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
