Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 29 January 2001 10:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel I have been approached by the site director at a unionised site (about 60%) as to whether he could have non-union safety reps ("reps" of employee safety)on the safety committee. Apart from possible union objections I can see nothing actually wrong with this, and it would allow the site to "consult" with the whole of the workforce. As anybody got any experience of similar situations, or advice as to the way forward. Thanks in advance.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 29 January 2001 10:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ian Minty I came across a similar situation in a paper mill that I worked. At that time I was not in the union and the FOC blocked my entry to the safety committee. I explained to him that I did not have to be in the union but that the union had to approve it. He said that the union "could not set that precedent and that if there were non-union people on the committee they might become additional mouthpieces for management, and they already have their representation there." Personally I can see your problem and I agree that the other employees require representation, but the union argument was that they represent all employees whether they are members or not. The only way that I found round it in the end was to join the union and then at least you have their backing if you encounter any problems as a rep.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 29 January 2001 12:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lance Morgan I think the Health and safety(Consultation with employees) Regulations 1996 covers this group of staff. SI 1996 No.1513 requires employers to consult, either directly or through elected representatives, with those employees who are outside the statutory arrangements for recognised trade union appointed representatives.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 29 January 2001 12:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Matthews We have around 50% union membership here, and we have 4 union and 4 non union staff on our committee. This does not cause us any problems as any H&S committee vacancies are advertised across the site and we keep to the 50/50 rule (our rule that is) Cheers Bob
Admin  
#5 Posted : 29 January 2001 13:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bryn Maidment Lance is correct re the legislation in that it requires organisations to consult with all employees. Union reps are straight forward. Union appointed and trained they represent the appointing Union's members only. Employee reps may simply be appointed by non uion employees to represent them e.g. on safety committees. However the issue of their training is a relevant one thrown up by Union reps. In order to be effective they need to understand what safety is generally about and have some key qualities (common sense, articulate and interest). I continue to offer local training sessions for such appointees and have had such appointments onto the Safety Committee with success. The Unions don't really have much choice in the matter and probably feel that their power is being eroded further by interlopers.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 29 January 2001 14:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nigel Thank you for your responses. I am aware of the relevant legisation that is being quoted. To me the interesting issues are those concerning the union and whether they could actually object to non-union staff (who would receive the same training as the "reps of employee safety" at our other sites, which are all non-union) being part of the committee, and if they did what we as a company could do to avoid either 2 committees or more importantly confrontation.Ideally we would like to give both sets of "reps" the same recognition. It appears there is contradictory "case law".
Admin  
#7 Posted : 29 January 2001 15:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Mark Preston My reading of the Health and Safety at Work Act is that safety representatives appointed by trade unions represent all employees in the workplace they're appointed to represent - not just the members of the union that appointed them. This is the HSE's guidance... "How should consultation take place? "The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations (SRSCR) 1977 "If an employer recognises a trade union and that trade union has appointed, or is about to appoint, safety representatives under the SRSCR 1977, then the employer must consult those safety representatives on matters affecting the group or groups of employees they represent. Members of these groups of employees may include people who are not members of that trade union. "The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations (HSCER) 1996 "Any employees not in groups covered by trade union safety representatives must be consulted by their employers under the HSCER 1996. The employer can choose to consult them directly or through elected representatives." While it might be desirable to seek to appoint reps of employee safety in areas where there is no safety representation, you might have a recipe for conflict where there are effectively two reps - representing the same employees - but with different accountabilities - beware.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 30 January 2001 09:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Bennett Nigel et al, "Consulting employees on health and safety a guide to the law" states that if a recognised trade union agrees to represent employees who are not trade union members then consultation must be according to the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977(SRSC). Personally as a trade union appointed Health and Safety Representative I have no problem with representing people who are not members of a trade union. At the end of the day if someone has a Health and Safety problem then it will affect my members also, so its in my best interests to take action. Interesting point in regards to Brians position; in White versus Pressed Steel Fisher Ltd (1980) The union wanted the safety representative to attend its own training course; the employers wanted to provide an in house course and refused time off with pay. It was held that the employers were not acting unreasonably. Kind Regards Lee.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.