5 Mar 2019
On the face of it you might think that there is strong compulsion to undertake health and safety training. Several regulations require a certain level of training, qualifications and/or competence to undertake tasks: Radiation protection, gas fitting, mining, diving, driving a car. Health and safety training is of course a legal requirement under section 2(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, Regulation 13 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.
The most common offence is “failure to discharge a duty
under Section 2(1)”. With reference to all the prosecutions last year under the
Health and Safety at Work Act, more than one third cited a breach of Section 2
(1). None specifically referred to 2(2)(c). It seems that the failure of employers
to comply with their duties are subsumed by the generality of the Act. No example is currently being made of
employers who fail to train their employees.
Last year the Management Regulations were cited 18 times but
none of them were for a breach of Regulation 13. It’s been used in a
prosecution three time since 1999. It would seem from this evidence that there is no substantial punishment for
failing to train.
And yet a third of judicial decisions explicitly mention that
the employer failed to ensure proper
training.
More likely, the HSE would use an enforcement notice to deal
with inadequate training. Improvement notices such as the one served against
Amey in July this year[1]
use standard language emphasising that employees must have “adequate
information, training and instructions”.
Employers that are prosecuted
are typically failing to provide training or the training is inadequate. Adequate
is defined as “satisfactory or acceptable
in quality or quantity”. Employers therefore need to provide a sufficient
amount of relevant training which enable learners to achieve the desired
outcome e.g. recognise hazards and understand how to deal with them. Quality,
in training terms, means assured or verified training that is consistent, comprehensive
and can evidence that learning and understanding has taken place. It must also
factor in that managers and employees will need refresher training as it is
well known that knowledge can deteriorate over time.
“Adequate” training is periodical, undertaken in work hours
and can be on the job. For example, an experienced operative instructing a less
experienced colleague and passing on skills can be a powerful means of ensuring
safety in the workplace. HSE guidance accepts that adequate training can be “delivered
in-house using the manufacturer's instructions and the background knowledge /
skills of more experienced workers and managers”. In a literature review OSHA
identified the training intervention work that offered the most positive
evidence … targeted site-specific
problems[2].
Recording that these events and interventions are occurring can be a
problematical compliance issue.
The judgement in the case of Allison v LUL is instructive.
“The test for the adequacy of training for the purposes of health and safety
is: what training was needed in the light of what the employer ought to have
known about the risks arising from the activities of his business. …What the
employer ought to have known will be what he would have known if he had carried
out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment”. It could be argued that if a
control from a risk assessment is to train then failing to do so renders the
risk assessment unsuitable and insufficient and is therefore a breach of duty.
The hazards, injuries and health risks common to certain
activities should be anticipated by the employer. Training is there to enable
employees to understand risks and the methods and techniques to avoid them.
This implies a level of knowledge about work activities that some employers and
senior managers might not have themselves and they need to reflect on their own
competence and training needs.
It’s fair to say that training is one of the most obvious
and useful control measures you can have. It can address “unsafe acts” as well
as “unsafe conditions” and influence positive behaviours and organisational
cultures. Good quality training should empower employees to use more initiative
and get more involved in the business of mitigating risk and understand when to
stop which is a function of competence. Also, a risk assessment might not
reasonably be considered suitable and
sufficient if it recommended changes but did not recognise the need to
train employees accordingly. In reality, the outcome of a risk assessment must
include increased competency for ALL those involved in it. The requirement for
a competent person requires people who will increase the knowledge of business risk,
which, in turns increases internal competence, develops positive behaviour which
in turn reduces risk and improves efficiency.
We can see competency as the next level up in a taxonomy of
training after “adequacy”. A good example of this is in the Work at Height
Regulations which requires, amongst other things, that people who are being
trained to work at height are supervised by someone competent.
The clear
indication here is that competency ought to increase with seniority. How many
managers are more qualified to do the job than the people they manage? Tapping
into this depth of understanding from workers is a management competence and
underpins the need to consult and involve stakeholders to ensure that training
is suitable, sufficient and adequate. The HSE guidance on training goes on to say: “People should
be competent for the work they undertake. Training – along with knowledge,
experience and skill – helps develop such competence. It also includes “medical
fitness and physical / mental aptitude for the activity”. A competent person, in law[3] is: “a practicable and reasonable [person]
who knows what to look for and how to recognise it when they see it” (and what
to do with the knowledge they obtain).
The person is regarded as competent if they have ‘sufficient
training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to properly assist the
employer to meet his safety obligations’. Competence is therefore a judgement
and the responsibility falls to employers to set the criteria required.
Hence for ‘simple situations’ the guidance notes describe
that competence may require only:
‘a) An understanding of relevant current best practice;
b) Awareness of the limitations of one’s own experience and
knowledge; and
c) The willingness and ability to supplement existing
experience and knowledge.’
This is also an important development for the
advent of ISO 45001 and what we might term “Next Generation Health and Safety”.
The guidance BS 45002 suggests: The
organisation should evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken to increase
competence. For example, the organisation can ask workers who have received
training whether they consider themselves to have achieved the
necessary competence
to do their work or assess the worker’s competence through role play, peer
review or supervision[1].
International Network of Safety & Health Practitioner
Organisations
(INSHPO)[2] argue[3],
that Capability is the next level Beyond
Competence. It’s an often-ignored requirement and INSHPO make their case
strongly:
“Competence” has been defined as the ability
to transfer and apply knowledge and skills to new situations and environments,
consistently applying knowledge and skills to a standard of performance
required in the workplace.
By comparison they say, capability is applied theoretical knowledge that underpins practice in occupations
and professions and also the industry-specific knowledge and skills that
transcend particular workplaces and the tacit knowledge of the workplace.
Competency is about delivering the present based on the
past, while capability is about imagining and being able to realise the future.
Capable people make “effective use of knowledge and skills in complex and
changing circumstances, including those that may not have been previously
experienced”. This is about upskilling people. Capable people are role models
for other employees. They can be an employer’s in-house training and
development function or an external resource that supplements the organisations
learning objectives. So how do we reach the stage called “Capability?”.
Essentially, we need to carry out an assessment of training needs that reflects
the risk profile of the organisation.
INSHPO asserts:
Capable people have knowledge, skills, self-esteem
and values that make them confident in their ability as individuals and in
association with others in a diverse and changing society to:
·
take
effective and appropriate action
·
explain
what they are about
·
live and
work effectively with others and
·
continue
to learn from their experience.
In conclusion, progressing your workforce to “organisational
capability” demands engaging employees in the assessment of needs process,
rather than deciding for them what you think they need. Based on the risk
profile, and potential emergencies, you should consult with them about their
comfort level.
Full article is available on the URL below:-
https://www.hsmsearch.com/page_1014830.asp
Create a business listing on the SHP directory
Download our media pack, and find out how we can meet your needs with a range of pricing options.