Does anyone have personnel working for them who can neither read or write possibly both, we have recently discovered that two of our workforce have these difficulties we are now under taking this consideration concerning risk assessments and method statements and how they can be verbally given to the workforce, does anyone have a written policy concerning this and can give me advice also concerning the issue and how as a company we can approach and develop best practice to help the workforce,

Latchy The 'best practice' directly relevant to safeguarding employees and workers who can't read or write involves assessing the nature and extent of the condition of each individual and the implications for his/her safe performance at work, as well as taking necessary actions to make appropriate adjustments in compliance with both The Equality Act 2010 and relevant safety laws and regs. In the event of an injury, a smart lawyer can enable an employee to claim far, far more on grounds of failing to comply with The Equality Act than simply for the injury in itself, i.e. suing your firm in an Employment Tribunal. The 'behavioural risks' of letting matters drift are much greater than meet the eye. JodieClark1510 offers some practical examples of straightforward methods of adjustment - it's vital that they're tested with each individual affected, as each of them can claim separately

On the basis of the information provided in the question, I replied: The 'best practice' directly relevant to safeguarding employees and workers who can't read or write involves assessing the nature and extent of the condition of each individual and the implications for his/her safe performance at work, as well as taking necessary actions to make appropriate adjustments in compliance with both The Equality Act 2010 and relevant safety laws and regs. Without an individual assessment, there is no reliable and valid basis for commenting on possible reasons for the alleged inability or to use the general label 'disabled'. Study of relevant research on neurodiversity is more valuable than ill-informed criticism.

5 steps to risk assesssment: step 2 : identify those at risk Ensure the controls are suitable for them (including those who have reading difficulties).

I think we already have quite enough trouble dealing with myths without more being created here.

this is a common situation and a company must set up systems to manage this area and I always advise that employers verbally walk through documentation with their workforce irrespective as just giving people bits of paper [as most employers do] does not ensure understanding etc. so the advice is to talk to people irrespective of if they can read or not on every occasion to confirm understanding, acceptance etc. and always use pictures instead of words unless its impossible to do so - thereafter ensure compliance management is always present [another area that employers do not care/bother about] NB: according to educational studies those who do not read etc. have better memories than those who do especially the travelling folk and similar so because a person does not read etc. does not make them any less valuable nor disabled as for a policy - that can be one sentence e.g. we will manage those who work for use who do not read nor write in a suitable and sufficient way - all done and no cost 2 U! best of luck

When I have come across people who are genuinely illiterate, or even those who do not understand what is written, it has been a simple task of talking it through with them. Yes it takes 5 or 10 mins longer, but that person should not be discriminated against because they cannot read or understand what is written. The only problem I have found is getting people to come forward and openly say that they cannot read or do not understand but once this initial hurdle has been overcome, it really is not that bigger deal to handle with a little time and patience.

Have previous experience of a Supervisor of a labour gang who was illiterate. He was also very self conscious about it and would tend to clam up in group situations, especially where training and a written assessment/verification on completion. It was well worth working with this individual on a 1 to 1 basis, giving verbal instructions etc. with regard to procedures, risk assessments and requirements. A good way of ensuring understanding was to involve him in the risk assessment process for work involving him and his team. Things took a bit longer, but he greatly appreciated it and gave more in return so well worth that investment of time. It also confirmed that things were taken on board and understood. As others have said, simply a case of making appropriate adjustments for an individual. A big thing in this area is that such people do not generally like to have such shortcomings publicised (or even visibly acknowledged) and it is well to treat them as normally as possible. The fact that someone is illiterate does not mean they are slow, stupid or anything else like that and it is up to Managers to use our people skills to get the best out of everyone regardless.

