Posted By Shane Johnston
We have several elected "representatives of employee safety", and quite a number of Trade Union Safety Reps. Trouble is a significant proportion of the TU Reps have stated that they do not want non-TU appointed Reps attending Safety meetings (don't ask why .. very militant bunch). They have also stated that they will represent ALL employees, not just their own members.

Reg 3 of the H&S Consultation with Employees Regs requires the employer to consult those employees not covered by a TU. So if the TUs have agreed to cover ALL employees then these Regs are not relevant. Can we then go on to elect "representatives of employee safety", and if so who do they represent?

Shane.

Posted By Shane Johnston
If the non-TU employees do not wish to be represented by the TU, then I suppose it would be unethical to force them to be represented by a TU, especially as they have no power to elect a different TU Rep (not being a member)?

I think this is the line I will take.

Before I get bombarded by TU Reps ... I have nothing against Unions or the majority of our Reps. I used to be a member for 13 years but left when I joined my current employer as they seem to uphold the "them and us" attitude. At a recent Safety Meeting four TU reps stated that they did not want the non-TU reps present and that we should only be consulting with TU. What sort of a 1950's militant attitude is that.

Shane

Posted By Kieran Dowling
Analogous to my reply above, if the union negotiates pay for all employees and non-members receive the same awards, I presume you don't also involve non-members in the bargaining arrangements. So what's the difference here?

What's wrong with being militant anyway?

Kieran

Posted By Neil Pearson
What's wrong with being militant? Please tell me that was a joke!

As usual I have to agree with Paul's horse sense above. The union cannot choose to represent non-members - the employer must find out what non-members of the union want. It's really not that big a deal to find out what people want. The union reps have no right to refuse to share the table with other reps, and I would fight hard to avoid having to separate the 2 consultation forums, as you will still somehow have to reach a consensus on some issues if you want the committees to have any use. Otherwise you won't be complying with the law because consultation won't be effective.

What's wrong with being reasonable anyway?

Posted By Jack
The new regs will probably give the same functions to non TU reps (eg attending safety committees) which might make the position clearer.

Posted By Willian Holbrook
As the sole Union safety rep(for the Hgv Drivers within the company)i sit on the H&S committee along with eight non union reps. The problem would seem to be By my experience, is that the non union reps are often appointed by the employer and are not that well trained. The union coarse i undertook involved a four-week full time coarse in all aspects of health and safety. Of the non union reps none has received any formal training with the exception of three hours general induction. This is a matter they often complain about, and as well as asking myself many questions on H&S matters they wish to raise I have often carried out risk assessments and other work for then. Having said that we all get along well together and I certainly would not want them removed, just better trained, as I know they would like to be. Perhaps this is the basis of the problem raised.Bill Holbrook

Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Shane

The question you should be asking is 'who manages the business - management or the unions?' and I still say that it is up to the employees to say who should be representing their interests in health and safety matters.

Paul

Posted By Kieran Dowling
It's not a question of who runs the business. That's the type of response I'd expect from a management consultant and harks back to the bad old days of Thatcherism i.e "management's right to manage" etc.

From a union rep's standpoint, it is galling that people who contribute nothing towards the organisations that secure pay and conditions improvements for all staff still benefit from unions' negotiations.

Would IOSH members take kindly to non-members receiving the same benefits that membership brings without forking out a penny?

That's the real moral issue.

Posted By Shane Johnston

Again I agree that it should be up to the individual to state who represents them. But in practice this does not happen on all issues. Pay and conditions are only consulted with the Unions in many organisations. As a non-union member I have no say over pay & conditions. If I want a say I have to pay membership. How this is legal I don't know .... how can a employer change my terms and conditions by consulting with someone who may not represent my views, and whom I have not power elect, as I am not a member.

However, it is up to the Employer to decide who he consults with on Pay & Conditions. But this is not the case for H&S, the employer has a legal obligation to consult with ALL employees. So if the Union sattes they will represent all emplyees, can the non-member vote on Union H&S issues, and can he vote on appointment as a TU H&S Rep (and if he could what would happen if the elected Rep was not a TU Member). If the non-member can't vote, how can the TU state they represent the view of ALL employees.

