Day 130 - 26 May 95 - Page 51


     
     1        you have to report by law -- you have used those statistics
     2        from those accidents to go to the board and draw
     3        conclusions, whereas you have, in fact, 50 or 100 times the
     4        information in RIDDOR accidents just waiting around in
     5        accident books in every store in McDonald's.  They could
     6        all photocopy tomorrow their accident book, send it to you,
     7        and you could have one person on it for three months, and
     8        you could produce a report saying:  "This is much more of
     9        the reality about what is happening in our stores than just
    10        the RIDDOR statistics"; is that not fair enough comment?
    11        A.  No, it is not fair at all.  That would not help us in
    12        preventing accidents.  All right, it will tell me the sort
    13        of information Mr. Rampton read out earlier in terms of 30
    14        per cent injures are burns, and 30 per cent are cuts, but
    15        it does not tell me how to prevent those accidents
    16        happening.
    17
    18        Really, we would never make a conclusion just based on
    19        accident statistics alone.  They are a very unreliable
    20        source.  They depend on luck, they depend on the reporting
    21        system, and they make up only one small part of how we
    22        would measure safety.  If you have taken the time to read
    23        the HSE Report, you will also see in there that Andy Foster
    24        talks about both proactive and reactive measurement; the
    25        proactive ones where you go out there looking for things a
    26        lot more accurate because there is not this communication
    27        break down that could occur.  It is a much better way of
    28        doing it.  That is why we only use accident statistics for
    29        part of our safety measurement.
    30
    31   Q.   You identified, as well as the filtering process, (which we
    32        are already discussed) the use of the compactor as a
    33        hazardous job, is that true?  It is a particularly
    34        hazardous job at McDonalds's?
    35        A.  It is not actually hazardous at all, if the guards are
    36        in place, and if the procedures are followed, and the
    37        procedures are posted next to the compactor, as well as
    38        people being trained in it, it is not hazardous at all.
    39
    40   Q.   But it is something that has caused you concern?  You
    41        actually mentioned it, along with the filtering, as a
    42        specific area of concern, "one of the higher risk areas in
    43        the restaurant", you called it?
    44        A.  For example, if the guard is missing, as has happened
    45        at Bury, we know what the consequences could be.  So, yes,
    46        it is important that people are trained.  But, in terms of
    47        high risk, it is not, because the hazards that are inherent
    48        there, trapping hazards, are very, very well controlled and
    49        guarded against.  But, yes, it is one of the things on our
    50        safety audit you will see we monitor it, to  see people 
    51        have been trained, and they are following procedures. 
    52 
    53   Q.   In that case, apart from the filtering process, what
    54        specific jobs would you describe as hazardous, and where
    55        special care must be taken?
    56        A.  On the safety audit that you received a copy of
    57        yesterday, it goes through, I think, 15 of those areas we
    58        have identified as being higher risk.  They are both based
    59        on risk assessment, which is a proactive way of looking at
    60        risk, and on accident statistics.  They are things like

Prev Next Index