is
Volenti non fit injuria which means you knew the risk of the activity before you
took part in you can’t then go now you know I’m going to put a claim in here
because there obviously he played five-a-side”
Although this defence is true and relevant, it is essential that LLC do not become
reliant or over confident in Volenti non fit injuria as customers entering the facility do
not have a signed agreement saying that they are aware of the risks that they are
participating in, and an assumed knowledge does not always stand strong in court
(Jaffey,
1985).
53
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
54
6.1 Areas of Best Practice
Management feel that they are doing a good job describing “all areas” as areas of
best practice. However the casual ember of staff felt that managers did not take on
board staff input saying, “then only if we are lucky then things get done”. The full time
members identified the areas of best practice being the life guard training, risk
assessment and the recording keeping within the Leisure Centre. The casual staff
identified that areas of best practice where instructional signage, throughout the
facility. From the results areas of best practice within the LLC are risk assessment, in
particular risk assessment of chemicals. All staff are aware of COSHH sheets and
used them, management was very aware of the importance of COSHH assessment
and the importance of sharing the assessment results with staff. The manager talked
in detail about the COSHH assessments,
“With each chemical we get we obviously get a data sheet to say whether or
not the chemical, is corrosive, whether it’s flammable. Then there would be
measures then with regards to spillage, contact with skin, eyes, inhalation,
ingestion and obviously protective measures. Then each assessments sheets
are stored within the chemical storage areas, so obviously the staff use a
chemical then, if uncertain all they’ve got to do is look at the assessment
sheet and how to use it then.”
The staff also identified that COSHH assessment was something that was managed
well. One full time member of staff described, “I personally am quite happy the way it
is because if I get a new chemical in the COSHH manager will come down with the
sheet go through the sheet with me”. Llantrisant Leisure Centre may wish to use the
COSHH procedures that are in place as a bench mark for all risk assessment
procedures within the facility.
6.2 Areas For Improvement
From the results LLC may consider improving the supervision of staff after training to
ensure that all staff are acting in adherence to training and instruction. Supervision
can identify errors provide information on areas that need to be addressed. However
supervision on its own is not adequate. The information that you attain from the
supervision could be used by management to decided if it is appropriate to retrain
staff or change the procedures in place to facilitate improvement to health and safety
55
within the LLC. If supervision is used and the results are ignored the organisation is
at risk of being negligent (Edmonson, 1999).
Llantrisant Leisure Centre may also, consider using positive reinforcement and
rewards to encourage safe behaviour throughout the Leisure Centre. Positive
reinforcement was a technique which staff thought would be useful, when staff were
asked if they would like to see this technique being used, the casual member of staff
replied, “Defiantly, if once every six months every three months”. By considering
positive reinforcement, Llantrisant Leisure Centre would also increase the
involvement of staff within the facility as the staff identified that it is a technique that
they would like to be used, which makes staff feel valued within an organisation
(Arnolds, & Boshoff, 2002).
6.3 Limitations of Research and Areas for Further Research
Although the findings of this study can be used by Llantrisant Leisure Centre, they
cannot be generalised across leisure centres. This study could be further improved
by increasing the sample size to a number of organisations across councils and
cross-comparing the results. The sample of participants within the Leisure Centre
was small, to further investigate the difference in behaviour between full-time staff
and part time staff could be analysed by increasing the sample of full-time and
casual staff to see if the variation in responses provided were significant (Burke et
al., 2006).
56
REFRENCES
Antonsen, S. Safety culture assessment: a mission impossible. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 17(14), 242-254.
Arnolds, C. A., and Boshoff, C. (2002). Compensation, esteem valence and job
performance: a empirical assessment of Alder’s ERG theory. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 697-719.
Arrow Leisure Service. (2002). Risk assessment: the key to effective health and
safety management. Gwent: Arrow Leisure Services.
