Posted By Lee Mac Jesu Under our company policy anyone flouting the rules on-site whether an employee/ consultant, gets a yellow card which is recorded. A copy is sent to their MD and the details behind it explained. This approach iss however highligted during our induction process. We would also highlight in the letter to MD a further breach will result in redcard, with the offender sent off-site and depending on the severity may result in termination of contract. Although it has to be said the termination of contract would normally be with regards to more high risk situations, e.g. found tampering with scaffolding or leaving their works area in an unsafe manner e.g. scaffolder not prohibiting access to an area which is only partially completed. Jesu the decision is entirely up to you but I have found our Dept has had great success with this approach. In the current economic downturn no persons/companies wish to loose business and great efforts are made to comply with clients/employers/ Principal Contractors. Good Luck with whatever decision you adopt. Lee

Posted By Lee Mac It appeared from your initial post he was the engineer unless I may have it read it wrong. If he has nothing to do with your site therefore you don't need him- then you have a wealth of choices- if you are encountering similar problems with your own staff/subcons this is an ideal opportunity to show you mean business. But I would still follow up in writing to the engineer and the engineer's co. highlighting the issues and their responsibility to ensure their visitors abide by rules regarding your site. Lee

Posted By Sharastani I wouldn't make a big deal of it unless there was a serious risk of a fire/explosion. If it was just a sneaky fag behind the cabin there is no problem. A verbal warning given at the time should suffice.Any other action may give our profession a bad name:).

Posted By Andy Brazier I am aware of a case where a contractor was caught smoking on a UK site of a multi-national oil company. This person had been working at head office where smoking was allowed outside of the building. They were then moved to a manufacturing site, assumed the same rules applied whereas smoking was only allowed in certain designated spaces. The company saw fit to remove the contractor from site and ban them from returning, and to give their host a verbal warning. I challenged this saying sounded like the wrong person was punished, as surely the contractor could not be expected to know the rules if the host had not communicated them. The reply I got was 'we don't want people on our sites who think they can smoke where the like.' I still think this was the wrong response.

Posted By Jay Joshi A judgement has to be made whether violation of the "site rules" was intentional or not, specifically in the context of the effectiveness of your induction and signage, I repeat, "effectiveness" of your induction and signage.