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
Xtremepmt  
#1 Posted : 14 May 2012 10:57:21(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Xtremepmt

We have a long standing small group of contractors who have been working along side us on our site for many many years. They support our maintenance department within our manufacturing business. We have a strong PTW, Risk assessment and Method statement structure in place etc. We have maintenance workshop on site where from time to time these close contractors will often use. They have joined our maintenance team on training for abrasive wheels, we have given them access to our FLT's ( complete with familiarisation training). These guys are fully skilled in their work and are knowledgeable in our plant maintenance activities. All are inducted also and we carry out regular contractor assessments too. My question arises from feedback from some of our employees who have recently attended an IOSH Working Safely training course of which they felt the message given to them is that we should not allow contractors to use any of our maintenance equipment or workshop in case they injury themselves and then we the company are liable. There were also some other less positive feedback which i will be taking up separately, as we feel that where we are constantly striving to maintain a positive and effective H&S culture, recent training seems to have deflated and made a mockery of H&S of what we have been trying to build. Your feedback and thoughts much appreciated.....
Seabee81  
#2 Posted : 14 May 2012 11:14:56(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Seabee81

As far as I am aware there are no issues with subcontractors using your tools/workshops etc as long as you provide them with the same safety training etc as you would your own staff and they follow you SSoW, PTW, risk assessments etc. We always have subcontractors on our work site and have full access to tools and equipment applicable to their jobs. The only difference between them and our permanent staff is the logo on their coveralls. It sounds to me as if this training has been misinterpreted by the workforce. I'm sure it will be covered somewhere in an acop. Someone on here should be able to confirm that....
Kate  
#3 Posted : 14 May 2012 12:00:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If they are working that closely with you then having them bring their own equipment would hardly save you from liability! I'm sure the reasoning behind the suggestion of not allowing contractors to use your equipment is that they won't have been trained on it. As that doesn't apply in this case then neither does the suggestion.
Steve Granger  
#4 Posted : 14 May 2012 12:46:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Steve Granger

Sound like the relationship discussion between Master and Servant (employer/employee) or Client and contractor. One of the factors that differentiates is 'who supplies the tools?'. Some organisations will move heaven and earth to distance themselves from contractors - you seem to have embraced partnership working, which does not automatically mean they are your employees providing you make this clear in both contract and procedures -especially the safe use, ppe, fault reporting etc. PUWER does not care whose equipment it is and you seem to have established a good (and often cost effective) process.
Ron Hunter  
#5 Posted : 14 May 2012 12:56:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I must admit to some degree of hesitance in responding to one with a soubriquet such as yours! I'll keep my thoughts on the IOSH Working Safely to myself for now and only suggest that the situation you describe tends to highlight the importance of ensuring that the training adequately "fits" the organisation's requirements and general undertaking. Training that undermines the culture is worse than useless, and one can only hope that equal resource will be put in to correcting these "messages" already delivered.
stevie40  
#6 Posted : 14 May 2012 15:39:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevie40

A lot of this refusal to lend tools etc stems from a landmark court case. I cannot recall the case law name but I do recall the circumstances. Electrical contractor engaged to change / repair light fittings. He had forgotten his ladder on the day (or they were not long enough) so the building occupier said, "no problem, use our cherry picker". After a very short practice he went off to change the fittings and failed to engage any of the outriggers. The boom toppled and he was killed. Site occupier liable for failure to provide correct training. As an insurer, I can see both sides to the argument but I believe a lot depends on the industry. If you operate a warehouse or office environment, contractors will be a rarity to your business so you should look to them to provide their own equipment and trained ops. Within the petrochem, nuclear, power and other heavy industries, there is so much specialist kit and general kit around. Contractors are a daily occurence. Many site owners will insist contractors are trained to their requirements and their equipment types so a far closer working relationship will exist. If I saw the first method of working (distanced from contractors) in a heavy risk environment, I would be more concerned.
Xtremepmt  
#7 Posted : 14 May 2012 16:02:49(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Xtremepmt

Thank you all for your replies. Am on the same page that as we work closely with our contractors and our 'boundaries' are clearly defined, that we are working safely and have assessed any potential risks to a level that we are all happy with that supports our working relationship practically and professionally. Thank you once again.
John O'Byrne  
#8 Posted : 14 May 2012 16:07:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John O'Byrne

Some companies choose to restrict contractors with this sort of thing simply because if there is an incident then sometimes an insurance company will refuse to pay out but this really does depend upon the policy. There can also be some issues regarding maintenence of equipment and reporting defects but this really does depend upon the systems in place and how they are communicated/implemented.
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.