Posted By Philip McAleenan David, The control measure may stipulate the level of competence required to undertake the task. If additional training/instruction/guided work is require to bring an employee up to the stipulated level of competence, the employer must ensure that it is provided. The employer may choose to specify a particular route to competence and fund this, but it is the end result, namely the defined competence, that is important, and if there are alternative routes for the employer and employee to choose from, any may equally be chosen, based on cost, quality etc. On the other hand, membership of IOSH is exactly that, membership; not a competence. It would be inappropriate for a risk assessment to conclude that membership is a necessary requirement to control a work operation. Those who are competent to carry out the work can freely choose to be a member of IOSH, or not without their competence being in any way affected. In your scenario I would suggest that that R/A be re-examined and essential controls developed and implemented. Furthermore, if membership is desirable requirement for the post, the employer is free to choose to fund or not the CPD element. However, to make is a necessary requirement for the post may be considered a restrictive practice by any applicant competent for the post but who has freely chosen not to be a member of IOSH. Regards, Philip

Posted By Kieran J Duignan David This is a cultural and psychological issue rather than a legal one. Interesting how you frame your question in terms of 'HR' and proceed to ask 'could it not be construed that they have a contractual obligation to assist you in completing CPD, both financially and in terms of resources?' As a chartered fellow of the CIPD and chartered occupational psychologist, I start by observing that the job description is at fault in specifying that you must have any specific professional status; the function of a job description is simply to describe the essential and desired elements of a job. It is simply in the person specification that identifying CMIOSH, etc. may be relevant - though I would very strongly advocate that it is much more appropriate to identity the core competencies both strategic and operational(which may or may not have occurred in the case you indicate). Assuming that the HR folk are sufficiently analytical to specify the core competencies required in every role in your organisation, what you suggest may be construed - and equally, the opposite may be construed! It is a matter matter of business negotiation whether the obligation is legally contractual. It is a cultural matter, to do with company values, that the obligation is part of the 'psychological contract', i.e. a resonable expectation on your part. If you wish to get to grips with the logic and psychology behind the principles of governance involved in this distinction, you'll find excellent guidance in the publications of Chris Argyris, Professor of Organisational Psychology formerly at Harvard and, I believe, more recently at Yale, from 1964 onwards. The thrust of his work is that employers fare much better by cultvating learning,competence and justice than any other strategy; in 'Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Facilitating Organizational Learning', (Prentice Hall, 1990), he explains the systematic errors made by senior management that thwarts their organisations achieve the goals they profess to aim at. Not for the faint-hearted but a lucid, incisive analysis of why safety and many other legitimate goals are systematically under-funded and haven't the chance of the proverbial snowball in the Hot Place.

Posted By Jim Walker My employer pays for these courses under their committment to the three management systems (QA, H&S, Env)as they are considered to be "continual improvements". Further, during my last CPD cycle at least 50% of my points DID NOT involve attendeing courses or any other activity that involved money. ie if you have been exposed to a new experience that counts, personal (in depth) study counts.