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
gbinije  
#1 Posted : 10 November 2011 12:55:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
gbinije

Is my company obliged under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 to consult with trade union health and safety representatives on the decision to outsource the role of Principal Contractor under CDM Regs from my company to another company bearing in mind my company has been the principal contractor for all CDM acitivites from time.
ptaylor14  
#2 Posted : 10 November 2011 14:13:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ptaylor14

no, what possible input could a tu rep have
A Kurdziel  
#3 Posted : 10 November 2011 16:20:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I am not so sure the answer is 'no'- on of the reps roles is to “to make representations to the employer on general matters affecting the health, safety or welfare at work of the employees at the workplace;” which could be an issue in this case but then again there is nothing in the regs saying that you must follow or adopt anything the reps say- just tell them this is happening.
NigelB  
#4 Posted : 10 November 2011 19:42:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

Yes indeed. The HSE recently spent £2.5 million adopting the principles of joint training and safety rep training due to the success of trade union safety representatives in reducing accidents. Apparently the interim results of this work in non-union premises have been seen as a success. The first research that established the connection was published in 1995 which stated that [for the whole of UK manufacturing industry] where trade union supported safety representatives jointly worked with managers - usually through a safety committee - the accident rates were 50% less than when managers alone made health and safety decisions. Since then other studies have confirmed that TU safety reps working jointly with managers improve safety standards. Or as the HSE stated in their 2009 Health and Safety Strategy document 'Be Part of the Solution': '... there is strong evidence that unionised workplaces and those with health and safety representatives are safer and healthier as a result.' So just ignore the SRSC 1977 Regs? Even better, just tell the Safety Reps what is being done and ignore them!! What inspirational advice! Clearly it is felt that there is nothing to be learnt from Safety Reps or workers, who are the people that Safety Reps represent. If the change is going to impact on the health and safety of the people the safety reps represent, then they should be consulted. If it isn't, there is no legal need to consult with them although it may be helpful to do so from an industrial relations point of view. While managers will always have to make their own decisions, prompting them to ignore what the Safety Reps say anyway seems a little presumptuous and certainly contemptuous of the workforce they represent. The HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted over health and safety matters that they should be - this is illegal, of course. Were they genuinely consulted about shaping health and safety measures - and were listened to - they may have some practical ideas as to how to solve some health and safety problems. Or maybe have some thoughts on outsourcing. Cheers. Nigel
Canopener  
#5 Posted : 10 November 2011 20:27:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

IF the change could have a significant affect on the health and safety of your employees, then I would think that consultation is entirely reasonable and appropriate
Phil Hill  
#6 Posted : 10 November 2011 21:13:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phil Hill

I cant believe this question has been asked! I suggest you read the document! bazzar!
Phil Hill  
#7 Posted : 10 November 2011 21:28:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Phil Hill

I guide you to Regulation 4a! sorry no pictures!
Ron Hunter  
#8 Posted : 10 November 2011 23:56:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

How does one "outsource" the role of Principal Contractor? The term 'Principal Contractor' can only be applied to a contractor appointed by a Client for a Notified Project, and cannot be subcontracted. Presumably then your Company is also the CDM Client? Is this truly outsourcing (which implies significant redundancies) or is this merely some commercial rebranding exercise? Depending on what is really going on here you may well have very significant TU employment and industrial relations issues to overcome, in which instance SRSC 77 issues may well be entirely irrelevant. Would you care to elaborate?
Canopener  
#9 Posted : 11 November 2011 12:23:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I'm glad you asked it Ron, as I had been pondering the same!
ptaylor14  
#10 Posted : 11 November 2011 13:21:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ptaylor14

A Kurdziel wrote:
I am not so sure the answer is 'no'- on of the reps roles is to “to make representations to the employer on general matters affecting the health, safety or welfare at work of the employees at the workplace;” which could be an issue in this case but then again there is nothing in the regs saying that you must follow or adopt anything the reps say- just tell them this is happening.
The answer is No in this particular instance, do we have to consult safety reps because we are changing contractors or outsorcing contractors the answer is no just as if we were having pink do-nuts changed to yellow do-nuts. Would you consult with TU if you were changing suppliers of PPE ????
rob clarke  
#11 Posted : 11 November 2011 16:03:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rob clarke

The SRSC regs require employers to consult with safety reps on any significant changes to H&S. Back in the day when I was a safety rep I always felt that this was a far too wide ranging requirement, so I didn't push the issue when new safety managers/ advisers were appointed without consultation. Although the opportunity to wind up HR did make it tempting sometimes. But it all depends on the safety reps in question. I don't think that there is any real question that a change in the PC is significant, and a personal judgement on the competence of the safety reps is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Finally, as far as consulting with TU reps on changes to PPE suppliers, that is exactly the kind of thing the HSE use as an example of one of the best times to consult with the shop floor either through safety reps or ROES. Hmmm, I wonder is a failure to consult will count as a material breach?
A Kurdziel  
#12 Posted : 11 November 2011 16:16:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Of course we consult the TUS Safety reps. We keep them informed about what we are doing and what is happening. They also keep us informed about what is happening ‘on the shop floor’. Getting in a new PPE supplier would be something that they would want to know about, so we would consult them about it. They’d ask questions such as; is this PPE any good, why are you switching etc. fair enough. But the TUS also recognise that management has to manage and unless something is happening that is completely beyond anything legal there is nothing they can do in the final instant. They do not run the business (nor do they want to)
NigelB  
#13 Posted : 11 November 2011 16:18:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NigelB

I would have thought the question should have been 'Will this change have an impact on employees' health and safety?' If yes, consult: if no there is no requirement although good industrial relations would suggest that employees are informed about what is happening in their organisation and could affect their work. With regard to the change of colour in the do-nuts, it seems a strange comparison. I have known several instances over the years where change of suppliers of PPE - and other materials - has led to significant problems. Where there have been problems it has been because workers have been told it will make no difference and then find they cannot get the right types, more difficult to obtain, restricted size range and so on. Where Safety Reps have been consulted about changes in supplier they have often been able to assist make the change over go more smoothly. Of course where the change was to supply cheaper, more shoddy PPE, this caused a more negative back reaction. Rob makes the point about HSE advice so I'll leave it there on PPE. I do appreciate that there are managers who detest worker involvement and are opposed to it. However in the Business, Innovation and Skills report Engaging for Success, they found the greater the worker involvement, the more efficient, productive and profitable the business. The report can be downloaded from: www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf These results were based on more than begrudgingly conceding the minimum legal consultation the organisations in question could get away with. It was based on genuinely involving the workforce - not just listening to them and then ignoring them! Cheers. Nigel
firesafety101  
#14 Posted : 11 November 2011 22:31:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

As there is at least one TUSafety rep, I assume you have meetings? Why not inform the next meeting of any such business? It can't do any harm to keep them informed.
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.