Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am in some dispute with the management team they want the company name to be taken out of all policies and only have local policies. My thoughts are that we have a corporate policy for say 'contractors' and then each establishment could have a local policy of how contractors will be managed on site. What is anyone alses thought's. When I completed my 18001 lead adutiors course many years ago it was always based on what is it that the corporate body is saying on how they are managing safety.
Anyone any thoughts maybe it's me and I am way off the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Corporate policies are usually goal setting and tell sites what they should achieve, they set a standard but generally do not address local issues that need specific actions. That means they have to be "translated" into local policies and procedures which should ensure that the corporate goal is achieved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Invictus
Before I could respond to your query I would have to know why management want their name removed from corporate policies? I could have a good guess of course...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
How is the organisational structure set up? Are your management systems of any particular design?
Some companies provide a framework of Standards which differing parts of the business are to comply with through the production of policies and procedures. A Corporate Body produces the framework Standards, which determines the actions the business unit is to take (particularly if there is a need for compliance with management standards e.g,. OHSAS18001 etc.). Many organisations now have different areas of business under a global brand e.g. Centrica - Distributed Energy & Power, Energy Services, Energy Supply, E&P.
The requirement to do certain things will be the same for each, but each business division will have to deliver their management system in accordance with the Corporate Framework.
There will always be a branding to a procedure (e.g. logo) else how can you demonstrate accountability and auditability?
Worries me as to why management want to remove names? Have you spoken to the assurance teams (if you have one?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Wthout any company name/details on forms, how do you prove that it originates from the company or have any document control? Whilst its not explicit in standards that I am awaire of, its certainly embeded in them as document control. Seems a strange one that I would say you are correct to resist as best you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Worth noting that what HSE now consider to constitute a OH&S Policy (see http://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/write.htm) is entirely at odds with the definitions and expectations (section 4.2) of OHSAS 18001 (which is itself adopted from ISO 14001).
If your managers are reading hse pages, I can see where they're coming from. If they're interested in accreditaion and/or audit compliance and in publishing something meaningful to their various stakeholders, then best they stick with the "traditional" goal setting statement as a preface to the organisation and arrangements for delivery of the health and safety management system of compliance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You don't need the company name on documents to be able to demonstrate document control, it can simply be dated or reference number. If it is in your system it is yours. I admit company logo name on documents can take up valuable room, but Not wanting it on policies makes one feel they will be trying to get out of something should it all go wrong somehow. Duplicating policies / procedures to make them local sounds like it will make a lot of work for the system admin person and make it a pain in the backside should there be a global change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
All thanks for the responses, it is not so much the removing of logo it is the removal of name as the corporate body' so say the New and expectant mothers policy at present it states say 'The employee must inform Invictus corporation verbally and then in writing that they are pregnant, Invictus corporation recognises that employees maybe reluctant to inform thier manager at an early stage etc etc, the company wants to take out out thier name so that they are not mentioned in the policy at all. When I asked why I was told 'it is a senior management decision' sounded like my dad when you asked why he would say 'like it or lump it that's what's happening'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't see how taking the company name out in that way would be a problem. It could just be a matter of style. Or it could be that they want to keep open the possibility that the compnay name will change or the company will be absorbed by another company, in which case it would save on document change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I also read take-over/merger as a possible explanation For the example given personally I would always use the term employer (future proofing the document) in a similar manner that individual names never appear in policy or procedure - saves hours of grief updating and re-issuing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I also read take-over/merger as a possible explanation For the example given personally I would always use the term employer (future proofing the document) in a similar manner that individual names never appear in policy or procedure - saves hours of grief updating and re-issuing
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit  I also read take-over/merger as a possible explanation For the example given personally I would always use the term employer (future proofing the document) in a similar manner that individual names never appear in policy or procedure - saves hours of grief updating and re-issuing
Thanks quite like ttheterm 'employer'. I am not sure the reasoning behind it as it is only happening on two policies, 'Management of Contractors' and 'New and expectant mothers'. When I asked if it was acroos the board i.e HR etc. I was told no just these to. The policies are not even related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I cannot see why the powers that be should decide to remove the corporate name - if it's to negate any liability then they are sadly misguided. Even in the case of a parent company and a subsidiary the 'corporate veil' may not insulate the parent company, regardless of whether the subsidiary are a legal entity of their own - Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA (Civ) 525.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.