Mike-C:
shep532:
I just do H&S on the side 
It shows !! 
You’ll know (or should) full well that as well as implementing these regimes, training and practices that employers have actually to check adherence of their own procedures and make sure they are implemented. Just giving a leaflet out is not enough. Something which, in the case of a guy going to work with training shoes on using a pump truck appears to be obviously lacking. Thats seems to me on the face of it why they paid out and not because it cost to much !!
You don’t really wanna bore the boys to much with the risk assesments and method statements their employers should do for them but never do , they wouldn’t believe it. But its all there…
and now we digress completely. Checking adherence to procedures is an almost impossible task for mobile workers (drivers). Warehouse lads - you’ll never see one of ‘mine’ working in trainers, using a dodgy piece of kit etc because the manager/supervisor is there amongst them and knows what is expected.
Within the yard we even have a stupid written procedure whereby the application of trailer and tractor park brakes is checked and both driver and checker sign to say they have checked etc etc. That is a continual management check that procedures are adhered to. The manager then checks at random and makes sure the checks are checked … but who then checks him? The MD? The adherence to procedures has to stop somewhere and for lesser risk activities this can be left with the operator of the equipment and his own duty of care to himself.
Mobile workers - there he is walking round the yard in his (supplied) boots. next layby on go the flip flops/high heels/whatever he likes. Most delivery/collection sites have their own rules and procedures so it would be hoped he would be identified as wearing trainers … but no he wasn’t. How anyone could even contemplate blaming the company in that situation I don’t know. H&S bods were completely happy that the company had done all that was reasonably practical and the employee hadn’t. Off went the inspectors. it was only some no win no fee solicitor somewhere thought the company failed because we didn’t put the little chaps boots on for him and remind him the pump truck might hurt. Insurers (Aviva) paid out without the companies consent - that won’t happen again.
You are right that somewhere ‘it is all there’ and risk assessments, method statements and ■■■■■■■■ after ■■■■■■■■ exists but … most companies would have an overall site risk assessment to identify a safety action plan listing all the areas that need to be addressed and in order of importance. The big and nasty stuff will be at the top and the less important at the bottom. The overall risk score decides where something lives in the list.
Seperating pedestrians from moving vehicles is higher up the list of priorities and investment. Reducing the risk to the fitter climbing the mobile scaffold tower to repair a leaking trailer roof - now that’s on the list of “lets invest in fall arrest equipment and some training”. A fitter changing the grinding wheel on a grinder in the workshop - “he’s OK, he’s been on the appropriate course and knows what he’s doing. he’s logged it all, checked and signed and his supervisor checked his work”
Stopping Billy slipping off the catwalk in the rain? Bit lower down the risk ladder - surely his common sense will look after him - apparently not. We’d better invest in some fall arrest equipment for all drivers getting on the catwalk - some air bags to catch him - make sure he cleans the steps off before using them … some on - where’s it all gonna stop?
believe it or not - we deliver induction training that includes how not to slip on the catwalk or steps! Silly isn’t it?
A company can really only do what it’s resources allow it to do. Could the company have reasonably been expected to ensure a worker 250 miles away had his boots on? No. (or do we employ a supervisor to accompany him on his journies?). In their own yard maybe, but the worker went against written policy and his training. he also has a duty of care to himself.
Mostly - this is not about the authorities - it is about insurance companies and ‘no win no fee’ accident solicitors. A high percentage of PI claims are paid out because it is far cheaper. I have dealt with a few claims where I have simply said “No way are you paying out - lets see them in court” the other side then backed down once they saw we had training records, written instructions, signed documents etc but the insurers weren’t happy taking this approach.
We could argue all day long. I know my take on things is sufficient and just about covers what is reasonable and practicable. The important major risks are nailed down, the lesser risks kind of dealt with until we have time to maybe do it better - but of course the big risks and other aspects of running the business, as well as the finances available means we never get everything done.
lets get back to DCPC and your original point regarding PUWER etc and a driver being sacked for no DCPC. Tribunals are changing. Going from 3 people at the top table to 1. Making the claimant pay some money and there will be further changes I am sure. I would be confident at the companies I am involved with that we have sufficient policies, records and activities in place to show that training has taken place, the employer has fulfilled their duty of care - but none of it ended in DCPC. The employee however was given 5 years notice to obtain this legal requirement and failed.
Until the first tribunal/court case I believe I will be fine dismissing non DCPC holders (Having followed our process, served appropriate notice etc) However - after the first tribunal I may ■■■■ my pants and change my mind
If i was a driver for my living (again) I would have me DQC by now (which I have) and get on with my job. £50 to £75 a year cost to retain the job I might love so much - small price to pay.
