Manual Handling Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 ...

Health and Safety
Executive
Guidance
Where this general assessment indicates the possibility of risks to employees from
the manual handling of loads, the requirements of the Manual Handling Operations
Regulations should be complied with.
30 The Regulations set out a hierarchy of measures which should be followed to
reduce the risks from manual handling. These are set out in regulation 4(1) and are
as follows:
(a) avoid hazardous manual handling operations so far as is reasonably
practicable;
(b) assess any hazardous manual handling operations that cannot be avoided;
and
(c) reduce the risk of injury so far as is reasonably practicable.
Extent of the employer’s duties
31 The extent of the employer’s duty to avoid manual handling or to reduce
the risk of injury is determined by reference to what is ‘reasonably practicable’.
This duty can be satisfied if the employer can show that the cost of any further
preventive steps would be grossly disproportionate to the further benefit from their
introduction.
Application to the emergency services
32 The above approach is fully applicable to the work of the emergency services.
Ultimately, the cost of prohibiting all potentially hazardous manual handling
operations would be an inability to provide the general public with an adequate
rescue service. However, the interests of society and the endangered individual
tend to conflict with the interests of the manual handler and what is ‘reasonably
practicable’ may not be easy to ascertain. What is ‘reasonably practicable’ for a fire
authority, for example, would need to take into account the cost to society where
any further preventive steps would make its emergency functions extremely difficult
to perform. Recent case law suggests that an employee whose job may involve
lifting people (for example, ambulance personnel) may be asked to accept a greater
risk of injury than someone who is employed to move inanimate objects. When
considering what is ‘reasonably practicable’, additional potentially relevant factors
may be:
(a)
(b)
the seriousness of the need for the lifting operation; and
a public authority’s duties to the public and to the particular member of the
public who has called for the authority’s help.
33 Taking these factors into account, the level of risk which an employer may
ask an employee to accept may, in appropriate circumstances, be higher when
considering the health and safety of those in danger, although this does not mean
that employees can be exposed to unacceptable risk of injury.
Continuing nature of the duty
34 It is not sufficient simply to make changes and then hope that the problem
has been dealt with. The steps taken to avoid manual handling or reduce the risk
of injury should be monitored to check that they are having the desired result. If
they are not then alternatives will need to be found. Such steps should be in line
with current best practice and technology (especially in the health care sector) as
practices change.
4
35 Regulation 4(2) (see paragraph 176) requires the assessment made under
regulation 4(1) to be kept up to date.
Manual handling Page 12 of 90