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.



Go to last post Go to first unread
#1 Posted : 26 October 2019 10:48:06(UTC)
Rank: New forum user

Good Day All,

I need to inquire about the requirments of Safety Officers ratio to Employees or Workers in the Contruction Feild. Can anyone share the information with references, I am looking for International reference such as UK, US or anything else.


Edited by user 26 October 2019 10:49:43(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 26 October 2019 12:30:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Depends on numerous variables.

Perhaps the most important is how much the organisation treats health and safety as an integral part of the line management function and NOT that of the Safety Officer (I noted you didn't type Health and Safety).

The Safety Officer who might be there to define the sanctions when someone allows an Unsafe Bevavior, and who is probably very expendable themself.

#3 Posted : 26 October 2019 13:30:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user

I'm guessing ME/GCC question. I can only speak for Qatar as they produced the Qatar Construction Specification 2014 (soon to be 2018? should have been released by now):

QCS 2014/Section 01:General/Part 10: Occupational Health and Safety/Article 10.1.3

Subclause 4: The Contractor shall appoint Occupational Health and Safety Officers and support staff in sufficient numbers to ensure the effective function of the Occupational Health and Safety discipline within the Contractor’s organisation. The minimum education for the Occupational Health and Safety Officer are HND / HNC with 4 years experiences in the same field as Safety officer, certified from NEBOSH, IOSH or OSHA 30 hours, Professional in control and monitoring the site activity. The Contractor shall appoint and deploy full time on the Worksite one Occupational Health and Safety Officer for each and every 50 persons employed at the Worksite. For a less than 50 persons employed at the Worksite, a minimum of one (1) Safety Officer shall be present on site during all working hours each day throughout the Contract period. This is in addition to the Occupational Health and Safety Manager and his Deputy.

Subclause 6: ...Any Subcontractor that employs more than 100 persons will appoint an Occupational Health and Safety Manager. This is in addition to the Occupation Occupational Health and Safety Officers.

Hope this helps. What country are you based in?

thanks 1 user thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
syed.hsee on 31/10/2019(UTC)
peter gotch  
#4 Posted : 26 October 2019 14:53:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks Mihai.

Used to be something roughly similar in Great Britain (with parallel requirements for Northern Ireland) written into the Construction (General Provisions) Regulations 1961, but it was revoked (I can't remember exactly when).

Section 1(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 prohibits changes to subordinate health and safety legislation that would have the effect of reducing standards of health and safety that have been achieved.

Fairly easy if the implicit requirements of the Act are to ensure that health and safety is an integral part of the management function to justify getting rid of prescriptive requirements for numbers of Safety Officers per X people on site. Such requirements become counter-productive to the fundamental goal.

So, instead, in the U.K. it's for key players in construction projects (clients, contractors and others) to think about risks, how to control them and then to think about the competencies that managers, supervisors and workers need, and what sort of health and safety advisory resources those people might need to call on.

Those competencies and HSE resources will vary depending on the nature of the project(s), but as a broad brush principle, if the managers and supervisors own health and safety and are competent to do so, then you SHOULD need fewer health and safety advisers.

BUT those health and safety advisers will probably need a greater understanding of risks and possible controls than the managers and supervisors so that they can help out particularly in the areas where the controls are NOT prescribed (or prohibited) in black and white.

As example, in many legislatures, the height from which you could fall before protective measures is often set out in specific legislative terms (we've moved beyond that in the U.K.), and the specifics of what needs to be done are almost entirely directed. Guard-rail at specified height, toe-board also at specified height, possibly intermediate protection. Conversely, for many risks, even if some specifications might be incorporated into law (e.g. a maximum exposure standard for an airborne contaminant) there may be much more flexibility as to how to achieve this.

Similarly, flexibility is written into EU Directives on health and safety. A few prohibitions, a few YOU MUST DO THISs, but mostly a requirement to assess the risks and control them (to a standard that might be specified and/or qualified).

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 27/10/2019(UTC), syed.hsee on 31/10/2019(UTC)
#5 Posted : 27 October 2019 05:47:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user

I always found it silly but I can also understand why they set a minimum standard here. Hopefully, as it matures it will move away from this sort of thing. QCS was hastily put together in order to have some sort of framework. It might be a long time (if ever) until responsibilities and accountabilities are communicated and understood.

This 1 per 50 is a means to relinquish accountability, tick a mark and have a scapegoat when things go south. The availability of humble and shy officers from less developed areas ensures you'll always have someone to throw in jail whenever things go south. 

The main issue I have with this is that, as you already alluded to in your first post, it creates a shepherd and flock environment and that's highly unlikely to lead anywhere but angry growls and potential headbutts.

#6 Posted : 31 October 2019 10:21:49(UTC)
Rank: New forum user

Thanks to all for clarifications. I am actually located in Saudia and client has put very silly requirements of HSE covrage with ratio of 1:20 so thought to ask it at IOSH forum.

Yes, Indeed in Qatar & UAE the ratio is 1 into 50 but here dont know from where they are asking for such numbers/ratio.

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.