All van drivers

• 
  If searched far enough there is a line within a tab for FAQs which then had to be opened thus burying the phrase “can be used for hands” – that does not mean that the Universal Wipes were designed for hand use on a frequent basis, they may do a job but as clearly stated by the product maker they are not designed for hand use. It is like knocking in a nail with a spanner, it can be done rather than going to the garage for a hammer; it can be done but that is not what the spanner was designed for.
  
• 
  We are sure that the Universal Wipes are a good product for what they were designed for but as stated by the manufacturer that was not as a hand wipe.
  
• 
  The use of them as a hand wipe should cease and a product is sourced, trialed and issued that is designed and fit for purpose. That may simply be the Antibacterial Hand Wipes from the same supplier.
  
• 
  Furthermore - who from CWU was involved in the aforementioned field trial? So we can contact them to discuss.
  
• 
  Personally, I am a Governor of Bridgewater NHS Community Health Trust and will question staff on the NHS use of the wipes as mentioned.
  

office 01744 733790 mobile 07761 098993

www.unionsafety.eu

Health & Safety Co-ordinator, Chair NW Safety Co-ord.

Merseyside & South West Lancs. Branch

Communication Workers Union

Good Afternoon Peter,

Many thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, our Universal Wipes are CE marked under the Medical Device Directive as class IIA medical devices, and as such can only be recommended for the cleaning and disinfection of other, non-invasive medical devices.

Whilst we do possess dermatological data that enables us to label the product with a ‘skin friendly’ claim, we cannot recommend the wipes for skin disinfection.

If I could turn you attention to our website at http://clinell.com/product/antibacterial-hand-wipes/#overview , we do have an antibacterial hand wipe that would perhaps be more suitable for your intended use.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Kind Regards,

Nat G Bates

Tel: 02079-930-030

Telecom Safety Jan/Feb 2017 cont.………

NW Co-ord met 15^th Feb and NW Engineering to meet 22^nd Feb.

Weeton ATE’s entrance had been moved into a bunded area of the building.

Heating (or lack of it) in buildings was becoming an issue; especially the replacement of expensive boilers. At times the temperature in Warrington CCC was only 11 C which is well below the legal minimum. Concern over ownership of buildings and leases coming to an end; refusal to “fix” and not long left etc. [taken to TSO in fist instance].

The latest Field Engineering News raised concern about the lack of reflective strips on UG guards; still waiting for clarification but appears in hand and they are added at issue.

Also from FEN strips of metal brackets that fit the Quante modules into PCP’s are quite sharp; waiting for response from BT owner Clive Owens to enquire about a protective strip.

There are issues with a lack of [and faulty] external lighting on some rural ATE’s.

The BBDC presentation was given the BT board on the 17^th Jan, two of CWL Branch USR’s delivered it.

Concern for people who were last to leave BT buildings late at night. JM to speak to the member about this issue, where was their duty of care? Site specific RA needed.

Openreach now taken ownership of the asbestos “pots” below the MDF’s; we have requested reconvening of BT Asbestos Forum [agreed and on agenda]; a random sample on HMIS of ten exchanges around the country showed that only was within inspection date.

Last summer the Control of EMF at Work Regulations came on line and with an ever aging CWU, and UK, workforce, health supportive devices like heart pacemakers are probably coming more in to the workplace – should we be concerned? Simply this is a medical device which uses electrical impulses, delivered by electrodes contracting the heart muscles, to regulate the beating of the heart [now a NW Forum prop to conference]. The regulations mean that any company where there is a possibility of working in/near electromagnetic fields and have workers who fall in to groups of specific risk require Risk Assessments. This includes employees who have “active and passive implanted medical devices” [the aforesaid pacemakers to most of us] but also pregnant employees. Other regulations [Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999] already require employers to RA the health and safety of both employees and non-employees to risks caused by work - this includes considering any risks arising from exposure to EMFs. The new regulations require a more targeted RA is required for those in the at-risk categories as current action levels may not provide suitable protection, a company now has to assess employees’ potential exposure to EMFs with reference to action levels (ALs) and exposure limit values (ELVs). Over exposure can have a range of dangers from simple nausea to irreversible physical tissue damage; however most of the EMF in the workplace is low and no action will be necessary. EMF is produced whenever electrical or electronic equipment, even your TV at home, your food mixer but in the workplace more likely to be computers and mobile phones. This can go to the higher end for broadcasting & TV antennas, radar & radio transmitters etc.

Other issues included; NW safety seminar; USR training including flat roof/vertical access; Civils workforce growing and effects on Stockport TEC;

The Feb. NW all LoB H & S meeting was cancelled as both Openreach and BTFS said travel restrictions meant they could not go to Blackburn TEC, the next one due to be 11^th.April in Manchester TEC; the next NW Safety Coord is 14 March.

15^th February 2017.