Arrow Leisure Services. (2009). Risk rating, risk ranking or risk ranting. Safety File.
31(Oct), 4-5.
Arrow Safety. (2011b) Lord Young reports on health and safety. Safety File.
37(Jan), 4.
Arrow Safety. (2011) Culture of Safety. Safety File. 37(Jan), 3.
Bloomberg, L. D., and Volpe, M. (2008). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A
roadmap from beginning to end. London: Sage.
British Standards Institute. (2007). Managing Systems the Safety Way. [online]
http://shop.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Risk%20M
anagement/BIP_2050_SampleChapter.pdf [accessed 28 October 2011].
Burke, M.J., Sarpy, S.A., Smith-Crowe, K., Chan-Serafin, S., Salvadorand, R.O.,
Islam, G. (2006). Relative Effectiveness of Worker Safety and Health Training
Methods. American Journal of Public Health, 96(2), 315- 327.
Byrne, G., Inveruity, D., Kelly, E., Kennedy, M., Power, S., Longain, M., Pilkington,
M., Shannon, G. (2006). Law Society of Ireland: Employment law.(edited by J.
Moffatt). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57
Cox, L. A., Babavyev, D., Huber, W. (2005). Some limitations of qualitative risk rating
systems. Risk Analysis. 25(3), 651-656.
Daily Telegraph Reporter. (2011). The try that cost a rugby club £54,000. The Daily
Telegraph, Oct. 05. Education.
Dearnley, C. (2005). A reflection on the use of semi-structured interviews. Nurse
Researcher, 13(1), 19-28.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. (1998). The Provision
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations. London: Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State.
Department for Work and Pensions. (2011). Common sense-Common Safety:
Governments departments’ progress on health and safety reforms, March
2011. Place of publication unknown: DWP.
Diamond, B. (2002). Risk assessment and management to ensure health and safety
at work. British Journal of Nursing, 11(21), 1372- 1374.
Dillion, R. L. And Tinsley, C. H. (2008). How Near Misses Influence Decision Making
Under Risk: A Missed Opportunity for Learning. Management Science, 54(8),
1425-1440.
Edmonson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behaviour in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Egan, J. (2002). Accelerating Change: A report by the Strategic Forum for
Construction. London: Rethinking Construction.
Fell-Carlson, D. (2004). Rewarding safe behaviour: strategies for change. AAOHN
Journal, 52(12), 521- 529.
58
Flick, U. (2009). Designing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.
Gadd, S. (2002). Safety Culture: A review of literature. [online]
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2002/hsl02-25.pdf
[Accessed
1st
February 2012].
Grainer-Jones, B. (1999). Managing Leisure. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Geller, E. S. (2005a). People-based safety: The source. Coastal Training
Technologies Corporation. Virginia: Costal.
Geller, S. (2005).Education Versus Training. Professional Safety, 50(10), 14-14.
Gibbs, G. And Flick, U. (2009). Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Sage
Publications.
Gratton, C., and Jones, I. (2004). Research methods for sports studies. London:
Routledge.
Guldenmund, F.W. (2010). (Mis)understanding safety culture and its relationship to
safety management. Risk Analysis. 30(10), 1466- 1480.
Harvey, J., Erdos, G., Bolam, H., Cox, .M. A. A., Kennedy, J. N. P., Gregory, G. T.
An analysis of safety culture in a highly regulated environment. Work and
Stress, 16(1), 18- 36.
Haslam, C. (2009). New Helmet law in the Alps after spate of deaths. The Sunday
Times, Jan. 18.
Health and Safety Executive. (no date). ALARP: at a glance. [on-line]
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm [Accessed 29th February
2012.
Health and Safety Executive. (1974). Health and Safety at Work Act. Suffolk: HMSO.
Health and Safety Executive. (1999). A simple guide to The Provision and Use of
59
Protective of Work Equipment Regulations. London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2002). Drowning of Max Palmer in Glenridding Beck
26 May 2002. Suffolk: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive .(2003a). Out of Control. (second edition) Surry: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive .(2003b). Health and safety regulation: a short guide.
(second edition) Surry: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2004a). Getting to grips with manual handling: A short
guide. London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2004b). Manual handling: Manual Handling Operation
Regulation as amended. London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2005). Noise at work: Guidance for employers on the
Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2008). Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations
1989.
[online]
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/puwer.pdf
