Already you can see my stance!! Where I work there are those who cite "Core Skills" when they want to complete tasks quickly with minimum documentation and effort.

My question is, does anyone know if this term has a basis in law?

An example: we were to erect a scaffold, not overly complicated, but designed. Normally we would have a stakeholder meeting, agree the hazards, produce a Risk Assessment and then complete the Safe System of Work. Before commencement. On this ocassion our client said there are no significant risks because your scaffolders can use their "Core Skills". Meaning they were suitably qualified and experienced and would work to their training.

We were not in agreement, what about falls from height, falling objects, not to mention the area we were working in and the potential other hazards. Core skills came the reply. That happened several years ago the contest is still ongoing:-(.

Thanks for your indulgence.

CB

Whilst I agree that there must be controls in place for risks identifed, do you really need a method statement to describe how to erect a scaffold if the operatives are competent. The core skills required are a very important part of the risk management process, however companies do seem to get lost in the need for paperwork.

I am not adverse to creating documents where needed but we must ensure that what we do create is applicable and appropriate to what we are undertaking, not just a paperwork exercise.

It seems my response has been taken put of context, yes I agree that Clients should not dictate what is required I was merely trying to get across that there seems to be a need to produce copius amounts of paperwork regardless of the task or the competence of the person(s) undertaking the work.

The example given was a a simple scaffold with design, based on this information my coment was to ensure that the risk were controlled and make a judgement if a method statement is required.... Normally you will get a scaffolder producing a document that states SG4:15 as erection and in accordance with TG20:13 , BSEN 12811 plus many other NASC documents along with the required design or compiance sheet(s). If you take these into account for the erection method and the risk assessment controls the items raised in the original post it raises the question of what would be what additional information would be contained in the method statement, or perhaps there is confusion over what a method statement is and a safe system of work. Also is there any legal requirement to provide a handobver cert or is it just good practice !

In regards to the Law & Core Skills, suggest that there is a legal eagle who could answer.

Thank god it's Friday LOL

I agree there is far too much unnecessary paperwork which serves no useful purpose. However, the difficulty again is where do you draw the line? I know of no legal requirement for a handover cert,  like scafftags there is also no legal requirement for them, but there is for periodical inspections to be recorded. Where a scaffold is incomplete signage must be displayed, so therefore a handover cert is confirmation the scaffolding is fit for use.

Are Grandfather rights also Core Skills?

The concept of core skills is also a useful one when one starts to formulate a Task Risk Assessment in that it defines what competence level of employee will be required to undertake the task in hand and further aids supervisors to identify precisely to whom the task is allocated.  In this way much detail can be ommitted from the final assessment eg is it necessary to think of safe use of hand saws and chisels where a competent joiner is defined as being required.  Core skills cannot however totally obviate the need for a RA.

Originally Posted by: gerrysharpe

Ok the official definition of Core Skills is 

Core Skills are five skills that are key to learning and working in today's world. Employers have identified these skills as those most likely to be needed in a work environment. Not every job will need people who are proficient in all five Core Skills but every job will require some level of ability in some or all of these skills.

The five Core Skills are:

• Communication
• Numeracy
• Information and Communication Technology,
• Problem Solving
•  Working with Others. 

So if Employers are stating Core skills that are not listed in the above categories then you can be sure they are just usting the word as an excuse for proper training or evaluation

Thanks.  Where is this official definition from?

Originally Posted by: cars10

My question is, does anyone know if this term has a basis in law?

No it doesn't. Therefore I suggest that you enquire as to what the company definition of these core skills would be and as to how they assess and attribute these skills for each individual. You could then document this to give it some significance. This way you would be in a position to defend your decisions, which is what it ultimately boils down to.

We all assume some core skills.  I am sure (I hope) no one writes in a method statement or procedure that a bolt needs to be turned clock-wise to tighten.  The question is, how much can you assume?

I am continually being told that procedures have been written so that "the man in the street" could do the job.  When I ask "would you let the man in the street do the job?" the answer is always no.  So why write the procedure in so much detail?  I tell my client (process industry) to write operating procedures with enough detail that a competent operator from another plant could understand it.  This seems to work OK.

I am currently in dialoge with HSE about the level of detail we need to go to in our assessment for maintenance tasks at COMAH sites.  I believe that accepting a level of core skills will greatly help this, and allow us to concentrate on the important issues.  The onus will be on the company to define what those core skills are an to have a competence management system to ensure they are obtained and retained, so this will definitely not be a watering down of controls.

But ideally you want "standard work" - this cannot be achieved by assuming competent operatives are all the same.

Many decades ago when Safe Systems of Work launched we wrote documents only to find the five shift operatives completed the same task in different ways and by luck rather than design they achieved the same outcome - this is when we realised more detail was required even for competent operators including documenting which spanner and direction for rotation.