no, what possible input could a tu rep have

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

I cant believe this question has been asked! I suggest you read the document! bazzar!

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?

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 ????

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)

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.