Posted By Sean Fraser John, The ACOP on Rider Operated Lift Trucks - L117 - quotes PUWER as stating that the employer ensure the persons receive "adequate training", including specific provision for taining of supervisors. It goes on to give comprehensive advice on the subject and I would strongly recommend you get a copy if you haven't already done so. It doesn't state you need training on "lighter" Fork-Lift Trucks (FLTs) before tackling bigger ones - your comment is quite valid as there are big differences in FLT design and use, but it all depends on what your fleet is composed of and the activities they have to carry out and this is where your risk assessments come in. General industry practice is to usually to provide independent forklift training, although larger operations may provide it in-house if this is justified. The FLT training certificates are not, to my knowledge, required to be HSE approved in the same way as First Aiders are - someone can correct me if that is my mistake. What it seems to come down to is that you, the employer, determine what standard is required before someone can use a FLT solo - then determine the nature and substance of the training and supervision necessary to achieve that standard. If you dictate that someone needs so many working hours of actual instruction, followed by so many hours of supervised operation before taking a test, then that is your prerogative. If you deem it necessary for "light" FLT use to precede "heavy" FLT use, then do so. Obviously, if your company only had the one FLT and it was 7.5t then you'd have problems, so that is why you won't find an instruction that tells you to do it. The justification is that time spent in training and practice is essential to safe operation - experience and perhaps competency tests (over and above any certificated refresher training) will reinforce this message.

Posted By Sean Fraser John, Without wanting to get embroiled in an internal matter at your organisation, I would say that your union representatives are correct in voicing their concerns and what they are really doing is asking for justification on the decision to relax what they may have viewed as a necessary safety obligation. If it were me, I would ask for any justification for their own position - do they have evidence that clearly shows that their suggested measures would promote worker safety? - and I would be prepared to be similarly challenged on my own position. There is always room to negotiate and seek mutually acceptable compromises, the basis of which is effective two-way communication. If neither party is completely clear on the foundation behind their position, might I suggest that both parties research the subject further before changing anything? There are a number of publications from HSE on the subject, as it is a significant contributor to workplace accidents. Factual-based decision making - a key quality principle! Hope that helps.

Posted By John Almond Cheers Steve, and others that have contributed........ Regards. John