[Accessed 1st Febuary 2012].
Health and Safety Executive. (2009). Reducing error and influencing behaviour.
Suffolk: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2009b). Working with substances hazardous to health.
London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2010).Statistics 2009/2010. Stuffolk:HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2011a). Successful health and safety management.
(twelfth edition). London: HSE.
Health and Safety Executive. (2011b). Five Steps to risk assessment. London: HSE.
60
Health and Safety Executive. (2011c). Health and safety training: what you need to
know. London: HSE.
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. (1992a). Personal Protective Equipment at Work
Regulations. London: HMSO.
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. (1992b). Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations. London: HMSO.
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. (1999). The Management of Health and Safety at
Work Regulations. London: HMSO.
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. (2002). Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
Regulations. London: HMSO.
Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. (2002). Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
Regulations. London: HMSO.
Hoye, R., Smith, A., Westerbeek, H., Stewart, B., Nicholson, M., (2009). Sport
Management: Principles and Applications. Oxford: Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann.
Hronek, B. And Spengler, J. O.(2002). Legal Liability in Recreation & Sports. [online]
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uwic.ac.uk/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=112&si
d=d4ce3691e3484a94966z99125b57d3cd%40sessionmgr113&bdata=JnNpd
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGI2ZQ%3d#db=s3h&AN=20084519#db=s3h&AN=20084519
[Accessed 1 December 2010].
Jaffey, A. J. E. (1985). Volenti non fit injuria. The Cambridge Law Journal, 44(1), 87110.
Joffe, M. And Glynn, S. (2002). Facilitating change and empowering employees.
Journal of Chance Management, 2(4), 369- 379.
61
Kaiser, K. (2009). Protecting respondents confidentiality in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research. [on-line]
http://qhr.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uwic.ac.uk/content/19/11/1632.full.pdf+html
[Accessed 15th Febuary 2012].
Kervin, A. (2011). Is rugby safe for children to play?. The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 12.
Health: 29.
Kvale, S. (2009). Doing interviews. (Eds U. Flick). London: Sage Publications.
Löfstedt, R. E. (2011). Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of
health and safety legislation. London: The Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions.
Long, J. (2007). Researching Leisure Sport and Tourism: The Essential Guide.
London: Sage.
Mauch, J. E., and Park, J. (2003). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation: a
handbook for students and faculty. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. London:
Sage.
May, T. (2003). Qualitative research in action. London: Sage Publications.
Meiklejohn, A. (1959). Industrial Health- meeting the challenge. British Journal of
Industrial Medicine. 16(1), 1-10.
Mennino, S.F., Rubin, B. A., Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job-to-home spill over:
Impact of company policies and workplace culture. The Sociolicial Quartely,
46, 107-135.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and evaluation Methods. London: Sage.
Rhondda Cynon Taff. (2011). Llantrisant Leisure Centre health and safety policy.
62
Located at: Archives, Llantrisant Leisure Centre, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Wales,
UK.
Schein, E. H. (2004).Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Thomas, R. M., and Brubaker, D. L. (2000). Theses and dissertations: a guide to
planning, research and writing. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Torkildsen, G. (2011). Sports and leisure management. (eds, Taylor, P.). London:
Routledge.
Quest. (2011). Health and safety management. Health and safety management
guidance notes. 1(May), 1-5.
Wiegand, D. M., and Geller, E. S. (2004). Connecting positive psychology and
organizational behaviour management achievement and the power if positive
reinforcement. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 4(1), 3-25.
Winnett, R. (2011). ‘Epidemic of excuses’ by health and safety brigade. The Daily
Telegraph, Aug. 24.
Wolsey, C. and Abrams, J. (2011). Sport and Leisure Management.(Eds Torkildsen,
G). London: Routledge.
Woodruff, J. M. (2005). Consequence and likelihood in risk elimination: A matter of
balance in health and safety risk assessment practice. Safety Science. 43,
345-353.
Wyma, K. D. (1997). Moral responsibility and leeway for action. American
Philosophical Quarterly, 34(1), 57-70.
