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
Rob26  
#1 Posted : 05 February 2017 19:54:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Rob26

Hi, I am new to the forum, i would like to please ask a question.

When safety talks are given on site, do the attendees have to sign a register? I have been looking at the CDM regs and the requirement for communicating to workers. A safety talk is the most effective way, but how would you prove they were there if they dont sign the brief register?

Is it enough just to have a name of the attendees listed on the register and the lead engineer giving the brief to sign it as delivered?

Thanks for any advice.

RayRapp  
#2 Posted : 05 February 2017 20:29:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Hi

It is common practice to get operatives to sign they have been briefed and understood the task, which also serves to confirm their attendance on site.

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
Rob26 on 08/02/2017(UTC)
Stern  
#3 Posted : 06 February 2017 09:57:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Stern

Hi,

Welcome to the forum! To echo what RayRapp says, it's always good practice to get people to sign anything like this. The way i look at is like this...

- The safety brief/toolbox talk is done to help protect the guys on site.

- The signature helps protect the company (in the event something does go wrong).

I've been on the recieving end of a few personal injury claims over the years (the joys of working with predominantly temporary staff rather than PAYE!) and things such as signed RAMS, toolbox talks, inductions etc are invaluable in these situations.

A couple of quick tips:

In the case of toolbox talks, a signature sheet alone is next to useless becuase proving what was given in the talk at a later date is impossible. The sheet should either refer back to a numbered toolbox talk or, better still (and the way i do it) the signature sheet is printed onto the back of the toolbox talk. This way you're much more able to demonstrate what was discussed than you are if you've just got a signature sheet with "PPE" written at the top

Make sure your archving is up to scratch. These signature sheets very rarely need to be referred back to during the job, it's usually 6, 9, 12 months later so make suere you put them somewhere safe!

All the best

Stern

thanks 1 user thanked Stern for this useful post.
Rob26 on 08/02/2017(UTC)
Striker84  
#4 Posted : 07 February 2017 21:19:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Striker84

Originally Posted by: Stern Go to Quoted Post
Hi,Welcome to the forum! To echo what RayRapp says, it's always good practice to get people to sign anything like this. The way i look at is like this...- The safety brief/toolbox talk is done to help protect the guys on site.- The signature helps protect the company (in the event something does go wrong).I've been on the recieving end of a few personal injury claims over the years (the joys of working with predominantly temporary staff rather than PAYE!) and things such as signed RAMS, toolbox talks, inductions etc are invaluable in these situations.A couple of quick tips:In the case of toolbox talks,a signature sheet alone is next to useless becuase proving what was given in the talk at a later date is impossible. The sheet should either refer back to a numbered toolbox talk or, better still (and the way i do it) the signature sheet is printed onto the back of the toolbox talk. This way you're much more able to demonstrate what was discussed than you are if you've just got a signature sheet with "PPE" written at the topMake sure your archving is up to scratch. These signature sheets very rarely need to be referred back to during the job, it's usually 6, 9, 12 months later so make suere you put them somewhere safe!All the bestStern
This is a case I can refer to (mitigation of compensation claims) and I cannot agree stronger with this comment. Credit Stern
thanks 1 user thanked Striker84 for this useful post.
Rob26 on 08/02/2017(UTC)
Rob26  
#5 Posted : 08 February 2017 19:05:17(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Rob26

Thanks for the advice about toolbox talks. I have had a bit of resistance with the fact that staff are now signing for the talk and they think they will be held accountable for any issues that arise on site.

I have been bringing in improvements for 2 years and have found that the 'blame culture' is really playing havoc with progress.

After these discussions, at least i know i am pushing the correct buttons and heading in the right direction.

Thanks again for all your help. Onwards and upwards!

Rob26

gerrysharpe  
#6 Posted : 09 February 2017 07:58:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

Originally Posted by: Rob26 Go to Quoted Post

 I have had a bit of resistance with the fact that staff are now signing for the talk and they think they will be held accountable for any issues that arise on site.

Rob, 

Toolbox talks are safety  briefing sheets which normally gets done with the subject being something which is being done on site, ie Hot works,  working at hieght etc...

When the guys sign the sheet they are showing that they have read and understood what they need to do with respect to the Hazards and control measures in place to protect themselves and others on site.

So yes they will be accountable along with the risk assessments that they have read if they do something dangerous or different than specified.

I had issues on one site where i took my time to explain to our eastern european contractors the Rams and Toolbox talks for that day.  They all agreeded that they understood, but i had issues with getting them to sign for some reason. In the end i told them no sign, no work. The minute you meantion money, they sign ???

So don't worry, yes they will be accountable if they work against the safe system of work set out before them,  They seem to think by not signing it absolves them of all responsabilities for some reason

Edited by user 09 February 2017 07:59:21(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 09 February 2017 09:19:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

"In the end i told them no sign, no work." 

A signature obtained by duress?

Roundtuit  
#8 Posted : 09 February 2017 09:19:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

"In the end i told them no sign, no work." 

A signature obtained by duress?

RayRapp  
#9 Posted : 09 February 2017 13:06:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Putting this matter in perspective, I think there is a place for signatures to insulate the organisation from criminal and civil liabilites, as well keeping a record of who was on site, when, etc. I do also think there is too much reliance on a bit of paper and in some some situations a signature is not worth paper it is written on. I have lost count how many times I have checked documentation that has been signed for being read or briefed, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. 

gerrysharpe  
#10 Posted : 09 February 2017 13:34:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
gerrysharpe

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

"In the end i told them no sign, no work." 

A signature obtained by duress?

Nope i don't go as far as waterboarding or electric shocks

Its obtained as per company policy on Health and safety training and the sign off of construction rams. We don't make options for those that wish not to part take in health and safety on site. Either you sign or you don't work. Whats the alternative ???

The Main Contractor makes specific requests for sign off sheets for Rams and Toolbox talks. Its not an unreasonable request and certainly not under duress

thanks 1 user thanked gerrysharpe for this useful post.
WatsonD on 09/02/2017(UTC)
WatsonD  
#11 Posted : 09 February 2017 13:39:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

I agree with Gerry. I think it is fine to have rules and expect people to abide by them. As you said you had their verbal agreement, but without their signature your were not able to proceed. Calling it duress is somehow imlying that the matter was underhand, rather than a statement of fact.

Edited by user 09 February 2017 14:30:51(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling mistake

thanks 1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
gerrysharpe on 09/02/2017(UTC)
Hartman  
#12 Posted : 09 February 2017 14:08:02(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Hartman

Hi, 

We use a daily 'Pre-Start Briefing' board on our construction sites. Names and signatures captured daily, then Supervisor photographs the whole board (capturing the discussion topics and the names etc.). Supervisor e-mails the image to the site HSE Manager. The photo then becomes our record. The 'board' stays at the point of work so the team can refer to it during the shift (hey we all forget stuff!), and so too can any visiting managers / clients. Multiple teams = multiple boards...some of our sites might have 5-10 of these boards. 

I'm sure some would say that 'photos' can be modified, but then too so can paper records if you really want to. But that end of the spectrum is the least of our concerns in most countries. 

I would also echo the comments above, having everything together certainly helps present a more robust view of how well controlled your communication protocol is. 

Good luck. 

thanks 1 user thanked Hartman for this useful post.
Rob26 on 12/02/2017(UTC)
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.