Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Meiklejohn
Hi Guys, Girls and anyone else...

Am just wondering if there is a recommended ratio for the number employees of H&S persons employees? I hear in some states in Australia there are legal requirements for ratios

What is your ratio? what would you like it to be? And what Industry are you in?

At the moment my ratio is currently 900 - 2 was 900 - 1 and will be again soon.... :-(

Would like it to be at least 900 - 3

1 Manager 1 Co-ordinator, and an administrator.

Industry is Engineering/Manufacturing

Answers on a post.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Sheila EJ Keogh
Mine is 500:1 (plus volunteers so add another couple of hundred "staff")!! I work part time, for a charity org, the staff and vols work with young people, lots of lone working, visiting cells, etc - some clients potentially violent, some not....
Admin  
#3 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By biddy
wouldnt the ratio match the Hazard/risk
lots of employees + high risk jobs = more H&S
few employees + low risk = less
Admin  
#4 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By biddy
wouldnt the ratio match the Hazard/risk
lots of employees + high risk jobs = more H&S
few employees + low risk = less
also if its one site or multiple sites
Admin  
#5 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Daniel
Andrew:

In 1979 my manager and I, newly appointed to a group role, set out to standardise the provision of H&S "engineers" (competent, technically-qualified practitioners) across British Leyland, then standing at about 100,000 employees with a variety of local "safety officers".

We came to ratios of 1:1,000 for iron foundries, 1:3,000 for paint, assembly and warehousing, and about 1:1,500 for machine shops. This seemed to be about right and although things have changed in the past 25+ years I still think this would be a useful yardstick.

Unfortunately for you, you come out well staffed by this criteria.

I've since come across many better staffed organisations but I must confess I tend to find that this does not necessariy improve safety or the level of work output.

Dave Daniel
Admin  
#6 Posted : 07 August 2007 16:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rob Jones
130 to 2 both of which cover H&S as a secondary role.

Industry is food manufacture.

I would prefer both of the H & S roles to be dedicated rather than 'part time'.

RJ
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.