I could sign to say that I'm the Queen of Sheeba, and if it is a case of sign or no work many would do just that. I am currently working on the assessment of that level of understanding and separately, though in parallel, on the understanding of those taught in English, given English language handouts etc and then an English language form to sign, but for whom English is not their first language. The liability issues are a nightmare and the risks, predictably, much higher for those workers. Where hygiene issues and infection risk are the problems the evidence is strong that a signature achieves nothing. Some of the problems can be caught by having a countersignature from a competent individual who with the individual has worked through a simple Q&A sheet. This helps identify gaps in knowledge but you must be prepared to put in the extra effort to teach, perhaps for a second or third time before getting that signature, and think about what you are going to do with those guys in the meantime.

Totally agree with Ron. The risk assessment should be known about (part of training) and be available as a reference, but a signature means little. I have had long discussions on this concept with the regulator for my industry - the view agreed between us is that a signature to say an employee is aware of the existence and location is reasonable, a signature to say "fully understood" is not enforcable so a waste of time.

Without evidence U cannot defend yourself and signatures form part of that evidence as for risk assessments - our staff actually carry out the risk assessments themselves - facilitated by appropriate people & I feel that if a written risk assessment is needed it must be important so staff must be as involved as necessary - if not important then don't write them down as its a wasted exercise

quote=ron hunter]You'll maybe gather from my previous posts on similar topics that I personally do not see any reason for an employee to be reading risk assessments, never mind signing them or comprehending them. With the possible exclusion of DSE (more of an an individual workstation assessment approach) I suggest this is more of a bureaucratic cop-out approach, whereas the focus shouls be on the general duty of provision of supervision, information, instruction and training. R/A is essentially a management tool, and a means to an end, certainly not a work instruction.

I have always advised people to ask to see the R/A or a method statement and read it because if they don't see it, how are they going to know how to do a particular task safely? Supervision? No problem if they are with you during all of the task. I was involved in an accident 7 years ago and the boss came to visit me in hospital and asked me to sign a new method statement which was different and also backdated. The HSE's '5 Steps to Risk Assessment' states not only must it be suitable and sufficient, it states 'You must involve your staff in the process' and 'Talk to your staff - ask them is there anybody they may have missed.

Adding my view that RAs are required by management to prioritise the activities with significant risks which require to be controlled by the application of hierarchy of control measures. I don't agree that employees need to read them but that they should be involved in the carrying out of such risk assessments to ensure they are suitable. The more important issue is the safe systems of work which are devised from the RA's and the training and supervision that allows the safe working conditions to be maintained. I see the signing of RAs by employees as entirely a bureaucratic exercise and an attempt to avoid blame.

Wow! Thanks everyone! Just about 50% for and 50% against, without actually counting. My problem is a construction Client has stated he will comply with legislation and if it isn't a regulation they don't do. Obviously there is no requirement for employees to sign but these risk assessments are "generic" and written by someone in the office who puts them all in a binder and sends them all to site. The workers don't even know where to find the ra relevant to their work but that appears to be acceptable to the employer.

Highly unlikely a generic R/A would be suitable and sufficient for the majority of construction projects, Chris as most of these are dynamic and are changing on a hourly/daily basis. In my experience, the guy in the office has had little or no Manual Handling training, W@H training, Abrasive Wheels training etc and therefore cannot produce a S&S R/A. If the guys don't know where to find the relevant R/A for the type of work they do, it's highly unlikely they have even read them. I'd put down in writing to your client that you advise him to ensure his workers have either seen, read, understood, signed the R/A for your defence if and when an accident happens because regardless of it not being a regulation, it could be portrayed as best practice.

Other than what each company may require as part of their own policy or management system, there isn't a legal requirement to sign an RA either by the assessor or the workforce. I am fairly ambivalent about it to be honest. I am not against it as such, and I suppose that it might be useful as evidence but there are other ways as well. I am interested at the range of comments and a little surprised at the suggestion that workers don't need to see or read the assessment though, as I have always considered this a basic part of gaining their understanding about risks and why they need to use the precautions in place. As Kate points out, there is a requirement to provide information to workers about risks, and reading the RA seems a sensible way of achieving this!

We have the tool box talk which details the work required but also demand that the guys look at the risk assessment and any hazards not identified there will be noted on a different sheet. Learnings will be passed up the line. Failure to comply with this rule has led to dismissal!! In high risk areas we have dedicated supervisors with 24 hour coverage. So - to answer the main question - look at the MIST training for offshore work, and the Managment Regs for onshore work. David