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
thunderchild  
#1 Posted : 15 May 2019 05:38:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Morning All!

Got an interesting one for you. We have 2 guys on site who drive FLT's but have no formal training (I know how wrong that is). Now we are going to have them trained. I have said as they have not completed a novice course that this is what they should do first, the full course of training. A manager has found a provider that will conduct just the refresher on the 2 individuals as they are experienced as they do drive the trucks every day.

Personally, I am not happy that I am being overruled and they are looking to just put them in for a refresher course but I know this will end up in a peeing up the wall competition and I don't want to go down that route unless I can fight my corner.

What are your thoughts? If you are experienced either formally or not is there any regulation that states you must do the full 3-day course first? I know me saying its best practices and safer for everyone if they do this simply won't be accepted. Unfortunately, I'll need it in black and white somewhere.

If I'm honest, I'm not that happy that the provider is willing to do this in the first place, doesn't seem right to me but maybe I'm wrong???? 

UncleFester  
#2 Posted : 15 May 2019 06:03:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
UncleFester

I know nothing about having to do a 3 day course - but you need to prove competence of your FLT drivers.

HSE AcoPs L117 provides useful guidance.

thunderchild  
#3 Posted : 15 May 2019 06:10:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
thunderchild

Uncle Fester, yes section 32 states we're obloigated to privide basic training. I'm hoping that will do it, stating that we've not even provided that basic training so we therefore should to comply with the ACOP. 

Hopefully that should do it.

Evans38004  
#4 Posted : 15 May 2019 06:41:50(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Evans38004

If the training company that your manager has found are prepared to provide suitable training and then assess the capablities of your 2 experienced drivers and provide a certificate to deem them competent - what more do you need. Most FLT training providers I've worked with will always constantly assess the knowledge and abilities of the operators and modify the training to suit the individuals - this may covering the basics

Personally I've learnt more about managing H&S by doing the job rather than attending any course

thanks 2 users thanked Evans38004 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/05/2019(UTC), Swygart25604 on 21/05/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#5 Posted : 15 May 2019 08:19:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If these were new employees with no experience whatsoever I would agree that a "novice" course would be appropriate.

As these are current employees, already driving without significant employer concern (otherwise I would hope they were taken off FLT duties) you are merely playing catch-up on the paperwork you would use to document a competence.

The refresher course is a trainer assessing the driver, and as stated this is dynamic, so the focus is on any opportunities for improvement of driver knowledge or skills.

You want paperwork, they have identified a method to obtain some which causes less business disruption.

For perspective consider a standard UK road licence - is there an absolute requirement for x days minimum driving experience before test?

Hsquared14  
#6 Posted : 15 May 2019 08:55:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Which exam moderating board do they follow?  I believe that RTITB would insist that they did the novice course first but AITT may not require novice training first.  However, I would stick to my guns and insist on the novice course as you need to disabuse them of any bad habits they have built up over the years and the only way of doing that is to put them through the full novice course. 

stuart46  
#7 Posted : 15 May 2019 09:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
stuart46

I had to undergo a refresher course a couple of years back having not driven a fork lift for quite a few years. The two day refresher brought everything back and I passed with flying colours, thankfully. If these guys have been driving for a good while without incident, a refresher should be fine. They must be able to drive the truck well enough or I assume you wouldn't allow them to contiune. The refresher will just confirm this and highlight some bad habits they might have picked up. I work as a H&S Manager so am only a back-up driver if nobody else is available. If they have been driving for a good amount of time I can understand their relutance to be branded a novice. Put them on a refresher, get the certificate and let them get on with it.

DavidGault  
#8 Posted : 15 May 2019 10:45:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DavidGault

How many accidents have they had?

ExDeeps  
#9 Posted : 15 May 2019 11:15:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
ExDeeps

I guess I would start from "are they competent?" not are they "qualified?". In the mean time what have you done with them? Are they driving the FLT's while waiting for the course / refresher?

thanks 1 user thanked ExDeeps for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 15/05/2019(UTC)
Hsquared14  
#10 Posted : 15 May 2019 11:24:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

Originally Posted by: DavidGault Go to Quoted Post

How many accidents have they had?


