Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
firestar967  
#1 Posted : 02 July 2010 09:22:06(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

My company has introduced a new competency based training system, a good system in my opinion, but the way they are enforcing it is a bit of a concern. A written statement has been issued that each employee has to sign as understanding it and what the penalties will be if they do not meet the required standard. It states that it is the individual responsibility to remain competent and that if they do not meet the required standard they will be issued an action plan and have 28 days to resolve this. If they do not, a second one will be issued and on the third they will be referred to HR which may lead to dismissal. These are on ‘Safety Critical’ competencies. A couple of months ago this was issued out and I approached the HR manager with my concerns, that was that the company was putting the responsibility of correcting any problems on the individual only and that my management had no responsibility in this. This is a breach of the HSWA Sect 2(2)(c) which clearly states that the employer has such a duty. The instruction was withdrawn at that time and the issue was supposed to be reviewed. Unfortunately this has now been reissued still stating the same thing and I have refused to sign it. I intend writing to the Site Manager with my concerns but as normal I am expecting the usual back lash (first time wasn’t much fun). Any suggestions would be welcome.
Safety Smurf  
#2 Posted : 02 July 2010 10:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

How are the staff expected to maintain they're own compeptence? If these are 'Safety Critical' competencies and the staff are expected to maintain they're own competence, isn't there a risk of your employer falling fowl of section 9 as well?
Safety Smurf  
#3 Posted : 02 July 2010 10:58:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Firestar, I've just remembered from earlier posts what it is you do for a living. Is this actually a question of your staff managing they're own practice/drill so that they don't get rusty on infrequently used skills? In which case I can understand why your employer might put caveats on failing to do so as long as they give them the time and resources to do so.
Mick Noonan  
#4 Posted : 02 July 2010 11:30:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Are the employees unoinised by any chance?
firestar967  
#5 Posted : 02 July 2010 11:30:36(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Hi Safety Smurf That’s the problem, my profession is one that an individual cannot improve on as it requires the resources of the team. As an individual cannot arrange their own training, as you stated, without the support of the team and equipment. This is why I objected the first time and thought it had been resolved, sadly I was mistaken. The management has to provide the resources and should not blame the individual if these resources are not made available but in the instruction there is no mention of management support only a right to appeal at the end of the process. I admit the individual has to make the effort but some members have not got the self confidence to speak up as would be required. Unfortunately my managers would quite happily blame the failure on the individual!
safetyamateur  
#6 Posted : 02 July 2010 11:45:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
safetyamateur

Can't help but feel depressed by this. Sorry, Firestar, but I can't think of anything positive to say.
Safety Smurf  
#7 Posted : 02 July 2010 11:55:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hmm? Be interested to hear what the response would be if one of your staff said they were going off to practice they're BA drills on their own! ;-)
pete48  
#8 Posted : 02 July 2010 12:17:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Firestar, I can see nothing wrong in having a situation where an individual is responsible for ensuring that they attain and maintain a level of competence to do the job for which they are paid. That, in itself, does not mean that the employer has transferred all responsibility to the individual employee, it means that the employers arrangements require the co-operation of employees in this regard. Your post doesn't tell us what resources are available to employees or what the identified action plan might contain. If for example it says "attend xx session at xx on xx to achieve a pass on manual handling" and that is all part of the provision then where is the issue? Employee is responsible for ensuring that they attend and achieve. I have worked within just such a system for years, it enables me to manage my on-going competences. I have to get it right, make sure I stay up to date and not just rely upon my employer to manage it for me. The follow up action planning that you mention is also very common, it is the way that my employer ensures that they have maintained a competent trained workforce. If on the other hand you are actually saying that the employer is not providing any resource for employees to undertake the required learning then that is different. I find if difficult to imagine from this distance that the employer is saying this. It may be worthwhile just checking? P48
Safety Smurf  
#9 Posted : 02 July 2010 13:43:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Safety Smurf

