IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Tool Box Talks - Required to meet legislation
Rank: Forum user
|
I've been passed a Risk Improvement Report by an insurer which makes reference to a requirement for Tool Box Talks to be undertaken to meet legislation. I have always viewed Tool Box Talks as best practice and not a requirement.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any legislation which details Tool Box Talks a requirement
Thanks
Martin
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You wont find any legislation requiring Tool Box Talks per se. They are simply one way of meeting the responsibility of providing "Information, Instruction, Training and Supervision as per HASWA
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
refer them to the prime minister! "•investigating the demands made by insurance companies to ensure that levels of compliance do not force businesses to go far beyond what is actually required by law to secure their insurance cover"
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If no toolbox is actually present during the toolbox talk does that make it a presentation and therefore a failure to comply? (It’s Friday and I am getting silly)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Absolute must if your insurer wants it. I had to PAT test everything in the office to satisfy our insurer even though we had agreed that visual inspection was suitable. They may see Toolbox Talks as part of the Information Instruction etc or as part of Consultation with the workforce but they very rarely back down.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I will often require training to be provided as a means of getting a message or topic accross to the workforce, e.g. ladder safety or site transport safety.
I will normally suggest toolbox talks as a means of achieving this. The alternatives are formal classroom training / paid for courses or perhaps computer based training. Most organisations can see the benefit of a toolbox talk (with records kept) compared to the others.
If you have an alternative delivery mechanism that you wish to use, raise it with your insurer. As DNW says, we just want it to ensure you are providing Info, training, supervision and instruction.
Tony - re the PAT testing, I'd be quite happy to accept documented visual inspection regimes. Pet hate of mine to see other insurers insist on annual PAT for low risk environments. If you use an insurance broker they may be happy to fight your corner as well.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Martin - If you ask the insurer what legislation requires toolbox talks to be given (and perhaps you've already done this or are considering it), it would be interesting to see what sort of answer you get. If you get one, please would you share it with us on this forum?
On a wider note, if any of us come across strange or unjustified requests from insurers, surely we should be politely challenging them. This might help to instil some more sense among insurers and gradually help to reduce unreasonable requirements sought by them. Any insurance representative who doesn't like being challenged in this respect could be reminded that the insured client always has the option of changing to another insurer. In my experience this point seems to work with errant contractors, so why not try it with insurers as well?!
p.s. On a jocular note, I don't think I've ever attended or given a toolbox talk: Is the person giving the talk supposed to stand on the toolbox in order to be more audible and/or appear more authorative? Also, if there's no toolbox available, would a suitably robust crate or other similar article be acceptable as a substitute for this purpose?! :-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Does anybody remember where the term toolbox talk comes from? I do. Question 2. The Monopoly pieces (car dog hat etc came about how?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
tonymurphy wrote:Does anybody remember where the term toolbox talk comes from? I do. Question 2. The Monopoly pieces (car dog hat etc came about how? Answer to question 2; the orignal creator of the game forgot the game pieces when he took the game to try to market it and so used the charms from his wife's bracelet.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Graham,
In leiu of a toolbox, you should be able to borrow a soap box from somebody on this forum.
Afraid I can't lend you mine at the moment, I'm using it. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Graham Bullough wrote: On a wider note, if any of us come across strange or unjustified requests from insurers, surely we should be politely challenging them. This might help to instil some more sense among insurers and gradually help to reduce unreasonable requirements sought by them. Any insurance representative who doesn't like being challenged in this respect could be reminded that the insured client always has the option of changing to another insurer. In my experience this point seems to work with errant contractors, so why not try it with insurers as well?!
