Posted By AJM Hi Learned Friends, I have had quite a lot of dealings with work at height and the use of contractors and one section mentioned in HSE guidance and legislation is Supervision and monitoring Before, during and after the event. The HSE say this. You will need to take the following steps: before work starts, Check that the equipment they said they would use is there and that agreed supervisory and segregation arrangements are in place. Check training certificates etc; During the work, Use the agreed method of work to monitor the work as it progresses, by carrying out regular checks. Are they using the work equipment and methods of work that they said they would? Are the trained people on site? If not, ask why and ensure corrective action is taken; After the work has finished, Review their performance to see if everything went as planned, so you will have confidence when choosing them for future work. My question is, How in your opinion does the client deliver this level of supervision and monitoring effectively? Bearing in mind its retail premises and there are lots of these maintenance jobs across the country. Regards Alan

Posted By Raymond Rapp Alan Any company engaging contractors should satisfy themselves that the contractors are competent for the task, whether working at height is involved or not. There are many different ways in which you can check the competence of contractors. The degree of competency should be proportionate to the risks. Ideally contractors should submit a method statement which details the work, how it is to be carried out safely as well as equipment and supervision of staff. Once the MS has been approved this should then be used to check contractors are working to it. Job done. AS a rule contractors should segregate their work and where this is not possible they should be properly supervised. Sometimes all that is needed are basic checks eg they are not creating any unnecessary hazards, such as tripping hazards with tools and materials. Unfortunately the scope of work covered by contractors is huge and not every scenario can be illustrated. Ray

Posted By Alison Parker AJM, You are working for the retailer as a Facilities Management Service provider I presume and you are subcontracting this work to be done on the clients roof? The retailer needs to have assured themselves firstly you are competent to maintain their premises; this would include verification of your own pre qual process. So I presume further you have now employed competent roofers and you are looking at supervision monitoring of the task at hand? Your job and the contractors in the main for the said activity. You can’t expect a store manager to have the necessary skills to review RA and MS for such high risk activities – what you can expect from the store management team is to be involved in the process e.g. ensuring that contractors, retail staff and members of the public are kept well away for the working activities. They have to be involved in all the planning and communication as this work might be occurring whilst they are trading!! The contractors will have demonstrated they are competent to do the job therefore they will be following WAHR 05 and all it requires from planning up. You have employed them on behalf of the retailer – dependant on the risk you may need to audit and monitor them also – this will be decided in the planning stage. Ah you may think I’m letting the retailer off the hook – no I’m not they can’t absolve themselves by passing it all to you. Their duty in all this is to share with you and your subbies all the risk you will come across on their premises and the massive one here is the condition of the roofs and stability. What’s up there, man-safes, parapets, skylights and any services? Unless of course they have instructed you as the FMP to provide and undertake surveys beforehand – Have they? If so you must share these findings with the subbies. If there are no surveys and uncertainty is in place on what’s up there – then it would be prudent to class the roofs as fragile and plan accordingly – the retailer will have to pick up the cost of the extra funding required to ensue the work is carried out safely. The retailer can’t get away from the fact it’s their roof you can get away from the fact you have been employed to carry out a competent service. If you have contractors tuning up at site and you expect a store manager to vet RA’s and MS – I would personally class this poor planning; surely this would have been picked up by the retailer and yourself as insufficient! The store manager can play some part in the monitoring process (with the necessary guidance) for safe working practises but no way can they be expected to be involved in the high risk stuff. Ask yourself this a guy falls off the inspectors asked who vetted the MS’s the last thing he wants to hear are the words store manager – panning at this point will be questioned along with your competence! Who made the decision that the SM was going to manage/ supervise/ roof work?? Not good! Competence is not just dong the job required on the roof safely it’s everything involved and planning is crucial. Hope this helps – I feel that I may provoke some good responses form the construction guys here because their knowledge on this stuff is far grater than mine. Alison…….

