Posted By Merv Newman A breach-of-regs is one thing, a life-threatening siuation is something else. A consultant has no power or authority to instruct someone not under their direct orders. The consultant is engaged to ADVISE MANAGEMENT. Which your consultant has, in my humble opinion, correctly done. If the consultant, at the time of the observation, had been accompanied by a representant of management (even a 1st line supervisor) then a few immediate words of advice, followed by a later report to higher management, would have been suitable. The above does not preclude the consultant from screaming "DUCK !" on suitable occasions. Merv

Posted By Merv Newman Depends on the urgency of the "duck !" call. however, as responsible citizens we have a "duty of care" to our fellow man. Yould pull a child our of the way of a bus, wouldn't you ? IF the situation was judged to be "immediately life threatening", and it is a judgement call, then you will accept the responsibility and any subsequent personal/client/legal problems. But unless you have an hierachichal relationship with the person in question you have no legal power of command. Only of advice. Moral responsibilities are something else. In the past I have explained and discussed such situations with the people concerned and advised them to wait until we got management input. But I know they have carried on as soon as my back was turned. Consultant's call. Oh, and thanks for the eyeballs. Merv

Posted By Jasonjg Excellent topic Andrew One I can imagine is a bit of a minefield in construction industries. Not so long ago, I recall a user of this forum nearly losing his Job for pointing out Asbestos on a scaffold or something along those lines. The poor sod got flak from all directions and all contractors even his own company because he went into office of subby and questioned the process. I would like to think that in a ideal world, we would be supported in such actions or all ahve the knack of persuasion however it isn’t that ideal or so simple. Personally I would like to think they would have approached and explained, then to report if they felt they were just going to continue the minute he turned his back. The word consultant in your description does however confuse me slightly, Is this man external and wanders alone whilst doing his inspections? What power was he given? What procedure did the company have established for such eventualities or was the main aim of his work, the glossy reports to be tabulated each month? The other part of your description which confuses me, is the individual and the way you ask the question, 1. All safety folks have a absolute responsibility to butt in on violations even if it means they could lose their Jobs (the safety saint syndrome)? 2. Safety Folk are fully supported but fail to act? Could you clarrify a bit more

Posted By Jasonjg I see your point now. Employed to police and supported = Yes they do and yes they probably should IMO. Quite right to ask the question.

Posted By Jasonjg Raymond Don't know if it is my comments you dislike but reading back I can see why some would be concerned from first glance. Of course safety folk should stop/highlight and take action etc. I have no problems in saying something if I dislike it and like you say, if not supported by management, then they are not good to work for in the first place. I also do not accept that one should walk bye. I do feel though that there are some not very well planned site inspection contracts that lead to these scenarios we all cringe at. Evident by some previous posts on here as well as some stories from folks in the building game, this is not always a simple case and there does seem to be some undersirable backlashes occuring to the safety officers when he/she does intervene even when they ae right. Just trying to expand the floor a bit with this one as I am sure some good points/tips and disasters will surface in this subject which will show some learning curves to us less experienced and younger mortals. I.e If your self employed, make sure both sides understand what should and will happen if dangerous activities are noticed before commencing work. Am I digging a hole here lol.

Posted By Steve B Andrew, I can understand the consultant to a point, but I work in a very similar area looking after a large construction project on the H&S front on behalf of the client. On a personal level if I saw a blatant disregard for safety and in my opinion could cause injury, I would ask the person to stop what he/she was doing for a moment and go and get the site management and point out the errors of their ways, and ensure that site management addressed the problem there and then. I have received some abuse at times but I have thick skin, lets face it you have too to be in this job. I believe someone said on this site some time ago, which I must admit I have adopted...... "I AM NOT IN THIS JOB TO MAKE FRIENDS, JUST SAFE ENEMIES. Regards Steve B

Posted By Merv Newman Andy, now I understand a bit better : you give your consultants full contractual power to police and manage. So the "just walk by" scenario is not an option. The consultant actually has, contractually, as much power and authority as you do. I have never been in that kind of situation so was responding from my experience and feelings as a consultant. (maybe your use of the word consultant is a bit misleading) I very often wander around factories on my own, sort of free-wheeling unstructured audit, just chatting and looking, reporting back to management at the end of the day. These are often the occasions where you identify an unsafe act, dangerous situation or breach of regs. A few friendly words will quite often correct the situation, as will a mention to 1st line supervision. If I still have a worry then the workshop manager or department head WILL listen to me. So I was replying to your query from my, sometimes peculiar I admit, point of view Merv

Posted By Andrew Cartridge Merv My use of the word consultant is as follows: "A professional who provides expert advice in a particular domain or area of expertise" (isn't Wikipedia wonderful) & in my case, external to the company. I do hope the eyeballs saw you through the day Andy