63
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A
Key Elements of Health and Safety Management.
Figure A- Shows key elements of health and safety management
(HSE, 2011a, p 9).
64
APPENDIX B
The Ratio of Major Accidents Compare to Non-Injury Accidents
Figure B- A diagram to show the ratio of major accidents compare to non-injury
accidents. Developed from five organisations is the food, oil, construction health and
transport sector (HSE, 2011, p. 13).
65
APPENDIX C
Prosecutions by HSE
Figure C- Prosecutions by HSE (HSE, 2010, p.12).
66
APPENDIX D
Three Day Injuries
Figure D- The kind of accidents showing 3 day injuries 2001/2002 (HSE, 2004, p 1).
67
APPENDIX E
Noise Measures
Noise is measured in decibels (dB) and is either an average noise level (an Aweighting [dB(A)]) or a peak measurement (a C-weighting [dB(C)]). Small increases
in noise (for example 3 dB) seem highly significant to the human ear (see Figure D
for examples of work place noises in dB). Noise control must be provided if the
average exposure to noise is between 80 dB and 85 dB and/ or if the peak exposure
is between 135dB and 137dB. The levels of noise must also not exceed a daily or
weekly value of 87dB or a peak sound of 140dbs. If the noise exposure of an
organisation reaches any of these then a risk assessment must be carried out (HSE,
2005).
68
APPENDIX F
A Simple Risk Estimator
Table F. A simple risk estimator.
(BSI,2008,p242)
69
APPENDIX G
A More Complex Rank Rating System.
Table G- A more complex rank rating system.
(Arrow Leisure Service, 2009,p.5)
70
APPENDIX H
A Quantitative Risk Estimator
A mathematical formula to work out risk: a quantitative approach.
z= f (x1, x2. . . xn), or z=f (x). Whereby x is a vector input of risk level/ rating and z=f (x)
is the risk rating assigned to x.
(Cox et al., 2005).
71
APPENDIX I
A Theoretical Model of Risk in a Leisure Environment
Figure I- A theoretical model of risk where leisure environment interacts with leisure
customer (Grainger-Jones, 1999, p.189).
The overlapping represents where either an unpredictable environment or
unpredictable behaviour occurs (Grainer-Jones, 1999).
72
APPENDIX J
The Bounded Approach to Decision Making
Figure J- The bounded approach to decision making. (Robinson, 2007, p42)
73
APPENDIX K
The Organisational Triangle
Figure K- The organisational triangle (Guldenmund, 2010, p.1470).
74
APPENDIX L
Overview of Process for Developing and Implementing Workforce Involvement
Figure L- Overview of process for developing and implementing workforce
involvement arrangements (HSE, 2001)
75
APPENDIX M
Full List of Original Semi-Structure Interview Questions.
Table A- Full list of original semi-structure interview questions.
Themes
Evidence from LLC’s Health and Safety
Research Questions
policy, regulations and Legislations
Are the employees involved in the health
Who is responsible for health and safety The involvement of staff within the health
and safety procedures?
in the leisure centre?
What
are
your
and
health
and
safety
process
is
essential
in
safety developing a positive safety culture and
responsibilities?
as such regular meetings with staff to
How do you feel about the time given to discuss health and safety topics occur
carry
out
your
health
and
safety monthly.
responsibilities?
Health and Safety is the responsibility of
How do you feel about the support given all employees, the actions or inactions of
to carry out your health and safety every member of staff can have a
responsibilities?
negative or a positive effect on the health,
How do you and other staff input into the safety and welfare of fellow colleagues,
health and safety procedures in LLC?
Can you provide an example?
If you wanted to express any views or
concerns about health and safety in LLC,
76
members of public and contractors.
who would you approach?
Why would you approach them?
What procedure would follow?
Are the employees ‘competent’?
What health and safety training have you Provide information, instruction, training
received?
and supervision as is necessary to
Was this prior to employment?
ensure,
so
far
as
is
reasonably
What formal training formal have you practicable, the health safety and welfare
received?
of its staff and others.
What informal training have you received?
All employees have health and safety
What receive in house training do you responsibilities. this is a statutory
receive?
requirement detailed within the Health and
How often do you receive this?
Safety at Work Act 1974 and The
How often do you receive instructions on Management of Health and Safety at
health and safety?
Work Regulations 1999.
What instruction do you receive?
When do you receive this instruction?
What
are
the
normal
operating
procedures for the facility?
What
are
the
emergency
procedures for the facility?
77
operating
How is the competent person?
Is there a safety culture in Llanristant What do you think a safety culture is?
