Hi all,

I have a couple of questions which I hope that you can help me with. I have recently been working for a family owned building supplies firm who seem to have a very poor attitude towards health and safety. The company do not place any members of staff on any training courses for the FLT's, Hiab's or plant (shovels, 360 excavators etc) they simply allow any member of staff to use whichever piece of equipment they need . Although the operators have experience on the equipment which I have mentioned I'm not sure this can be deemed as them being a "competant operator" simply because they have not met a required standard. Am I right in thinking what this company is doing is totally wrong and needs to be addressed asap or am I barking up the wrong tree? As a final point with regards to LOLER regs should all lifting equipment i.e FLTS and Hiabs be tested periodically to ensure that they meet required standards and if a piece of equipment has not been tested it should be removed from service? Your help would be greatly appreciated

Regards

Stephen

Stephen

You are correct in that competency must be provided in the form of training for employees and evidenced by the employer. There are many regulations which will apply to the use and maintenance of plant and equipment. The bottom line is that should there be an accident the company will be required to provide evidence of competency and other h&s law to the authorities, otherwise a criminal breach will be a matter of course; similarly a civil law claim could not be defended either. The employer is living on a wing and prayer.

Ray

The ACWAHT came up with a definition of competency described as a combination of training, experience and knowledge. As previously said on here, should someone have an accident, the companies defence has more leaks than a rusty bucket.

Baring in mind the operatives are using FLT's, Hiab's and 360 excavator's and this is quoted on the HSE website....
'The law requires that each operator is given adequate training by their employer so that they are competent to operate the machinery which they use (the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; regulation 9)'

A chap i know has been driving for 40+ years without an accident, claim, 3 points, drink driving ban so he obviously has the knowledge to drive and has certainly gained the experience.
However, as he doesn't posess a driving licence (due to the fact he never put in for one) he is not deemed competent to drive in the eyes of the law.
First accident, Stephen and you will find it's the same rule with the HSE.

Typical of the HSE - formulate a good definition for competence and then state that you can train for competence.

Training alone, even that specified in legislation, is NOT sufficient to demonstrate competency - try and meet your employer half way by looking at how the standards they are required to meet are monitored and reviewed.

Bob

That should of course read Bulletin not bulleting although in this case maybe the thought in my mind was the loaded gun you are holding that's waiting to go off!