Posted By Bob Thompson CMIOSH There is a very strong precedented case by which the principal of client contractor responsibilities applies Octel V RGP 1995. The principal of this is that when organisations employ sub contractors or people to work on their behalf they are to all intents and purposes employees of the company. This being the case I would sugesst that section 37 of HASWA applies to anyone employed in a senior advisory role with knowlege that would predjudice the company were it not applied and thetre fore personally have no qualms about chellenging unsafe practices I would sooner sack folk than kill them. Bob

Posted By Merv Newman I think the problem here is : where do external consultants normally stand in the chain of command ? Nowhere. They report to and advise the company, usually represented by local supervision or management, or to one specific person at head office. Should I try issuing orders to an employee, contractor, supervisor or manager than they can quite legitimately tell me to get lost. I cannot enforce any such order without going through the chain of command. In the case Andy has put, the "consultant" DOES have written authority to give orders. So, as said, they CANNOT just walk by. For me, this would be an unusual situation. Even when I was site HSE and had the level of a department head it was deliberately set up so that I was outside of the line, with no actual authority. Mind you, salary of a department head wasn't bad Persuade and convince, Merv, persuade and convince. And if that don't work, go to your boss , HR manager, and admit that you have failed. Merv. Trust me, I'm a Consultant.

Posted By Salus After the consultant walked by and did not mention anything to the individual, the individual then has an accident, if you were that consultant what do you wish you had done. HASAWA sect. 7 (a)

Posted By Jasonjg Am I losing it or what (shaking his head in disbelief and confusion) Either I am dumber than I thought I was or in fact there is a serious reality check needed. (I am stressed and close to exams so it could be me) The notion that safety folk will/should just plainly walk on by whilst there is a danger and not give a damn is just non existent in my book except in the cases of the extreme few whom either by money motivations or lack or personal skills and judgment calling will do so for the easy life. However the contractual arrangements and the individuals ability to persuade, act, moral standings as well as perceptions are very much more complex than what some seem to be perceiving on here or I am living in on Jason's world in Jason's Universe. Now forgive me for my naivety but lets clear the air a little here before people jump down guns and think there is a pro-walk by attitude by some i.e. me because there is not. Scenario How many folks here think that the non wearing of a Hardhats on the external ground level of 10 floor construction build is in their opinion Just as much a obvious dangerous situation as any. I would hope that we all say a big yes on that one, Now how many people think that safety consultants are the ones whom upon entering the site are to be expected to correct this situation by personal intervention at any time they notice it, be it them enforcing site rule role or visiting site inspection? How many are actually allowed to do this? How many actually do this? Finally, how many people believe this is the real life and current situation out there in the real world? I can tell you now; there are two sides to this, which cannot be simply tackled by nice poems, case law and guilt trips. I would have expected a wider discussion on this one. Not all sites/employers will allow a direct authority for a consultant to intervene, I know, I have been on them as a general worker for a number of years. One consultant later stated he always asked for hardest most credible worker to walk round with him on sites which he knew that the companies had a unclear and ambiguous policy concerning what his capacity was as far as intervention was concerned. He found this the best way to 1. avoid the hassle as well as 2.leaveing influential people with a safety point of view for future reference. I actually admired his tactics in dealing with sites the way he did and if I remember correctly, he was usually respected from the men also. Not all Consultants/Employers seem to fully understand what is expected from either side. Credit given to the big sites that do and lay the rules down from day one. In Andrew's first posting, I had difficulty understanding the capacity the consultant was employed in hence my reservations. After his description I fully agree that it leaves a lot to be desired if in fact he is on site to ensure compliance etc. IMHO, it is all down to what capacity they are employed in and then those individuals’ capabilities in persuasion.

Posted By Andrew Cartridge In response to garyh: The consultant is not getting "all of the flak" as you put it. The point has been made several times, don't walk by, health & safety inspections on site are a snapshot in time. The consultant saw it, reported it, but did not raise it with the individual involved, fact. As for your comment "Isn't there something about the culture of that organisation / workplace which allows such an unsafe act?" I will not dignify it with a response. Andy

Posted By Ron Hunter I suggest a pragmatic and proportionate approach.Perhaps most importantly, ensure you are accompanied around the site during safety tours etc. This avoids the "oh yes you were"/"oh no I wasn't" pantomime scenario. "Attracting the attention" of a person hanging off the side of a ladder, or standing at the side of an unprotected excavation, might be what causes him to fall. "Attracting the attention" (a tap on the shoulder) of an operative using a (noisy) stihl saw may cause a 'nasty'loss of control. Similarly, stopping him (or her) to point out that they should be wearing safety goggles can provoke the response "Well you're standing beside me mate, and neither are you".