Rank: New forum user 
|
Our client insists on us using their risk assessment and won't hear of us using our own. What are the requirements? If there are none... any suggestions as to the best way forward? We want to a) protect our workforce and b) remain legal (protect company).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A worthwhile issue to raise, though I suspect it should be on the open forum, as it's not really linked to IOSH internal matters.
I believe there are some issues of principle here - it's pretty difficult to ensure a 'suitable & sufficient' RA without involving those who carry out the task, and who will have to implement the agreed controls. So, if you are saying the client believes they know all about the hazards, risks and suitable controls without involving you, there's something wrong. If they do have that understanding, why contract you? (Your people could be just 'extra hands' but then the client would be providing the supervision for all the work too?).
On the other hand, if they are just saying 'use our paperwork format to record your own RA', that's a different issue - and maybe easy to do with minimal training. Of course they should be expected to pay for the time/resources needed to transcribe from your format to theirs, but if they willing to do so ...!
Your posting leads me to assume you are referring to the first option. If so, the same principle applies for ALL RAs, and of course it's not unknown for a lone OSH professional to be expected to compile RAs for tasks carried out by others - which is also very wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We often work on Customer's sites and where a customer has a control measure for a particular hazard in place which differs to our own, our policy is to adopt the control measure which provides the highest level of protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why not check with your insurance company whether they will continue to cover you on this basis? If they refuse then ask the client to sign a document stating that were and incident to occur they will accept full liability for any consequences? That might make them stop and think. Their insurance company might also jib at this one.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
cars10 wrote:Our client insists on us using their risk assessment .
Do you mean their risk assessment form?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=redken] cars10 wrote:Our client insists on us using their risk assessment .
Do you mean their risk assessment form?
I was wondering the same thing. You don't give us much to go on though!
If the issue is one of which 'form' to use, then as such I would say that it doesn't matter that much so long as it serves the purpose i.e. identifies the (significant) risks and allows for the necessary precautions to control those risks identified.
If, on the other hand the issue is one of the assessment itself, rather than the form, then the situation as it stands is that each employer has a duty to carry out a RA for those risks to their employees and others who may be affected. So you might argue that both the client and you have to do a RA. In practical terms it's best to sit down and come to some mutually agreeable arrangement, if necessary through compromise (not of the legal requirement!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Though there can be different understanding of the issues, or possible issues, and different ways of approaching minimisation or control of those issues, there is surely a central pillar of commonality.
It is the same workplace, one task, same or similar material and equipment, same risks etc. Even the same individuals to consider, who might wear different uniforms but feel the same pain if it all goes pear shaped!
Might we assume also that those who want to complete the RAs are each competent? And might we assume therefore that the results are going to be broadly the same and unlikely ever to be differ significantly?
From that point, it then seems obvious to get your heads together, to sort out the few if any differences which are more likely apparent than real, and then get on with some work instead of fussing about who is more important and whose piece of paper might trump the other?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I would like to thank members for their contributions. It was intentional to leave this topic open as I did, I knew the responses would be intelligent:-).
To answer some questions, I was talking about having to use the clients document, and their refusal to accept our document as part of the SSOW. They want to retain "Command and Control" at all times. However it is a large site and we work in many areas. There are differing views on what is "significant" within the client structure' each building may differ from the last.
We follow the 5 steps approach, the client doesn't consider likelihood and severity, we do.
So they insist we complete their risk assessment document, where people may see hazards differently from us, without considering likelihood and severity.
It is not a petty fight between two organisations, We simply wish to protect our workforce and others as well as our company.
I do like the legal test through the insurer, that is a good argument and could focus the mind on seeking a common approach.
Personally I think there is a point, that if there was one risk assessment everyone was happy with, that is the best way forward. However, one building on site may wholeheartedly embrace that approach, while another may bullishly insist you do it their way! That is the dilemma I am afraid.
Again many thanks
PS any further comments welcome
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don't understand how something that doesn't consider likelihood and severity is a risk assessment.
Is it just a hazard checklist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It's possible that what Cars10 means is that they don't use likelihood and severity ratings. Which would lead us into an entirely different debate!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
cars10 wrote:
We follow the 5 steps approach, the client doesn't consider likelihood and severity, we do.
So they insist we complete their risk assessment document, where people may see hazards differently from us, without considering likelihood and severity.
So complete their document.
Completing their document doesn't preclude doing everything as you would normally do with your systems and documentation. If completing their document reveals something that would improve your systems you can even nick it from them.
I really don't understand the anguish. If the client said "we'll give you this contract if you write out 50 times 'I will work safely'", you'd do it, wouldn't you? So why the hard thinking when they say "you must fill in this document"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.