Posted By Andy Dear all, I have recently extended the provision of safety reps to the smaller departments and the question of money has reared its head. What are the experiences and opinions of forum members regarding payment to non-unionised employee safety reps? Regards and thanks in advance Andy.

Posted By Ken Taylor How about holding the H&S Committee meetings outside working hours and paying them overtime and/or paying for them to attend H&S training?

Posted By Geoff Burt Just a thought that occurred. I've never heard of Safety Reps asking for payment before - could it alter their liabilities if they accept money for doing the job - whether if be by direct payment or indirect such as overtime? Geoff

Posted By Ian Mycroft As an ex-trade union safety rep I can say that that the only pay that I, and other TU reps in our organisation, recieved was that which is stated in the SRSC Regs i.e. time off with pay whilst attending training courses and carrying out associated duties. If safety reps are paid any more on top of this, I would have to question whether the right people are taking up the post and for the right reasons.

Posted By Tony Birchall It beats me John. We deliver training on Saturdays to sometimes reduce the effect on the day to day running of the business. Still, the employers offer to pay (even time and a half) and they are still not interested. It's hard work!! They don't see the advantages to them as people. I could write a book on it!!

Posted By Phil Humphrey The first question Andy , is what is the difference between a union rep and none-union? Both are voluntary positions, nobody twists the arm for the union member to take up the position. Grant that some reps have been known to have alternative reasons but in my experience they are few and far between. The introduction of payment for carrying out the role will I believe have adevrse affects with the reps relationship with other company employees, there must be trust in the reps role, could the term in the company pocket raise it's head if payment was made. If a person wishes to become a safety rep then they will do it for the correct and right reasons. You state that you have extended the provision of safety reps to the smaller departments, why did you not include these deparments from the on set? Maybe there is a reaction from the employees from these departments for not being involved in the first place? Think what the company can offer the reps in the way of formal training, not just in-house but training with a formal qualification, maybe NEBOSH General? This way they will know that the role of the rep is valued within the company. I am a trade union rep and proud of it, the company I work for have allowed all reps who wish to do the TUC cert the opportunity, they are also supporting my distance learning studies for the NEBOSH Dip II, training is our reward, NOT PAYEMENT.

Posted By Mark Dutton Andy I have 2 experiences of people wanting to be safety reps. One is for pay and the other is that they think they can avoid doing any work when attending meetings.In both cases these people are not want you want. We have shown that the best way of getting the right people is to go though a nomination and ballot process. We now have a committed committee making good progress. As a slight side issue one of the responses mentioned carrying out training at weekends (cost/time implications), which i believe is against the Management regs 13(3)(c)which states it shall be caried out in 'working hours'. Having spoken to our local inspector about the word 'shall' and the fact that the word 'shall' appears in the regulation means that you have no choice but to have training during normal hours. So why pay reps extra.

Posted By lawrence baldwin Andy I have both union and non union safety reps. Sometimes I think Employers can make a rod for their own back insofar as in my organisation we provide an additional allowance for first aiders, and an additional allowance for rapid response fire crews and some other additional specialist tasks outwith employees job descriptions can also attract additional payments. I therefore frequently get asked when will the position of safety rep attract an additional allowance as it requires additional duties outwith their job descriptions. I understand the purists view that one should not have to pay individuals to be safe, they should be doing that as part of their contract with the employer, however I am sympathetic to the arguement that an organisation will see fit to pay an allowance for certain additional responsibilities but not for others. Unfortunately my pragmatic answer at the moment is if and when the unions pay their safety reps then I will be in a position to champion their cause for non union reps to receive the same allowances from the employer. I sympathise with you, this job aint easy! Lawrence