Posted By Geoff Parkinson My employer uses contractors to deal with our M&E issues. Recently, one of their employees had an accident that led to a RIDDOR report being submitted and a visit (or two) from the local authority inspector. As the H,S & E Manager for the company, I got involved in the usual investigations etc, but was amazed by the actions of the H&S 'specialist' from the M&E company. It appears, that their risk assessments were not as good as they claimed, and soon after the inspection, submitted a 'post-accident risk assessment' to me. The risk assessment made a significant claim about asbestos in the building. First, it claimed that only certain places had been labelled and a full register was not present. Second, it claimed that the labelled areas were checked on a six-monthly basis. Now, my problem was that I was unaware of any asbestos in the building and no one knew of any atreas being labelled. (we were actually in the process of having the building surveyed). I raised the question with the M&E contractor, asking where this signage was located and who was checking it. To cut a long story short, it appears the whole incident was a fabrication - there is NO labelling and NO checks every six months. I then asked the question of the 'expert' (who happens to be a CMIOSH person) who, after a lot of pushing (I refused to be fobbed off) finally admitted that he'd fundamentally made it up!!! We have parted with the M&E contractor, but what I'd like to know is how can this individual be allowed to do such a thing? With CMIOSH a supposed 'top level' of experience etc, what action is open to us to prevent this happening again? Or does CMIOSH teflon-coat us to carry out blatantly bad H&S? Incidentally, the local authority are issuing notices on the M&E contractor. Thoughts please.

Posted By GJB Finally! Good post Geoff.. Which goes to prove to all those 'Gen. Cert. bashers' that just because you have CMIOSH after your name does not guarantee competency!! I could give you another half a dozen examples like this... but will spare you the trouble to read them! Are you listening out there?!

Posted By Tabs I agree with Kieran's comments. As you asked for thoughts, I would also add that the comment "It appears, that their risk assessments were not as good as they claimed" leads me to think you had not reviewed them. I would suggest to all H&S people that have vendors working with/for them that a review and audit is an useful part of the management. Competency cannot be guaranteed by academic qualifications, but it remains a good yardstick - despite the exceptions.

Posted By Peter Leese Geoff, a brave post. 'It appears, that their risk assessments were not as good as they claimed,....' Could you explain that bit please? Did you review them prior to the start of work?

Posted By GJB You have my permission, Peter!

Posted By Geoff Parkinson The comment about risk assessments not being satisfactory needs a bit of explanation, as it gets complicated. The person who had the accident had an artificial leg (lower)and the same CMIOSH man alegedly carried out risk assessments to ensure he could carry out all the tasks we required of him. This information only came to light after he had the accident. The company deliberately witheld the fact he was disabled from us. All the subsequent pushing for answers revealed that a number of their specific risk assessments for the individual in question were flawed - hence the comment about their assessments not being as good as they should have been. All their work activity assessments etc were ok (the ones we check)and, other than a few items we addressed in their H&S policy, that was OK too. The accident victim showed no signs of being disabled and no one from the contractors was forthcoming with the information. I don't know of ANY person who can honestly say they ask if any contractors are disabled or not! Indeed, the individual's own supervisor didn't know! My big concern after the asccident was to ensure the contractors had proplerly assessed the activities were safe for the individual. It was at this point they refused to part with the alledged assessments, claiming it was 'secret information'. It appears, from the Authority Inspector, that the assessments weren't done, but were hastily cobbled together to try and fill a void. The contractor is also in a spot of trouble for failing to communicate the fact a specific risk assessment had been done, even if it was to say there was no problem. The consultation process din't fail, it appears the completely ignored it. I hope this makes things a bit clearer. Incidentally, the accident involved the person tripping over a raised door threshold (raised as a bund/flood barrier and clearly marked etc) into his work area. The fall led to him banging his knee and being off for a week.

Posted By Geoff Parkinson One thing I need to make clear is the fact that the CMIOSH is an employee of the contractor - NOT a consultant etc. Designated, I believe as area or group head of H&S for them etc. This information has been very slow to come out due to the contractor constantly refusing to communicate with me or the local authority.

Posted By GJB Because that would cure the situation, wouldn't it?! No blame culture here is there?!!

Posted By Geoff Parkinson I will shortly receive a copy of the notices served on the contractors by the local authority inspector. I think the wording of that will be the best gauge of my next course of action. I do feel strongly about the way my employer has been treated, but also understand the potential consequences of 'knee-jerk' reactions. Having said that, the arrogance of the individuals involved have, quite honestly, been unbelievable. There is nothing (well, very little) worse than so called professionals being so laid-back they appear horizontal!

Posted By steve jones Geoff, Regarding your posting of the individual who had the accident "being disabled" in the event of a person who has lost a leg, i.e below the knee, you are only registered as disabled if you need help walking, shopping, bathing etc, but if you have lost a lower limb and DO NOT NEED any means of help to carry out your normal duties, IE walking stick , wheelchair etc in the eyes of the DWP YOU ARER NOT CONSIDERED DISABLED, and if your employers has carried out a risk assessment to say that you are competence for your job, or role they do not have to inform any potential employers. I know because i have had a below the knee amputation and do not need any help or equipment. Steve

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Geoff The situation as you've outlined in successive postings leave me wondering why you asked the questions you initially raised. As a person with a disability was involved, the DDA and possibly the Equality Act 2006 are relevant. Is it not as important to learn how about your own behaviour in relation to these statutory provisions as it is to criticise a safety practitioner with whom you disagree. The HSC has published a consultative document about how the HSE is intending to formally pursue the implications of the Equality Act 2006 and of the DDA. Maybe you, and others who commented so emotively, can learn from this document how issues about discrimination and safety management raise much more far-reaching questions than those you posed?

Posted By Hazel Harvey All, I am e-mailing Geoff directly regarding this specific issue. Thank you for your comments but this thread now seems to have run its course. If anyone needs to raise an issue like this again I suggest that the Membership forum is the most appropriate place as these type of professional competence issues are ones that should be discussed amongst members of the profession.The Membership Forum is there for this purpose. Hazel Harvey Director of Professional Affairs