Rank: Forum user
|
Hello,
Some advice on Contractor safety.
When a contractor comes on to site we ensure they sign in, complete permit to work and read out safety instructions which is followed by test.
They then go and complete their task (majority knowing the area already). Even though they know the area and are competent to do the task should they still be supervised or is it ok to just check on them once or twice to ensure that they are ok and that they are doing what they have been told to do and what they have wrote in the permit etc..
Again your advice / help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Katie
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hello. Your procedure for the control of contractors seems ok at a basic level. It is essential however to periodically monitor the work carried out to ensure that it is in accordance with site rules, PTW, risk assessments, method statements etc. It is good practice to record this monitoring and checklist type forms are common across industry.
When and how often monitoring is required is proportionate to the level of risk involved with the task.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Like most things in there is not a black and white answer. Whether contractors should be supervised depends on the risk that they create or may be exposed to whilst on the premises. If employees could be at risk then it may be the area can be cordoned off with appropriate signage. However, if the latter is not practical or the risks are greater, then supervision may be needed.
As a general rule, it is not necessary to provide constant supervison if the risks are low and/or the contractors are competent for the task. Obviously the selection criteria for contractors needs to be robust, method statement/SSoW as indeed the site rules covering various activities.
Despite the above sometimes decisions are needed and that's where the skills of the h&s practitioner comes to the fore.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It sounds about right to me too. Constant supervision can't be expected unless there is a specific need for it (for some high-risk or complicated jobs and for new contractors there might be). Periodically checking they are OK and doing what they should sounds like adequate supervision for most cases but as already said you could go further by recording this.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What industry, trades and activities are we talking about? What is the nature of the "test" on site, and do your contractors know of this test and tender/procurement stage etc?
Competency should be evaluated long before the operative turns up on site.
What do you do when someone fails?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Katie, your post suggests that the contractors are issuing and completing their own Permits and that you (as employer) are checking what they have said, unless I have misunderstood.
It is normally the employer (ideally a senior manager who "owns" the work area or place) who issues a permit to do hazardous work, specifying who, how, where, when and any required controls, which is accepted by the contractor.
Thus the contractors are given permission to do their dangerous work, under controlled conditions, by the people who may be affected if it goes wrong.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Katie, I would add my voice to those above regarding the supervision.
If you look in on them from time to time then you'll quickly be able to gauge their competency (wrt safety).
When it comes to supervision of contractors you'll want to make sure you can defend such decisions and that's where the paperwork comes in.
Contractors should/could be assessed before contracts are awarded. Those tendering should be asked for signed copies of their Company safety Statements followed by MS/RAs. Once on site they complete induction/safety training (with test) and perhaps even a "Safe Plan" type risk assessment before the work actually begins.
These documents/procedures allow you to justify your decision to not have to stand over their shoulders all day when you can be at other things instead.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
My past experience has been that as part of the risk assessment / permit the company issueing authority has visited the work location with the contractor and discussed the risks in the area and those associated with the work that they are going to conduct.
Any foreseable hazards which could arise during the completion of the work should be covered by the risk assessment and as long as controls and procedures are in place to prevent or deal with this it should not be a problem.
As long as they are aware of the risks, dont deviate from their permit and have visitied the work site with your permit issuer / risk assessor then they should be ok to conduct the work on their own without supervision.
Obviously exceptions can apply as stated above, and it should be important to emphasise to those doing the work that their safety is more important than getting the job done, so dont rush and if they have any concerns they should stop and come and ask you or the permit issuer.
Des
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Katie, the level and purpose of any supervision of contractors and subcontractors should be determined in the risk assessment for the works that the contractors complete.
In some cases there would be no need at all, in others maybe total supervision. Not from the point of view of the contractors competence to do their work but their lack of competence with regard to hazards and risks that may arise from your activities and thus their ability to establish/maintain a safe place for themselves and others who may be affected.
Some possible scenarios. A contractor going into an office to service the photocopier might need minimum, if any, supervision. The risk assessment might be so simple as to warrant no written record.
An electrician going onto a shopfloor to work at height changing lamps or similar might need initial set up supervision to ensure all parties are agreed to the SWP and aware that the contractor is working. If there is a significant risk to your employees if the work is not done to plan then you may need on-going supervision during the task. A formal risk assessment to cover this type of activity would be expected. (Not for each job but the activity)
Engineers coming to work on the production line might need full time supervision by production staff. Again a formal risk assessment would be expected and that would specify levels and purpose of supervision.
You are probably aware of this HSE general guidance but others may not so I have copied added the link.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
The NICEIC Complaints Procedure does not deal with where applicable, complaints about scope of work that is outside the Approved Enterprise scope of NICEIC approval.
NICEIC Approved Contractor- NICEIC Scheme (competent contractors, assessed against a specific set of competency requirements) mostly domestic installations unlikely to pass PIR, commercial, industrial installations, PAT etc (core work activity- if a business cannot offer full range of electrical installation work for evaluation (technical capability), it may be offered enrolment on the basis of Define Approval- if fail specific set of competency requirements- www.niceic.com, find a electrician).
NICEIC bum is covered by there NICEIC Approved Contractor- NICEIC Scheme (UKAS 118)!
NICEIC Approved Contractor- NICEIC Scheme (competent contractors, assessed against a specific set of competency requirements- UKAS 118):
Industrial Installations
Commercial Installations
Domestic Installations
Non-Domestic Fire Alarms
Emergency Lighting
Periodic Inspection Reporting
Maintenance of Electrical Installations
Portable Appliance Testing
Standby Power Systems
HVAC Control Systems
Industrial Control Systems
Energy Management Systems
Street Lighting
Call Systems
Data Wiring
Security Systems
NICEIC Approved Contractor, with Approved Enterprise scope of NICEIC approval eg domestic installations only! Do issued NICEIC certificates for ELC/ PIR etc for domestic/ commercial/ industrial installations. Customer/ client wants a failed electrical enterprise (cheap price) and client forgets about there fire risk assessment eg competent person (UKAS product certification 118), H&S at work act etc 1974. Client forgets (cheap price) they have a duty under the EWR 1989 to ensure safe system of work.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Katie,
You will see from the replies todate that there are variations on a theme of control. It depends I suppose on the MAIN CONTRACTOR who has overall responsibility for the sub contractors or visitors to site.
Many conduct sub contractor assessments which are apparisal forms sent to them prior to winning the contract.
Most of the sites I have managed, no one, would be allowed on site without a basic induction on the site, its current dangers and a brief on emergency procedures, however, it then comes down to size of project, I suppose.
As for monitoring, of course I believe you have to monitor, after all you are ultimately responsible and therefore should from time to time make observations on the working practice of that organisation, IMHO.
These standards dont make me right but at least give you an idea of what some companies do to control the higher risk elements.
Regards
Wizard
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Stuff4blokes
The Contractor never signs his own permit we have designated representatives who meet Contractors and complete permits with the Contractor
Sorry if i confussed you.
Thanks
Katie
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks everyone for your feedback, this has been a big help.
Katie
|
|
|
|
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.