Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Kirsa Edwards
We are a manufacturing co. employing around 140 people. H&S has been like a hot potato over the years with no-one really wanting the responsiblity for it. As a result previous post holders have had the addition of H&S to their main job roles. During the last year we have really raised the bar of H&S and instead of just doing the bear minimum legal requirements we had an excellent person who was able to dedicate more time to it and got qualified under the NEBOSH certifaction. However, he is unfortuantely leaving the company and we are now back to square one with what to do with it. Many people believe that it should fall under the umbrella of HR, however, there are only 2 of us in HR, 1 working part time and we also do the wages so we do not have the time to dedicate to this properly and nor do we have the technical expertise of the manufacturing plant so I would be extremely concerned about this happening. The directors of the business believe that H&S can be as busy as you wish to make it but are uncertain that it is a full time post. Where do other companies sit H&S and how I can I ensure that a suitable person can assume control of it without going back to the situation we were in a few years ago. Is it worth outsourcing or are we better off keeping the resource in house? Do other companies have H&S sit with HR? Any assistance greatly appreciated as I am keen to resolve this.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jane Blunt
I have worked in an organisation where it sat with Quality Assurance. This had some advantages, because the discipline of QA was used to advantage in introducing things like risk assessments.
Jane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane Johnston
Doesn't matter where H&S sits, however try to avoid having a management conflict of interest issue (eg H&S under Production). In-house is recommended rather than outsourcing, but the individual must be competent. Simply "lumping" the responsibility onto someone who has no understaning of the hazards / legislation etc, is not satisfying the legal requirement.
I suggest you have a look at Reg 7 (health and safety assistance)of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs, and accompanying the ACoP/guidance.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Lynch
I think your company is not fulfilling its legal requirements I am not sure where you are from but I would be supprised if the legal requirement does not state that a company employing over 100 workers is required to have a full time safety officer
So it does not matter what departement it falls in to A full time person that is dedicated is required
I think this is definatly wort checking out
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Shane Johnston
Ian,
I don't know what country you are in, but in the UK the only requirement placed on the employer is to "appoint one or more persons to assist him". The number will depend on the nature of the work undertaken, the size of the organisation etc.
For example, 120 employees in an office may only require one part-time H&S person. Whereas 90 employees in a organisation with numerous high risks, producing widgets one week and noggins the next, having a high staff turnover etc, may need two or more H&S personnel.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
Dear Kirsa
It seems to me that the 'pass-the-buck' situation has reared its ugly head once again. In my experience, one of the main reasons for people rejecting additional responsibility (other than not wanting to overload an overloaded in-tray)is that they do not feel confident in being able to discharge that responsibility effectively. The fear of not fulfilling legal requirements together with the claims-stigma attached to health and safety particular makes one want to steer clear (quite rightly so!)
My recommendation is to commission a third party independent audit of your workplace, operations and existing management systems in order to.
1. Identify those areas of vulnerability.
2. Recommend a compliance action plan.
3. Help clarify the competencies required to implement the plan of action.
Rather than placing health and safety responsibilities in one basket, the MD could assign specific responsibilities to department managers within the organisation structure.
These responsibilities could be assigned in accordance with the compliance gaps by department. This approach facilitates a number of senior managers being involved (I am sure that my more learned colleagues will tell you that this spells trouble!)working together to achieve a common goal.
These responsibilities could evolve with time, and who knows, you may eventually have the support of ALL senior managers in your motivation to employ a dedicated health and safety practitioner.
Please email me direct if you wish to discuss this further.
Kind regards
Rakesh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear All,
The question is not where H&S sits but what does the H&S function do, as this will determine where H&S sits.
Does the H&S function act as a:
(1) Consultant & auditor,
(2) Controller and coordinator, or
(3) Policeman, or
(4) Doer.
If it is 1 it needs to be close to the centre of power; if 2 it can be HR or QA; if 3 or 4 it doesn't really matter, as these models don't work efficiently.
H&S is not a only a function but an attitude of mind and an approach to life and work and as such it needs to be embedded into the day to day work activities of production, maintenance, finance, purchasing etc. The ideal H&S organisation is not to exist because H&S is done by everyone all the time!
The H&S function (job) within an organisation is to advise, assist and audit. It doesn't have to be a full time role as long as there is ready access to a competent person who has the necessary resources.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.