Shane

Posted By Gilly Margrave
Hi Shane,
The fine detail of the relevant regs has already been posted on a thread started on 12/9/03 headed H&S Committees. I do find it a bit disappointing that there are still people out there that assume that anyone from the TUs who applies the regs as they are rather than how they would like them to be is a "militant".If you feel that the TU Reps are not taking the views of non-members into account perhaps you could raise this with them in a reasonable non-confrontational way.
It will be interesting to see what the representation ConDoc has to say not only in terms of Safety Committees but also in relation to TU Workplace Safety Advisors.
As a TU Branch H&S Officer I unsually regard the management side H&S professionals as valued colleagues and sometimes think the great divide is H&S v the rest of the world rather than TU v Management.
Gilly

Posted By Paul Crump
Shane

Have you tried to ascertain the reasons why certain trade union safety reps do not want the representatives of employee safety to attend meetings? I would also like to expand on this thread by asking the question: what are the benefits of having representatives of employee safety in unionised workplaces?.

Posted By Patrick Teyhan
Shane, to further stir the pot regarding this one. (I do like that expression)I am with Kieron and Gilly on this.

It is for the Unions to organise themselves whether there be one or two in negotiations with management on the undertakings of the employer and the effect on the working life of employees.

If an agreement exists that non union members are represented by TU reps what is the problem?

The non members are getting the equivilant of watching (Colour)(satelite)(Cable)Television without having to pay the television licence! If they want a say they should pay their licences!

No one can stop them from joining and being representated by a body of professionals with untold support at their disposal. I have not herd of an employers representative body that has been reported to have cut work related deaths by (is it over)50% in the last 25 years?

Working for the Civil Service as I do, representing not only members but non-members under the Whitley Mechanism for Industrial Relations, the two separate unions involved have a structure in place that provide for a "TU line" so as not to be seen arguing in front of management.

What would a non elected representative bring to the table who would they agree not to argue in front of with?

Management have a difficult enough time of it in most TU recognised places of work as accredited TU representatives are likely to be on the ball.

The inclusion of Non union representatives at safety meetings is a decision to be undertaken by the Safety Committee, which in fact would have been requested, arranged and complied with under the SRSC regs.

I for one, who represents all members of staff, would feel agrieved to the management side putting / placing an untrained stooge / quisling in place, I would believe them to be there for the purpose of disrupting proceedings through lack of knowledge, being particularly difficult through some sort of secret agenda / remit to undermine the safety committee.

Regards

Patrick

Keep the faith, Brother!

Posted By Dave Wilson
Patrick,

'Its for the unions to organise themselves etc' not organise everyone else because they dont pay into someones coffers!

Think the point is here forget the SRSC regs and the CWER if you have both in the workforce you have to comply with both, do you really want to double the effort of committees etc with differing outcomes and be in the position of differing safety standards for differing groups! They are both entitled to the same standard, union recognised or not!

Think the point here isnt about 'non - elected reps sitting around a table with TU Reps and the employer' its about working together or are the TU afraid that they will lose some of their H&S power in the workplace?

Just to balance the conspiracy theorists argument to 'stir the pot' so to speak.

Posted By Patrick Teyhan
Shane, to keep the "pot stirred",

In response, Candidates (or parties) for election to the office of Member of Parliament are not legislatively bound to keep electoral promises, they are often put up for election (by party chiefs) in constituencies that they are likely to have a sucessful outcome due to their backgrounds or aspirations not cos the people who live in that constituency have put the candidate forward. Apologies the Socialist Alliance do this in my neck of the woods.

Having no secret agenda is a good thing.

Having no party line! Rather Stalinistic in my view!

"One is unanimous in this", as Mrs Slocum from are you being served would say.

In all seriousness if the non tu representatives want a place on the workplace safety committee, ask the safety committee to include them.