Leisure Centre?
The involvement of staff within the health
Do you think competence is important in and
your work? Do you use it?
work? Do you use it?
Do you think co-operation is important in
your work? Do you use it?
Do you think communication is important
in your work? Do you use it?
do
you
perceived
LLC
safety
culture?
How does LLC encourage or reward a
positive safety culture?
Do you think it would be beneficial to
reward good health and safety practices?
How are staff made aware of health and
safety in LLC?
78
process
is
essential
developing a positive safety culture
Do you think control, is important in your
How
safety
in
How is risk controlled in LLC?
What procedures do you follow when
conducting a risk assessment?
What are LLC risks reduction plans?
How are risk ranked, so you know which
ones to deal with first?
Is qualitative methods used or is a
quantitative methods used?
What are the advantages of this method?
What are the disadvantages?
If an accident took place, what procedures
are
follow
to
prevent
history
from
repeating its self?
Who is to blame?
Do
employees
know
the
legislation, Do
you
know
of
any
legislation, It shall be the duty of every employer to
regulations and policy that affect the regulations or guidance that the leisure ensure,
leisure centre?
centre follow or use?
so
far
as
is
practicable, the health, safety and welfare
Legislation states you have to do as much at work of all his employees.
as
‘reasonably
practical’,
‘reasonably practical’?
79
reasonably
what
is
How often is the leisure centres policy
updated?
How does COSHH impact on your work?
When do you use COSHH?
Step 1 Read advice, guidance.
How useful is COSHH?
Step 2 Do the COSHH and management
Have you receive
any training with assessments, and generate work
regards to COSHH?
procedures, keeping the procedures
What chemicals do you come into contact simple and easy to understand, and
with?
including NOPs, signs, labels, locks,
Have you been trained in COSHH?
records, etc.
Have you ever been injured through use Step 3 If the assessments easy
of chemicals?
improvements to safety, do them. If
precautions are very complex, try to
change the conditions.
Step 4 Make a record of the assessment
unless it could easily be repeated and
explained.
Step 5 Consider if and when the
assessment is to be reviewed.
80
Staff involved in the handling and use of
chemicals should receive appropriate
training and instruction
How does manual handling impact your
Where do you use manual handling in the
“Each employer shall so far as is
work?
leisure centre?
reasonably practicable, avoid the need for
Do you know the correct way to lift?
his employees to undertake any manual
Have you got manual aids?
handling operations at work which involve
Have you ever been injured through
a risk of their being injured”
lifting? If do how?
Have you ever received any manual
handling training?
How does PUWER impact on your work?
Has any equipment been adapted for your
Every employer shall ensure that work
safety or to make it easier to use?
equipment is so constructed or adapted
Who maintains the equipment in the
as to be suitable for the purpose for which
facility?
it is used or provided” the above
When there is new equipment how do you
regulations included making it safe as
81
know how to use it properly?
possible to carry out the task it is intended
for
How does PPE impact on your work?
Who provides the PPE?
PPE should be a last resort risk should be
Why do you have PPE?
minimise first.
What PPE do you use?
What are your feelings about wearing
PPE?
Areas For Improvement
In your opinion what are LLC area for
good practice?
In your opinion what are LLC area for
areas for improvement?
82
APPENDIX N
The Information Sheet Provided to Participants.
The information sheet provided to participants.
UREC reference number:
A case study into health and safety management of a Rhondda Cynon Taff leisure
centre
Participant Information Sheet
Background
This evaluation project is an attempt to understand how health and safety is
managed at Llantrisant Leisure Centre including the facilities or daily running of the
facilities. It is being undertaken by Hazel McAndrew as a dissertation project at the
Cardiff School of Sport at the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff.
In brief, I am concerned with the policy, procedures and risk assessment within Llantrisant
Leisure Centre. To further this aim, specific research objectives have been identified;
iv.
v.
vi.
Methods used for risk rating and analysing the organisations approach to risk
assessment
Critically appraise implementations of risk control systems
Areas of good practises and areas for improvement
Your participation in the research project
Why you have been asked
You have been invited to take part in the project because it is thought that you will be