Insurers are like contractors - the quality is variable. In relation to risk improvement notices they will come one of 2 ways:- 1) The best way, following a face to face meeting with a risk surveyor during which the risk improvements should be discussed and agreed so that the final report contains no surprises. 2) Off the shelf "Package" policies will often be underwritten on a set of acceptance criteria. These may include security conditions you must meet, the need for written H+S documentation and training policies. This type of policy is sold as a commodity on price alone and the term coined by some within the industry is FIFO underwriting. Fit in or .... off. If you don't meet the criteria then go elsewhere. The package policies are aimed more at shops, offices, motor traders and small businesses and the model is commonly used for internet and phone sales. Martin - if this is the type of policy your client has, you may have a harder job getting them to vary or waiver it. For larger concerns, you really should be seeing a broker. Yes they do get a commision from the insurer but they are working for the policyholder and will pull the insurer up if they think a term or policy condition is too onerous. Finally, I'm always happy to be challenged on site. It demonstrates the client is listening to what I am asking for and thinking of alternative ways of hopefully achieving the same goal.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In support of Stevie40, I too do some work on behalf of insurers and my principals are very particular that risk improvements are not only discussed and agreed on site but are also proportional, factually correct and presented in an unambiguous way (also grammar & spelling id correct) by a consultant who is competent.
Martin, if you are not happy with the service you are receiving then certainly let your insurance buyer know and get your broker involved. If the broker is not competent then there is also a good solution available.
Finally, if this is in relation to EL insurance, the insurer does not have too much wriggle room as the class of business is controlled by UK law.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
David,
I bet you wish there was an edit function on ths forum. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
and I can't even claim that it was done in jest. I think I know what lol stands for now.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
tonymurphy wrote:Does anybody remember where the term toolbox talk comes from? I do. Question 2. The Monopoly pieces (car dog hat etc came about how? From my memory the term toolbox-talk appears to have come from the US in the 1980s when we used to seek our inspiration on safety matters from that side of the pond. It may even have its origins much earlier in the DuPont organisation. Please correct me if you have a better source of information.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Martin#1 wrote:I've been passed a Risk Improvement Report by an insurer which makes reference to a requirement for Tool Box Talks to be undertaken to meet legislation. I have always viewed Tool Box Talks as best practice and not a requirement.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any legislation which details Tool Box Talks a requirement
Thanks
Martin It will interest you to know that HSE has pressurised insurers for some time now to include health and safety criteria in their renewal premiums to encourage businesses to take a proactive approach to health and safety management. It is part of HSE's "Be Part of the Solution" initiatives. Many businesses have thus responded by improving their h&s systems simply as a direct result of such action. It is not law but I can see how an enthusiastic insurer might wish to interpret it as such. Toolbox talks and brief safety seminars are a recognised method of keeping employees effectively informed. See http://www.hse.gov.uk/co...tions-toolbox-talks.pdf.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
For general interest, tailgate meetings (aka toolbox in the UK) are required by law in some parts of and in high risk industries in the US.
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
tonymurphy wrote:Does anybody remember where the term toolbox talk comes from? I do. Question 2. The Monopoly pieces (car dog hat etc came about how? Q1. I think it was named after to safety briefs on the shop floor where workers pulled up their toolbox as a seat.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Toolbox talks, tailgate talks, safety talks. All US derived terms for on the spot safety briefings. The tag identifies them as happening close to where the work actually takes place and keeping them relevant to the work going on. Tailgate we meet around the back of the truck; toolbox 'cos if the toolbox is there then so are the guys 'n gals; safety talks didn't survive long in the UK unless the company was boringly predictable in it's approach to H&S ;-) Who really knows where the term was really first used and by whom. It has been around for a long, long time in the US. Most probable source was at the time that US high risk sector companies woke up to the importance of on site re-inforcement of safe working that involved the workforce. First came across my desk in the early 80's in the UK as the high risk chemicals, nuclear etc sector here were beginning to sample the delights of systems such as ISRS 5 stars. That all developed into good ol' HSG65 of course which may be why we are still using toolbox talks in that original form after all these years?
p48
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
'Toolbox talks and brief safety seminars are a recognised method of keeping employees effectively informed.'
...or, a method by which organisations can claim they are providing suitable instruction, information and training to their employees. To be perfectly honest, TBTs are often used as the philosopher's stone, over-rated, patronising and normally do not provide any new or useful information to the workforce.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Firstly well done to Safety Smurf, correct answer. Secondly the Toolbox talk was brought over from the USA by Arthur Scargill and a team of miners who were visiting to share Safety Information. I think the term was first used in the late 60's early 70's by one of Scargills henchmen in a TV interview, and then the term was used in a Daily Telegraph report, before long somebody in H&S took it and it is now as common as Corry.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Tool Box Talks - Required to meet legislation
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.