Posted By Tony Gibson Phil I agree with you, the level of training you provide is sufficient. In my experience the additional training is often requested in order to 'move-on' within the safety profession. NOT always the case I'm sure, however! Regards Tony G MIOSH

Posted By Phil Douglas Thanks for responses Tony and Ged. This one is a bit of an old chestnut. Training Safety Reps and keeping them up to date, goes without saying, and should be a given in all organisations. I agree with Tony’s point, higher-level training is starting to lead to career changes. I notice from the TUC Webb site that many Reps who have taken the Part 3 course have turned professional. Which is great, I know many Safety Practitioners who started out as Safety Representatives, lets face it, you have to be interested in the subject to be a Rep, in my experience not many Union members are that keen on becoming a Rep, its sometimes looked on as a hassle. However, there becomes a point in any training, where the benefits to the Employee, start to outweigh the benefits to the Employer, and if the training is part job related, good Employers will find ways to help, part funding and days off etc. The law doesn’t really specify qualifications for Safety Practitioners as ‘Competent Persons’ so it’s not going to be found for Safety Representatives. Which still leaves the question of the level of training for a Rep. I note that the TUC’s Job Specification for the Worker Safety Advisers has now been agreed and they seeking potential WSA’s who have completed Stages 1 and 2 of the TUC’s Health and Safety Course. So they have set their Safety Representative qualification for the Pilot scheme and its not at the higher level TUC level 3, and duties of a WSA are likely to be more onerous that of a Safety Representative. As I said in my earlier post, I am in the position of advising management on requests from Reps for further training, and although it would be really nice to say yes all the time. Operationally losing key staff members who are Reps for long periods is a real issue. It also sets precedence for others, i.e. “she had training to that level, so I want it as well!” Having thought long about this, I believe if an organisation can demonstrate that they have given a training, or allowed time off for, training, that meets the functions of the Safety Representative as outlined in the Regulations, and has some mechanism for keeping Safety Reps up to date, relating to the significant safety issues of the industry that they are employed in. Then that should be more than enough to comply with the law. In the event of an employer being taken to an Employment Tribunal by a Representative when higher-level training has been refused, these factors would have to be demonstrated. Higher-level training for Safety Reps, is probably best considered in the same way as any other vocational training course, in the same way as a Safety Practitioner doing an MSc level qualification. If an Employer can assist someone in these circumstances, then that’s great, but not all will be large enough or have the funds.

Posted By Ashley Williams Just to open a new can of worms. If you were to refuse the level 3 course what would you defence be if one of the union safety representatives visited the local Job Centre collected an IT1 form and took you to an Industrial Tribunal as is their right for refusal of a request related to the SRSC 1977, im sure they wouldnt for a first refusal but what about later on? Ashley

Posted By James Kennedy Hi folks, Reading through the post on this subject I am thinking that we must be behind the times here. I work for a very large American company with a good safety culture. The elected safety reps only get one week off of work to attend a safety reps course, organised by the union. I have not heard of them attending any other type of course regarding same. Having said that, if the rep wanted to take part in a course outside the union or company, the company would look upon it favourably and pay the cost. On your own time though. Am I missing something? Rgds., James

Posted By Phil Douglas An agreement that worked in your company Ray, however it still leaves the question, what is the level needed to do the job? Should the minimum be Tech SP? Should it be dependent on industry? i.e. the higher risk industries require a more qualified and experienced Safety Reps. Do the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations and associated ACOP and guidance imply a higher-level qualification for Safety Reps? I don’t feel they do. It appears that many people replying have been trained as Safety Reps, and are now in safety careers, which perhaps indicates that in training the Safety Rep, the Employer is funding a career change. Perhaps that’s not intentional on the Reps part and is dependent on individual circumstances. I have also know Employers putting Safety Reps through higher level training, as essentially they are getting an unpaid Safety Adviser out of it, which perhaps works in both parties favour. Again, I am not against Reps doing higher level training at all, but when advising Employers, Safety Practitioners advice should, in the first instant, be based on the law. Phil MIOSH RSP

Posted By Brian J Sutherland What a conundrum! Firstly, I would advise my employer that there should be no differential on the training made available to either employer or employee safety reps, whether they take it up is their individual decision. Secondly, I concur with Phil’s view and would also say that in accordance with the 1977 regs this training need only be "basic" unless they have "special responsibilities". Thirdly, I would ensure we used the appropriate industrial relations machinery irrespective whether there was agreement or not on the level of training required. Following this course of action I believe would place the employer in the position that when the Safety Reps advocate to undertake a level and choice of training that the employer disagrees with, the employer could refuse. The TU reps would then have to demonstrate that the employer had acted unreasonable and also why, either to the HSE or an ET. Brian

Posted By Adrian Clifton If you still require any further info, I have a copy of an industrial tribunal case that rules in favour of further training (TUC Cert). If you would like to e-mail your address to adrian.clifton@boots.co.uk I will gladly send you a copy.