able to give an insightful view into how you have been treated and your affects and
experiences of the leisure centre.
What would happen if you agree to participate?
If you agree to participate: You may will be asked to participate in an interview and
asked a number of questions about your experiences of health and safety at work.
Are there any risks?
83
We do not think there are any significant risks to you from taking part in the study.
You do not have to tell us anything you do not wish to disclose.
Your rights
Joining the study does not mean that you give up any legal rights. In the very unlikely
event of something going wrong during the evaluation, UWIC fully indemnifies its
staff, and participants are covered by its insurance.
What happens to the results of the evaluation?
The information will obtained will be locked filing cabinets at UWIC. They will be
coded so that we can remove names. We will present this information together for all
of the clubs, but there will be no description that would identify individual clubs or
personnel. We don’t intend to talk to all clubs (that would take too long), but if you
are invited to have a discussion with us, we will also remove any description of you,
your club, and so on. You will not be identifiable in this part of the work either.
We will present a report to the Llantrisant Leisure Centre, and might also write
research papers for publication (in journals like Managing Leisure).
Are there any benefits from taking part?
There may not be any benefit to you, however Llantrisant Leisure Centre may or may
not choose to take account of the findings from the study.
What happens next?
With this letter you’ll find an information sheet for you. The first is for you to give
permission for your information to be involved in the study programme.
How we protect your privacy:
As you can see, everyone working on the study will respect your privacy. We have
taken very careful steps to make sure that you cannot be identified from any of the
information that we have about you.
All the information about you and your club will be stored securely away from the
consent and assent forms. At the end of the evaluation study we will destroy the
information we have gathered about you and your club. We will only keep the
84
consent and assent forms with your name and address. We keep these for ten years
because we are required to do so by UWIC.
Further information
If you have any questions about the research or how we intend to conduct the study,
please contact us.
Hazel McAndrew
contact details
85
APPENDIX O
Consent Form
The consent form that participant were asked to fill in and sign.
UWIC CONSENT FORM
UREC Reference No:
Title of Project: A case study into health and safety management of a Rhondda
Cynon Taff leisure centre
Name of Researcher:
Hazel McAndrew
Participant to complete this section:
Please initial each box.
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet
for this evaluation study. I have had the opportunity to
consider the information, ask questions and have had these
answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that the participation of my club is voluntary and
that it is possible to stop taking part at any time, without giving a
reason.
3. I also understand that if this happens, our relationships with the
The above project, with UWIC, or our legal
rights, will not be affected.
86
4. I understand that information from the study may be used for
reporting purposes, but that I will not be identified.
5. I agree for myself to take part in this evaluation of the
above project.
_________________________________________________________
_______
Name
____________________________________________
___________________
Signature
Date
________________________________________________
___________________
Position in LLC
Date
87
APPENDIX P
Example of Physical Reactions Recorded
INTERVIEW 2: Full time member of staff
25 January 2012
Interviewer
21 minutes 34 seconds
Interviewee
Physical reactions
Key
Theme and code colour
Code number
Employees involvement in
1
procedures
Employees competency
2
Safety culture
3
Risk Control
4
Knowledge of legislation,
5
regulations and policies
Use of regulations
6
Areas of good practice
7
Areas for improvement
8
Perfect. what would be erm,, can you give me an example of a normal operating
procedure within the facility, or within your role? (Participant mimes I don’t know?
And shrugs shoulders). Erm, with regards to health and safety you would come into
work and what would be the kind of first things that you would do to ensure that the
facility is safe?
88
APPENDIX Q
Example of Transcript
25 January 2012
Interviewer
21 minutes 34 seconds
Interviewee
Physical reactions
Key
Theme and code colour
Code number
Employees involvement in
1
procedures
Employees competency
2
Safety culture
3
Risk Control
4
Knowledge of legislation,
5
regulations and policies
Use of regulations
6