Good point and by accidents you need to also include damage incidents, racking damage (if you have racking) and yours and everyone else's perception of how they safely they drive.  If you are not happy that they can use the equipment safely then go for the 3 day novice course.  Bear in mind that if they have never done a full course that they will not at any point have had any instruction in the theory of FLT operation.  To my mind this is a really big omission as they have no understand of the technicalities of load centres, centre of gravity and how the truck will respond in adverse conditions.  I say give them the full 3 days!!

thanks 1 user thanked Hsquared14 for this useful post.
DavidGault on 20/05/2019(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 15 May 2019 11:45:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

A three day course sounds like something that is guaranteed to alienate them. A better approach is  to look at what they are doing and identify what they are doing wrong and what they are doing right( unless they are having loads of accidents they must be doing something right) and focus of any training should be  on building up what they know and  identifying any gaps in their competence.  They should be trained but you might also look at their supervision.  Did their manager understand that they weren’t fully trained and that he/she should have raised this issue, not waiting for Health and Safety to spot this?

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 15 May 2019 21:23:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: thunderchild Go to Quoted Post
Personally, I am not happy that I am being overruled and they are looking to just put them in for a refresher course but I know this will end up in a peeing up the wall competition and I don't want to go down that route unless I can fight my corner

There is no peeing competition when you engage as a team with others.

NBBeacock  
#13 Posted : 16 May 2019 07:44:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
NBBeacock

As a qualified RTITB instructor, the 2 individuals have to do the novice course, however some of the time for the overall 3 to 5 days would be shaved off as basic things like start, stop, left/right turns etc they will not really need to practice (Hopefully). The instructor will be able to tell withing the first few movements the skill level of the operators but as stated above the "Basic" training must be delivered in full as a first stage. In my experience operators like this can have a lot of bad habits and struggle with the theory sections of the test and I have had some that still took the full course due to these two aspects.

Hsquared14  
#14 Posted : 20 May 2019 14:52:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Hsquared14

I checked this out with a level 4 AITT trainer who was doing on our site last week.  His take on it was you can't refresh training they haven't had.  As they have never had any training a refresher will not be suitable and they must do the full 3 day novice course.  He said that if any acredited trainer offers to do a one day refresher then be very wary with regard to the quality of the training and whether they are actually acredited.   So the concensus appears to be they need the novice 3 day course.

Edited by user 20 May 2019 14:53:38(UTC)  | Reason: Fat finger syndrome

CptBeaky  
#15 Posted : 20 May 2019 15:11:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Strange one this. I can see both sides. The main concern should be competence. Remembering that at the end of the day a FLT license isn't proof of competence in, and of, itself I can't see the harm in them just doing the refresher course. Afterall they will fail it unless they show reasonable competence anyway. My main concern would not be a safety issue, more of a false economy. They are more likely to fail a refresher than the basic course, since they will still have all their bad habits.

Since the HSE doesn't recognise FLT licensing beyond proof that you had their competence assesed (as opposed to acknowledging that they are competent), it is more important that the employer is confident in the FLT driver's abilities after the training than the actual training itself (IMHO).

In saying all that, I agree with the above. If I was running a training company I would refuse refresher training for a candidate that hadn't had the formal training in the first place. I would be very wary of a training company that was ok with this situation.

Dave5705  
#16 Posted : 21 May 2019 06:54:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dave5705

I don't see an argument for not completing the full course, because one of the reasons for training is to protect the company from liability claims. 

Let's say one of the operatives who is currently so keen to avoid being labelled 'a novice' ends up having an accident. Will he, (or his widow/widower or co-worker's widow/widower) be so keen to agree, or will they be looking for any way to bring a claim against the company for compensation? If they have never done the full training and only refreshers, there could be gaps in the training, and they could argue that the 'employer failed to provide training as is necessary to ensure SFARP' etc. Section 2(c) HSWA

So to knock down the resistance why not use the approach that you are not filling in gaps in their skills, expertise or knowledge, but filling in gaps in your training records which they are obligated to comply with to protect themselves should they ever be unfortunate to have an accident. They might be more favoured towards it.

Users browsing this topic
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.