Hi Pete, As I understand it the nature of Firestars work is a job that cannot be done by one individual and therefore how can one individual maintian their competence without the assistance of others and subsequently how can an individual be held to task if that assistance is not forthcoming. To use your own example; If you worked in a storeroom on your own and I asked you prove your competence in two man lifts. I agree with you in principle and have used such techniques myself (FLT operators who hadn't operated an FLT in 6 months had to redo the practical skills test) but in Firestars case the job role dictates otherwise.
firestar967  
#10 Posted : 02 July 2010 13:50:50(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

The training for the competence is not the issue it is the process of achieving this that is. An example, one of the team fails to meet the standard for operating the appliance properly this is a ‘safety critical’ performance objective. The person then must ensure that they obtain the necessary training to resolve this; the action plan only identifies the area of concern by putting in the word unsatisfactory next to the number of the performance objective, there is no written statement on how the individual is to achieve this. This is only recording on the individuals training log and it his responsibility to correct this. To do this he has to arrange with the line manager to use the appliance which will also involve part of the team as it is impossible and unsafe to do this on your own. If fails to get the support to rectify this then it is his fault and could lead to his dismissal. It would be his word against the managers. Honestly, the more I write on this the worse it looks. A little help to save any confusion, I work under contract for a company so am not LA but still have to meet the same standards and training requirements. It is for providing a service to the MoD.
Mick Noonan  
#11 Posted : 02 July 2010 14:16:28(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Reading your post I think that we all feel your pain. I'm not sure whether I'm for oor against though. The company policy, whilst draconian, may be necessary. It is MoD after all, no idea what department etc but surely that doesn't matter. IOSH members need to maintain high standards of CPD to hold onto chartered status and this responsibility is down to the individual to maintain and nobody else. Same holds for your case only you make the point that he needs the assistance of management & other employees. My point is that the onus is directly on the individual and the company want to make this abundantly clear. I believe the goal is to promote a culture where the employees give their full attention to making sure that they do not fail to meet the standard. Inevitably any failure to achieve the standard will meet with disciplinary actions leading to dismissal if not rectified. It's harsh, tough even, but perhaps it's necessary. You said that safety critical performance was involved, maybe this necessitates the tough regime?
firestar967  
#12 Posted : 02 July 2010 14:57:40(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

There is no argument about the level of competency and it is necessary to maintain this. The action plan is flawed, if you want an individual to pick up on their performance then you have to give them the necessary training, instruction and resources to do this. The managers do not want to do this because it takes commitment hence why they have put the onus onto the individual. I’m a qualified Breathing Apparatus instructor if I have a weak student I don’t just dismiss them; I work with them identifying the area of weakness and encourage them to overcome this, structuring the training to achieve this. As a line manager, in the past, I have had employees under my command who have been poor in some areas but worked the training programme and made time to help them. In the pass I have had my failures and have had to admit defeat but it wasn’t due to not trying, some people just could not make the grade. Now my company wants them to do this on their own with no or very little support from the management? If you use and action plan make it an effective one as otherwise it is not a plan at all.
Mick Noonan  
#13 Posted : 02 July 2010 15:04:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Mick Noonan

Sounds like the "rock and a hard place" scenario. Good luck!
firestar967  
#14 Posted : 02 July 2010 15:10:04(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Thanks, shame but the senior manager had only just started to talk to me again after the first time;-)
safetyamateur  
#15 Posted : 02 July 2010 15:12:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
safetyamateur

firestar, it's a plan for something other than training and you know it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not the only area where this kind of 'improvement' is being made. PS: sometimes it's better when they don't talk to you
firestar967  
#16 Posted : 02 July 2010 15:20:56(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

A way of getting rid of the dead wood? Funny but your not the first to say this
firestar967  
#17 Posted : 02 July 2010 19:08:23(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Mick Noonan wrote:
Are the employees unoinised by any chance?
Sorry Mick missed that post. Yes they are but the shop steward is a crew manager and he is one of the people pushing this training. Not saying any more as not my style and could get personal.
firestar967  
#18 Posted : 09 July 2010 10:04:03(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

Just to say thank you for all the replies it helped me to come up with a strategy that has resulted in a positive outcome. The management aren’t only talking to me but now seeking my advice and it’s Friday;-) Best regards
pete48  
#19 Posted : 09 July 2010 10:10:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Blazing the trail Firestar! Well done and thanks for letting us know how it turned out. p48
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.