Areas of good practice
7
Areas for improvement
8
Interview number two on the 25th of January 2012 Mary-Ann sauna attendant. Erm
I’m just going you talk to you erm, about the health and safety procedures within the
leisure centre, am I alright to continue?
Yes that’s fine.
Erm, first question who is responsible for health and safety within the leisure centre?
Our assistant manager.
He your assistant manager. Erm. Within the erm, policy that they have got erm it
says that erm ‘all employees have a erm, duty of care and to health and safety’
would you agree with this?
Yes.
89
You would?
Was it all employees, sorry?
Yes all employees.
Yerh.
What are your responsibilities to health and safety within the facility?
Obviously to check my own area, and I have to do pool testes and things which is
health and safety because I’ve got to do things like check the chemical levels are
right in the Jacuzzi and everything.
What chemicals erm, do you come into contact with?
I use bromine and pH.
Erm, so erm, that would come under COSHH. Erm, have you had and training under
COSHH? Do you know what COSHH is?
Yerh. I’ve got a folder out the back that has got all the chemicals I use, cleaning
products or cleaning products that I use in the Jacuzzi and stuff. We got a folder to
put it all in.
And erm, is that useful?
It is if we get a new one. Because with obviously with some of the cleaning products
because am near the shower, which is near the Jacuzzi I’ve got to make sure that it
is not going to contaminate the water if it goes in.
And with a new product how would you know how to use it, what instructions would
you have? Is there and procedures in place?
We are either shown, depending on what it is or we are either shown or we have to
read the list and read it. You know the COSSH sheets.
Erm, yerh. Have you ever been injured through chemicals or had and erm, kind of
burns?
No.
90
Nothing at all?
No.
Perfect. Erm do you feel that you are given the time to deal with the responsibilities
you’ve got, for example you’ve talked about erm the chemicals do you feel you have
the time scale within your shift to do so?
I am yerh, because I work a twelve hour shift. (yerh.) So yerh I have time to do mine
properly.
Erm is there support there who supports you on your health and safety
responsibilities?
The assistant mangers the head attendants are really good because we have got
head attendants that have worked here for twenty years. Same as myself, I’ve
worked here for twenty years. So after twenty years you kind of know what you’re
doing and know who to go to.
91
APPENDIX R
Seven Stages of Enquiry
Seven stages of an interview enqiury’it is a linuer progression that can be used from
‘Thematizing’ to Reporting
Kvale’S (2009) Seven stages of an interview inquiry.
1. Thermatizing. Formulate the purpose of an investigation and the conception of
the theme to be investigated before the interviews start. The why and what of
the investigation should before the question oh how- method- is posed.
2. Designing. Plan the design of the stud, taking into consideration all seven
stages of investigation, before interviewing. Designing the stages is
undertaken with regard to obtaining the intended knowledge and taking into
account the moral implications of the study.
3. Interviewing. Conduct the interview based on an interview guide and with a
reflective approach to the knowledge sought and the interpersonal relation of
the interview status.
4. Transcribing. Prepare the interview material for analysis, which generally
includes a transcription from oral speech to written text.
5. Analyzing. Decide, on the basis of the purpose and topic of the investigation,
and of the nature of the interviews material, which modes of analysis are
appropriate for the interviews.
6. Verifying. Ascertain the validity, reliability and generalizability of the interview
findings. Reliable refers to how consistent the results are, and validity means
whether the study investigates what is intended to be investigated.
7. Reporting. Communicate the findings of the study and the methods applied in
a form that lives up to scientific criteria, takes the ethical aspects of the
investigation into consideration and that results in a readable product.
(Kvale ,2009, pp35-36)
92
APPENDIX S
Personnel Structure at Llantrisant Leisure Centre
Figure S- Shows the personnel structure of responsibility at Llantrisant Leisure
Centre
Recreation
Manager
Recreational
Administration
Zenith Fitness suite
Level 3
Officer
Manager
Recreation Level 2
Zenith Fitness
(Head Attendant)
Suite Attendant
Recreation Level 1
(Lifeguard
Attendant)
Recreation 1
(Sauna Attendant)
Receptionist
Administration
Assistant
Domestic Attendant
Bar Attendant
Sports Coaches
Casual Staff
(Adapted from: RCT, 2010).
93
APPENIX T
Five Steps to Training
Figure T- Shows the Five Steps to training.
STEP 1 Decide what training your organisation needs

