WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales

References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Thomas, Studholme & Rogan -v- Arriva Trains Wales Ltd

Upper Limb Disorders in the workplace HSG60(rev) 2002
	Thomas, Studholme & Rogan -v- Arriva Trains Wales Ltd | Find Other Cases

In the County Court Judgment on the 30th November 2009, at paragraph 46, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

[The Expert Ergonomist instructed by the Claimants] refers to the HSE guide "Upper limb disorders in the Workplace" published in 2002 which, he says, states that working postures can increase the risk of an upper limb disorder injury when they are awkward and/or held for prolonged periods in a static or fixed position. An awkward posture is where a part of the body is used well beyond it neutral position. When awkward postures are adopted, additional muscular effort is needed to maintain body postures as muscles are less efficient at the extremes of the joint range. The resulting friction and compression of soft tissue structures can lead to injury.

Then, at paragraph 50, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

Further, from the HSE guidance, [the Expert Ergonomist instructed by the Claimants] says that where a task involves repeating the same fundamental movements every few seconds or using the wrists/hands/fingers intensively, for two hours consecutively, the task can be classified as repetitive. It his understanding that driving the trains required the use of the same fundamental movements every few seconds (using the brake accelerator and AWS reset control). The respite when the train is at a station amounts to inadequate rest.

At paragraphs 53 & 54, HH Judge Vosper QC states:

In the opinion of [the Expert Ergonomist instructed by the Claimants] it is possible to predict which jobs may give rise to upper limb disorders. The factors in any system of work are those set out in the HSE guide. A relevant factor in the present case is the inability to adjust the driver's seat to a comfortable position. A driver leaning forward to reach the controls is more likely to hold his wrist at an angle thereby increasing the risk of injury. Further the armrests provide no support.

If he had been asked to carry out an ergonomic assessment of the job of driving these trains he would have done so by applying the approach of a two stage risk filter set out in the HSE guide which he and [the Expert Engineer instructed by the Defendant] agree should have been known to the Defendant. Applying the first stage, he would have concluded that this was a case which required a full risk assessment because of the factors of repetition and working posture. He would then have gone on to watch drivers doing the job. If he had seen a driver driving in the manner demonstrated by [the driver shown in the Defendant's video], he would have had no concerns about upper limb disorders. The issue might then be whether that style is safe from a train operating perspective. If it is, the Defendant should promote it by instruction to other drivers. It should not simply be assumed that all drivers adopt the style of [the driver shown in the Defendant's video].

There is a further reference to HSE guidance, at paragraph 68 of the Judgment in which HH Judge Vosper QC says:

In cross examination [the Expert Engineer instructed by the Defendant] agreed that the HSE defines awkward posture as when a joint is used "well beyond" its neutral position. However, "well beyond" is not itself defined. He agreed that it implies an extreme of movement but the lack of specificity in some parts of the HSE guide means that a pragmatic approach is essential. There is no accepted method of measuring the extent to which a joint moves from the neutral. It is not a matter simply of impression but of skilled observation.

At paragraph 70 of the Judgment, HH Judge Vosper QC says:

The HSE guide specifies that work be assessed by reference to a daily period of two hours but according to [the Expert Ergonomist instructed by the Claimants] that period should not be taken literally. He agreed that by reference to the OTMR data, it was possible to demonstrate that there are periods when the power lever is not being operated at all. The same can be said for the brake which is fully off for parts of the journey. There will be no movement of the hand when the brake is not being operated. However a pragmatic approach is required. There may be breaks during any two hour period when activities other than the repetitive acts are carried out. Whether or not those breaks amount to rest periods will depend upon whether the same muscles are being used.

At paragraph 81 of the Judgment, HH Judge Vosper QC says:

The HSE guide at paragraph 47 recommends two approaches to identifying problems in the workplace; firstly to look for signs of problems or symptoms amongst the workforce and secondly to observe the work tasks to see if risk factors for upper limb disorders (ULDs) are present by following the risk filter. The risk filter relates to repeating the same movement every few seconds. [The Expert Engineer instructed by the Defendant] would interpret that to mean less than 10 seconds. There are clearly times when levers are operated repeatedly within a few seconds but that is not repeated over the whole journey. It is not continuous over an entire 2 hour period.

V1.01

Last updated: 14/05/2013