Posted By Sean Fraser
Giles,
Can't see any reason why not. However, my experience has shown that most sign without fuss but there are always some who will score out sections, amend the form, or refuse to sign for fear of later retribution (real or imagined).
As for legality . . . depends on how the court views it. If you make it an extension of the contract of employment (a suitable clause relating to provision and use of training) then signature would be accepted as the acknowledgement of the employee that they have received the training - but it is harder to prove that they have understood it unless you applied some method of verification (tests, role play, assessment etc.). However, provision of testing can simply be proved by having attendance lists, evidence of purchase (for external or in-house courses provided by external agents), certificates of attendance / achievement and/or notation in training records.
If the records provide sufficient evidence that the individual has received the training, then they cannot claim complete ignorance. But it should be noted that the training must be suitable and sufficient for their needs and assigned accordingly. The broad based approach would need to be at a basic level applicable to the general demographic of the organisation (i.e. the lowest common denominator) for it to be acceptable.
Therefore, as long as you can prove the training was provided you do not need a signature as additional evidence. It might seem a cast-iron means of getting people to confirm attendence, but as noted above it cannot confirm understanding as well.
I have a general problem with getting people to sign for things in any case (!!personal opinion warning!!). Firstly, it is too easy for it to be a CYA exercise, without taking the necessary steps to ensure understanding has actually been achieved through performance and competence. Secondly, it will be seen as a CYA exercise (even if the intention was initially good) and establishes the subconcious belief that the organisation does not trust the employee to take the training and use in the manner expected of them.
We do get employees to sign for receipt of PPE, which has a reference to their obligations under the Regs as well as that of the employer, but this is recognition that the equipment has been initially provided, not that training has been received. After all, how difficult is it to tell them to use it as intructed, when required, report loss or damage for corrective action and to carry / store items appropriately to prevent said loss / damage occuring? This is covered during induction anyway.
And in any case, if the workplace safety culture is inherently poor, no amount of signatures will save an organisation from prosecution or compensation claims should injury occur. Get the culture and behaviours right, and there will be no need for signatures anyway.