Posted By KEVIN O'KANE Thats the question really , what do you all think ...which do do we operate better in and reasons why..I know what I think!

Posted By steve e ashton It depends.... Sorry, but horses for courses. There is no single correct answer to the query really. I have worked in both - with varying degrees of success, there are pros and cons on both sides. Being based in HR (or CEO Dept) gives some freedom or impartiality for most significant H&S issues, and may often give shorter, more direct route to the CEO. Plus, most HR seniors will often have at least a hazy grasp of what you are trying to do, which is useful for support when you come up against resistance. It can be easier to argue for a stand alone budget e.g for training. Being based in Ops (or engineering ) may give you a more direct route to the guys who make the more significant investment decisions, a more accepted presence in routine Ops management team meetings, and avoids the perception that you are an outsider and therefore not to be trusted. From my own experience : in times of organisational stress (downsizing etc) it can be very counterproductive to be seen as being associated with HR. In times of major change, (restructuring etc~) it can be very frustrating to see poor decisions being made without significant input from H&S. Who are the movers and shakers in your organisation? Are HR seen as as a drain on resource or as helpful facilitators? And - if you have a choice - who do you personally get on best with? Where do you think you will be happiest? After 26 or more years in H&S - I don't think it really matters where you come from - what matters is where you are going and who you are taking with you! Steve

Posted By Angela Oakey-Jones Kevin, In my experience, whichever team your placed in will be considered "wrong" by auditors. If you're in HR they'll want you to be more operational (where the hazards are) and if you're operational they'll want you to be more strategic (in based in HR) Best of luck Angela

Posted By Barry Cooper Kevin I report into the Managing Director, and works extremely well, as in theory I carry the authority of the MD, who has overall responsibility for Safety Barry

Posted By Bob Youel H&S shoud always be the managing directors person - working etc with others as needed

Posted By Merv Newman I had about 12/13 years as plant H&S. My boss was always the HR manager which I think is logical for a plant safety function. We are talking people here, aren't we ? However, my relationship with the plant manager was, in the boxes, described as "dotted line" In practice this meant that about once a week he would wander down to my office and we would go for a walkabout together. And sometimes I would go to his office, chat up his secretary and buy him a coffee at the nearest machine. In theory I could have gone directly to the PM (no, not T Bliar) to complain about my boss. Never had to, thank god(e)(s) (pick your preferred gender and plurality). But I am proud to say that I did contribute to the departure of one of the production managers. My level, even in pre-IOSH days was Head of H&S services. Which was usually me and the nurse. As a consultant, my direct contact is usually with the PM, operational work with safety or training departments, little contact with HR managers. (though they do seem to have the prettiest secretaries)(odd, that) Mind you, the two young ladies who work for this week's safety manager did have me getting in to the plant early enough for a coffee and a gossip. It's a hard life Merv