Identify the skills and knowledge needed for people to do their job in a safe
and healthy way. Compare these against people’s current skills and
knowledge and identify the gaps.

Review your experience of injuries, near misses or cases of ill health.

Look at your risk assessments to see where information and/or training have
been identified as factors in controlling risks.

Consult employees or their representatives for their views

Consider awareness training needs for directors, managers and supervisors,
including:
 how you manage health and safety;
 who is responsible for what;
 the cost to the business if things go wrong;
 how to identify hazards and evaluate risks; and
 the hazards encountered and measures for controlling them
STEP 2 Decide your training priorities

Does the law require you to carry out specific training (eg first-aid training)?
See ‘The Law’ for more details.

Top priorities would include those where lack of information and/or training
might result in serious harm, and those which benefit the largest numbers of
staff.

Consult employees or their representatives for their views.

Training for new recruits and for people changing jobs or taking on new
responsibilities should always be a priority.
STEP 3 Choose your training methods and resources
Don’t forget that though there are many external trainers who can help you,
94
much effective training can be done ‘in house’.

Choose your methods, for example:
 giving information or instruction;
 coaching or on-the-job training;
 training in the ‘classroom’;
 open and distance learning;
 in groups or individually; and
 computer-based or interactive learning.

Consider who can help you, by providing information, materials, training
courses etc. You could try for example:
 Sector Skills Councils (www.sscalliance.org.uk);
 UK Commission for Employment and Skills
(UKCES)(www.ukces.org.uk);
 trade unions or trade associations;
 further education colleges;
 private training organisations;
 independent health and safety consultants;
 employer bodies (eg Chambers of Commerce); and
 qualification-awarding bodies. To find a course leading to an accredited
health and safety qualification look at the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority website www.qca.org.uk/qualifications.
STEP 4 Deliver the training

Ensure the information is easy to understand and try to use a variety of
training methods to deliver your message.

Ensure the trainer has enough time to prepare themselves, their resources
and the venue – preparation is particularly important for people who are not
experienced trainers
STEP 5 Check that the training has worked

Do your employees understand what you require of them?

Do they now have the knowledge and skills needed to work safely and without
risk to health?

Are they actually working as they have been trained?

Has there been any improvement in your organisation’s health and safety
95
performance?

What feedback are you getting from line managers and the people who have
been trained?

Is further information and/or training needed?

Was the most suitable training method used?

What improvements can be made?

Has there been a change in behaviour and practice?

It is important to keep records of training, even in-house training.

You should monitor training records so that refresher training can be given
when needed
(HSE, 2011c, pp. 3-4).
96