Would the HSE website information help? There is a list of languages at the bottom of the page enabling several of the resources/information bulletins to be printed off in the individuals native tongue.

Hi Bob, I totally agree, I am trying to look at it from a court/litigation perspective - that was the exact point I was making with Production Managers. I advised that we should translate all of our induction paperwork into Polish, its not sufficient to have an employee 'translate' when required as there will be a tendancy to ignore policy and allow the worker to get on with it.

Hi Ron, yes you're correct, hence I mentioned our practical training on my OP. This is part of my concern - how do we deliver the practical training do a non-english speaking employee. At the moment we validate via the practical training. Employees need to demonstrate they can operate and maintain equipmnent safely. In reference to correcting bad practice and behaviour - we are largely deficient (for various reason which I dont want to go into at the moment).

At best, you will find it frustrating with an employee who cannot communicate in English and, at worse, highly dangerous. They will sign anything you put in front of them to obtain employment, whether in English or their native language. Whether they understand what has been written, even in their own language, is questionable. Foreign workers have a different safety culture background, and do not recognise at all some of the practices and procedures we accept as normal. They have to be informed, instructed, supervised, and observed again and again until we are satisfied with the way they work. Instruction and training is very difficult if they have no idea what we are saying! In my experience, a direct supervisor, or fellow employee, that can communicate with them in their own language is a must. I am involved with a lot of seasonal agricultural workers and the biggest concern is their understanding of English. A foreign worker taking instructions on his own of a critical activity must understand what is said. I've witnessed a foreign worker being told, in English, exactly what task he is required to do, and he saying that he understood, only for him to walk off and do something else. We then get somebody who does speaks his language and enquire what he is now doing, for the worker to then explain that he is doing the task that he thought was being requested. They are very good workers with a strong work ethic, but care must be given to the importance of adequate communication.

Hi ptaylor We modify new vehicles. We use air tools and some cutting tools - so there are some significant hazards that employees must be aware of. The more I think about it, the more I am inclinded to advise management against such a move until we have more effective systems in place.

You cannot discriminate on the grounds that some cannot speak English. That would leave you right open to an action under equality legislation. You can only use this as an argument if spoken English is part of the job eg being teacher for example. Amazingly enough there are businesses in Poland that modify new vehicles and use air tools and cutting tools so those skills do exist beyond the English Channel. So if a person can demonstrate that they can do this job safely they should be given the same chance as anybody else. What’s wrong with someone watching them for a few days and seeing what they do, as oppose to making assumptions just because there first language is not English. How do those members of the forum who work in the middle east etc communicate their H&S to their workers? I doubt many English speaking IOSH forum users speak Arabic (or Bengali or what ever language migrant workers speak in that region) as a second language.

That is interesting. Would you be able to indicate where this is stipulated? On the grounds of health and safety and duty of care towards your employees I would insist on a level of English to go in line with the duties they will perform. Certainly at least a basic understanding to understand simple instructions. I doubt you would get into trouble for adopting this approach unless someone knows better?

If you decided not employ someone in the grounds that they do not speak English you would be guilty of indirect discrimination under the Equality act. It is possible to discriminate but it would be upto you as the employer to justify this discrimination on for example H&S grounds. You would need to prove that it was not reasonable for you to communicate with these employees in some other way. As I said in my earlier post, if the job specifically requires the ability to speak and communicate in English clearly eg a teacher or a newsreader then you might have a case. If the job involves basically manual skills then I cannot see how you can justify this discrimination. If we can justify discrimination on language grounds for H&S we could also justify similar discrimination on disability grounds eg a deaf person cannot hear instruction etc gender: women cannot lift as much as blokes therefore cannot employ them here.

A Kurdziel, I see your point and profess not being too up on recruitment and law. However, It's a challenge developing a good Health and Safety culture in the workplace when you can communicate with the workforce, I can't imagine the challenges one would face when you can't! That aside, the below scenarios would probably involve a buddy type arrangement to ensure the person with a hearing impairment is closely supervised / supported and obviously tasked with something suitable. Women not able to lift as much as Men is generally true but I don't see the relevance here? Finally, the job described previously doesn't just involve 'basic manual skills' in isolation. It involves communication, co-operation, understanding the risks and environment and necessary control measures, emergency arrangements and understanding how not to put yourself or others at risk by your acts or ommissions. Not easy when you don't understand the spoken and written language!

Hi Juan Carlos/A Kurdziel, The job requires more than a basic understanding of english. It's interesting (and concerning) that a safety professionals like yourselves can make such sweeping statements when you haven't visited our factory or viewed the process. To provide you with more detail - our process involves welding, high-speed metal cutting saws, use of chemicals, compressed air tools......to name but a few. Dramatic assumptions are unhelpful but thanks for your input anyway. SP900308 - you hit the nail on the head. Its very difficult to communicate with someone who doesn't understand what you are trying to explain. As I have said previously, I wouldn't want to be in the position of having to explain in court how we ensured the employee was aware of the hazards and controls when said employee didnt understand a word of english! thanks to everyone for their input.

Sorry B. Bruce But I think that the nature of this forum, based as it is on the limited amount of information usually provided by the poster lends itself entirely to “sweeping statements.” Only the poster of the message knows what is happening on the shop floor and only they can make a decision based on what they know. The opinions produced here are based on what information is provided by the posters along with assumptions based on the respondents knowledge and personal opinions. The poster is free to take the advice up or leave it.

ptaylor, we do allow foreign truck drivers into our country, who speak / read no English...... the reason I know this - because I hear about the MANY accidents on our roads caused by this very omission! Your example is somewhat flawed IMO!

I'm quite comfortable that I am not being discriminatory. The person is unsuitable for the job because he lacks some basic yet important skills. Safety comes first and as this employee cannot understand a word of english we as a company should not absorb the added risk from employing him. Its similar to employing a man with one arm to direct traffic. Yes, he could do the job if he had a prosthetic limb - he would be perfectly capable at it - however, he doesn't. This wouldn't/shouldn't mean the employer is discriminating against him because of his disability. The employer is protecting himself and others from harm. Just as its not the employers responsibility to provide the prosthetic limb, it's not the employers responsibiliy to provide translation services just so a candidate can secure a job. Let me put it another way. If I were to turn up to a job interview in Poland as a Health and Safety Manager, and I dont speak a word of Polish and as a result I don't get the job, could I then cite discrimination as grounds for action. I could have all the training in the world, be a very successful manager but if I can't communicate with my colleagues how can I ever expect to be successful. Nor would I expect to be! This discussion has digressed from my OP however, its been interesting to hear colleagues views on the subject. Thanks

Thanks Jake. The guy is only a potential candidate - a former colleague of another employee. No formal interviews have taken place but management are very keen to explore employing him.

Cheers Jake, thats pretty much what I've been telling them - its good to have someone else thinking the same as me. They are hinting they are keen to employ more Polish workers which would be a good thing but I have already made them aware of the measures that need to be taken before this can happen. I'm not oversed to the idea but think I'm being realistic about the risks of employing non-english speakers in a fabrication and manufacturing environment.

Real life. Commissioning a school after a re-wire. Certain sections were being switched on after testing and certification. These included lighting and small power (socket outlets). All the managers, foremen, supervisors were informed. All signs in place. Enter the painters. Off came the socket outlets from the walls and left hanging. All live and the happy Polish chaps painting away. Needless to say, Zimmy when nuts (ever the understanding). It was OK to do that as that as is the way they worked over there. They thought the signs we over the top. Happy days

I could give the same examples with native english workers....

#34 I know what you say is also true Steve :-(