Dave, good to hear from you again.

Seems like the non tu representatives are causing Shane more grief than those elected to representing their members interests, what do you think?

Kieran, keep the faith,

Posted By Neil Pearson
I normally manage to bite my tongue on this forum but I have to say I'm ashamed if my profession has anything to do with that of Kieran above.

Kieran, your last post contradicted the previous one by Dave Wilson, who was promoting reasonableness and a joint effort. He also rightly said that employers with a mix of unionised and non-unionised workers must comply with both sets of Regs.

To argue against these points shows your ignorance of both the law and of how good organisations work. Your approach can't possibly help anyone you represent.

Posted By Shane Johnston
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have obtained advice from both the HSE and a Union:

HSE: The duty to consult is on the employer, not the TUs. As long as the employer can demonstrate that he is consulting all employees he is satisfying his legal duty. The employer can, if he so wishes, tell the unions that they only represent their members, and that he will consult non-members under the 1996 Regs. The HSE also advise employers to check that if TUs state they will represent/consult all employees, that the TUs actualy do this in practice. I have just checked and found several e-mails from TU Reps on H&S issues which they have only sent to their members for comment. Even though they state they represent/consult all employees, in practice they are not.

Union: TUs can represent all employees, including non-members, but can't force the employer to accept the offer to represent non-members.

One must also remember that the employer can turn round an tell the TU that they only represent their members, and ROES will be elected to cover the rest. If this were the case then there may be a reduction in TU Rep numbers.

Before I get inundated, this is not the route I want to take ... I'd rather TU and non-TU reps co-operated and worked toward a common goal. Having spoken to the site that has a ROES, it appears that a significant number of employees (who elected him in the first place) want to keep him rather than be represented by TU.

Again, I ask why would the TU not want ROES present at meetings? It must be political as I can't see any related H&S reason.

Shane.

Posted By peter gotch
Kieran, and others flying the TU flag.

The 1996 Regs state...

Where there are employees who are NOT represented by safety representatives under the 1977 Regulations, the employer SHALL consult those employees in good time on matters relating to their health and safety at work.....

You state that the 1996 Regs don't apply when the TU safety reps have agreed to represent non-members.

However, legislation sets minimum standards. Just because there is no DUTY on the employer to consult with non-union members, this does not prohibit them from deciding that consulting such staff via the arrangements in the 1996 MIGHT be the best way of consulting them and thence promoting ownership of H&S issues amongst non-union members.

The employer may perceive that the TU rep's constituency does not readily include those who are not their members.

For example within Shane's employer, the MOD, some staff will be specifically prohibited from joining a TU, whereas the civvies are not. Can the TU rep elected to represent the civvies effectively represent the squaddy whose work and workplace are substantially different, and sometimes far removed from that of the civvy.

Perhaps in the interests of H&S in such circumstances the best solution would be for some or all of those not in a TU to be consulted via the principles of the 1996 Regs. This is a matter of choice for the employer (consulting the workforce as appropriate!!)

Of course it is also important to make sure that the training of ROESs is such as to not put them at a major disadvantage when in the same forum as a TU rep who has received excellent training (which in my experience often makes them better qualified to make decisions about H&S than the management).

Regards, Peter

Posted By Dave Bennett
The CD is in the bin! One of the "stakeholders" has stated that it is unacceptable, and no way forward can be found to merge the 2 sets of Regs - so it has been shelved. This information if from the TUC Union H&S Specialists (UHSS)meeting at Congress House last week.

Posted By Jack
Dave, that's helpful. Do you have any more information.

Shane, did I say otherwise?

Posted By Shane Johnston
I work for a Trading Fund of the MoD, and operate along the same lines as a private company (i.e. we are in open competition for our work). We have no military employees. ROES are not appointed by management but are elected by employees (just like TU Reps). Both ROES and TU Reps represent the views of those who elected them. If the views of the ROES and TU Reps differ then that simply reflects the views of those they represent.

Again, why would TU Reps want to exclude ROES from having their say ?

Shane.