As a profession we tend to be obsessed by documentation, written procedures, signing for things, and overly formal 'health & safety training'. The art of producing necessary guidance and support material suitable for the audience, (whatever their needs) and getting people to talk things through and that understanding is shown by demonstration, is neither taught to us, nor expected. It is a supervisor / manager role to make sure staff can do work safely. Relying on workers to figure it all out from complicated, poorly written, long-winded and irrelevant documentation is ineffective and does not comply with the Management Regs. There is a lengthy discussion on LinkedIn arising from the article below. I realise this might seem to switch the subject (reading & writing) slightly, but I think it is highly relevant to getting clear, appropriate communication of H&S essentials for understanding and competency. Enjoy. http://safetyonlinecours...make-relevant-practical/

Suggested way forward then for a 'Written Policy'. At the application stage: Q1 In the application form ask 'Please identify your level of literacy. 0 = None. I have had someone read this to me and fill out the form 5 = I can read and write a little but need help with the comprehension of instructions 10 = Fluent in English If you feel that the person has the skills you need and you can run with the literacy problem then have funds in place for English classes or failing that ensure that you employ people that can read and write. If all else fails video the verbal instructions so that you have at least some sort of unquestionable record that the person acknowledges the instructions etc.

We have a maintenance employee who could not read and right very well. We sent her on relevant courses to help her. She has worked for the firm for over 20 years and is in fact over retirement age. She uses Dragon to write reports. Would we get rid of her - no chance.

What a revealing sample of replies to the original question which was: does anyone have a written policy concerning this and can give me advice also concerning the issue and how as a company we can approach and develop best practice to help the workforce, The nearest answer to developing 'best practice' included a reference to the safety regulations about signals - but even that has a serious pitfall, due to the possibility that a person who can't read or write may not be able to even read all and every sign and signal. That's why it's necessary for a written policy to ensure compliance with The Equality Act 2010, which can include failure of an employer to make appropriate adjustments to someone with an impairment that may be scientifically attributed by appropriately qualified scientists (usually chartered/registered occupational psychologists, e.g. see www.geniuswithin.co.uk, with whom I have no commercial link). The relevant discipline is now labelled 'neurodiversity' as it addresses evidence for dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalcula as well as neurological impairments. And it goes far, far beyond so-called 'black and white' to take account of all relevant evidence which can be assessed through reliable and valid tests. Without such scientific discipline, you're failing to respond to Latchy's question about 'best practice'

This is a complicated question, and the answers aren't black and white. For example, there are people who cannot read and write at all, for whatever reason (and people's life histories can be very complex), then there are people who can, at a push, read simple written instructions and sign their name, and maybe write simple phrases. People in the latter category can often work an entire lifetime without being noticed. Because what needs to be considered is that people can be deeply ashamed of their illiteracy, and will take active steps to hide or disguise it; sometimes their strategies are very successful. I remember one H&S training course I did where one of the delegates sat through the whole course, but when it came to the test at the end (it was an old L2 course, with multiple choice questions) she left the room in floods of tears. It was a very difficult experience for me and devastating for her. She had guarded her 'little secret' for years; nobody knew she was illiterate. Point is, she didn't need literacy for her work, but she was ashamed, and had told nobody. So please, don't jump to snap judgments; surely what matters in the workplace are the skills needed to do the job, and if people are good at what they get paid for, then it's up to us to deliver our message in a way that anybody can understand. Isn't that what communication means? John

Fair comment Isaac; it was other posts on this thread that prompted mine, not yours, John

Actually, I think this may very well be in the remit of Health and Safety. It is imperative that people understand instructions in health and safety as these can save their lives. It is also important to remember that we are not just nuts and bolts folk, we have a responsibility for welfare as well. If a person is distressed because they cannot read and write and this is causing embarrassment and shame, then surely we should be making inroads to removing the stigma by whatever means possible and make the employee feel worthwhile and a valued member of staff. A valued member of staff is a safe and healthy member of staff, a stressed member or depressed member is a hazard. H&S is not just about legislation, rules and regulations, its about behaviours, empathy, fellow feeling. Anyone can churn out legislation like they swallowed a book, a good health and safety person looks at the people and the tasks and finds a way around the obstacles, whatever it takes. John, I sympathise, it must have been mortifying for both of you but I am sure she feels better knowing that she has an ally in you.