Posted By GT Hi, can anyone help out there, I am looking for something in writing that states the minimum number of hse personnel required per head of workers on plant, site, organisation etc. I believe I have seen it at some point but cannot put my hand on it at the moment....brain dead.....over statement ........I know, what brain? Any assistance would be appreciated thanks in advance GT

Posted By Rob T GT, I would also be interested if anyone has any guidance on this - it's quite topical for me and one of our clients at the moment. Ray - I think (I might be wrong) GT was talking about H&S professionals rather than TU reps. Cheers Rob

Posted By Chris Lumley Sellafield (BNG) require their contractors to have one qualified HSE adviser per 30 employees. Hope this helps

Posted By Crim I just cut and pasted the following from the Management regs. Not being a smarty pants but trying to help. 5. Every employer shall ensure that his employees are provided with such health surveillance as is appropriate having regard to the risks to their health and safety which are identified by the assessment. Health and safety assistance 6.—(1) Every employer shall, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions. (2) Where an employer appoints persons in accordance with paragraph (1), he shall make arrangements for ensuring adequate co-operation between them. (3) The employer shall ensure that the number of persons appointed under paragraph (1), the time available for them to fulfil their functions and the means at their disposal are adequate having regard to the size of his undertaking, the risks to which his employees are exposed and the distribution of those risks throughout the undertaking.

Posted By peter gotch GT. The need will be inversely proportionate to the competence of management and workforce. The more competent they are, the less need they have of H&S advisers. The Construction Industry Advisory Committee made recommendations about 20 years ago, but their recommendations are long since out of date, not least as result of recognition of need to pay far more attention to occupational health issues. Regards, Peter

Posted By Merv Newman At the risk of seeming to be parroting others, I will agree that the paragraph 3 quoted by Crim is 100% relevant. But note the "every employer" bit. How many small (5-10 employees) employers have ever even heard of this requirement ? I have talked with friends and neighbours in that kind of situation (shop keepers, estate agents ...) usually when they try to understand what the heck I do for a living. Usually they have very very little knowledge of H&S. They just muddle along. Maybe they have just enough knowledge or awareness given their own threat-level (rarely risk Assessed) and exposure to get by. Move up a level. Offices with, say, 50 to 100 employees need at least one person, perhaps part-time, with some training, to cover the essential areas. More than 100 and the need for a full- (or fuller-) time person could be necessary. Next level : Industry. Depends on the threat-level but most commonly I find that with up to 500 employees one full time H&S more or less qualified/experienced person is required. At the higher employee levels/threats they may be assisted by one or more "technicians", often people of 1st line supervisor level with some basic or even specialised H&S training. From then on it seems to be a straight-line ratio : 1 : 500 The clearest example I can give is of a 7 000 employee car plant. 1 senior H&S manager. 6 technicians and 6 "correspondents" (attached to their production departments, with some RH and H&S responsibilities, "supervised" and mentored by one of the technicians) So, roughly, 1 in 500 Merv

Posted By David Bannister Hi all. Nobody has yet suggested that the actual performance of the existing arrangements may be used as a guide. A high incidence and frequency rate is one indicator of a need for additional resources. Compare the large organisation with dynamic, charismatic & effectual H&S leadership and a committed managemenmt and workforce to the large organisation with many appointed H&S officers but ineffectual systems and poor performance. Is it not the number but the quality that is most important? I know that some countries have requirements for specific numbers of H&S people depending on population (Germany, Italy?) but my experience tells me that this is often a mere tick-box response and does not have any real effect on actual performance. Give me quality every time (with access to additional resources based on real need).

Posted By A.Dennis 1-2 per 500 to me is good for manufacturing See also http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=29837