In a recent law suit in the USA a young laboratory technician who claimed to have received a laser eye injury initiated a civil action against her employer. This unusual case underlines the importance of backing up written safety procedures with proper enforcement.

In the witness box the lab technician was completely frank about the circumstances leading up to the alleged accident. Her work included open-beam laser alignment and for this she had been provided with appropriate laser safety eyewear. Yes, the eyewear was readily available at the time of the alleged injury though she was not wearing it. Yes, she was aware that the safety procedures stated that eyewear was to be worn during laser beam alignment and that the approved method of alignment required at least one other trained employee in the lab; and yes, at the time of her alleged injury she was alone except for her boyfriend, who was not supposed to be in the lab and who may well have contributed to the accident by distracting her.

But, she went on to say, her colleagues knew he regularly visited her and it was common practice for lab technicians to carry out alignment on their own and not to use protective eyewear. At this point the company, a large multinational, decided to settle with her out of court.

So what lessons can we learn from this case?

Firstly, as the old adage goes "if you think safety is expensive, try accidents". Contested injury claims can cost a company dearly in lost time and legal fees even if it wins the case.

Secondly, you must back up safety rules and procedures with a policy of enforcement. The lab technician and her colleagues should have received a verbal warning the first time they were seen not using safety eyewear, with the threat of dismissal for any employee who repeatedly ignores verbal warnings.

Common management mistakes in this context include failing to set an example in obeying the safety rules and transferring responsibility for breaches of safety practice to a Safety Officer who hasn't been given the authority needed to enforce it.

Safety eyewear

The case of the lab technician also supports safety philosophy which ranks laser safety eyewear and other forms of personal protective equipment (PPE) lower in effectiveness than engineering and administrative controls. It is the last line of defence, but where it is required there are at least three factors to its successful implementation. First, at the time of purchase, eyewear must be selected for comfort and maximum luminous transmittance (i.e. try to avoid dark filters). Second, follow the PPE at Work Regulations (a legal requirement!) regarding the storage and maintenance of the eyewear: dirty, scratched eyewear is unlikely to be worn. Thirdly, get the 'human factors' right.

Human factors

Perception of risks, personal attitude to safety, peer group pressure, the nature of tasks to be undertaken and, most important, the safety culture in the workplace, are so-called human factors. The first conclusion of human factors research is that management must take the lead in safety matters, encouraging discussion as well as establishing safe systems of work.

Only from the top down can unsafe working practices be prevented from developing into the accepted way of doing things. The case of the laboratory technician clearly illustrates the shared responsibility of co-workers as well as supervisors and managers in establishing a safety culture in the workplace.

Pro Laser provides a complete laser safety service, including laser area design, documentation and in-house safety training, all tailored to your specific requirements