Posted By martinw Alan there will be definite interaction between the store manager and the head office. During those constructions I have been involved with as an side party, a very large Supermarket chain had whole departments involved with the running of this sort of thing. Normally there was a store development manager on a regional basis who would have a few store upgrade/rebuild projects running at the same time. They would interact with store directors/regional managers with projects and these projects themselves would have their own project managers who would liaise with the contractor manager. Often they had a senior manager from another store who would act as liaison between the client and the contractor as part of their development prior to them becoming store managers, so that when they got their own stores, they would have some experience of projects. The store manager was normally kept predominantly out of the loop as much as possible to keep their minds on the running of the store. Supermarkets do not like their takings going down! But I knew of not one occasion in two years of interactions where the store manager was the one vetting RA's. They simply do not have the experience. So get in touch with the store manager who should be able to give you specific info for that organisation. Hope this helps Martin

Posted By Alison Parker Only the very big players will have the level of competence Martin describes and these cases you can tap into that. By the very fact AJM is asking this question will rule out the giants or it would have been in hand. But Martin makes a valid point to think about – the size of the retailer and their understanding of their own responsibilities. If they don’t understand what these are you have uphill battle. If they are a reasonable size they must have a Safety Manager, I suggest that he /she is the person you need to be speaking to not the store manager. He /she must have been involved in pre-qualifying you? If they don’t have safety manager enquire to what arrangements they have internally for store development, they won’t for sure have a facilities department because you’re that by the looks of it. Alison

Posted By AJM Thank you all for the responses especially you Alison, very detailed and thought out. I only wanted to canvas opinion but here is my opinion for what its worth. So again as usually happens here, people jump to conclusions so please let me elaborate further what actually happens and what i believe should happen. FM Company 1. Good Robust Vetting system for competence of contractor including recognising the high hazard contractor and completing an in depth on site audit of head office. 2. On spot documented checks/Audits that the said contractors are working safely evidence of driving improvements of the said contractors. Contractor 1. They should ensure the day to day safety of their employees including continued supervision and training. 2. They should also have their own system of on spot checks for both themselves and any sub-contractors they use. Client of the Facilities Maintenance company 1. Surely even with all that in place when the contractor works on their premises, they then must ensure tasks are being completed safely they can not exonerate themselves? Obviously the key is co-operation and co-ordination between all parties and to answer the specific question. NO i don't think store manager is competent to supervise a high risk job no matter how short of duration it is. But i don't see it that way, all i believe is the contractors will already of had his assessments checked through pre-qual that he has the necessary competence and knowledge to complete them. He is already accepted as a competent contractor or what the hell is he doing there. I do however expect a store manager to ensure their is a risk assessment presented by the contractor and check all his cards etc that they are valid and co-operate and co-ordinate with the contractor to ensure their works do not effect the stores employees or the general public. Then after the job has been completed to check the area is left safe! I don't believe there is anything not practicable about that or that he would need a NEBOSH certificate to complete those basic checks. Just to throw this hypothetically out there too, if a contractor is working on a site and his risk assessment states he was using a ladder which according to the assessment says should be tethered and wasn't and an accident occurred. I obviously know the contractor would be at fault mostly but if supervision and monitoring should be taking place as i asked in my original question and the HSE state then who and how should it be completed to adhere to that guidance? I am also aware of the case 2 years ago where after a prosecution a MEWP using company overturned the HSE when the court agreed it was not reasonably practicable to have somebody employed watching each man or team completing each job which i think was ground breaking and illustrates common sense. But if we accept that, then where does the supervision and Monitoring come from and i believe the only practicable place is at the store itself and before you all jump down my throat i don't mean a store manager watching him for two hours but i mean a small modicum of checking during his time there. Surely if something did happen and no monitoring or supervision took place the courts would say the store manager of the client should have had some monitoring duties given to him. Is "our managers are not really cut out for safety responsibilities" going to be a good defence in court. I am not trying to be awkward here i am just trying to look at every angle and playing devils advocate. Hopefully it is taken in the constructive way it is intended and any replies are the same. Thanks for letting me ramble :) Alan

Posted By martinw Couldn't agree more Alison the retailer is the one to provide you with the information and you should not just think of the store manager as 'the retailer'. That person just happens to be in charge of the store and while they may have good retail knowledge they may have no material experience of any sort of contractor interaction or control. Or of the practical aspects of safety. It may be in some way devolved to them, but in the situation where the store manager is not being forthcoming with advice it may be that they simply do not know. Many of the store managers who I have known will not admit ignorance especially to contractors, of whom I was one when I worked with them. I do not know if that is the case here. But the store manager must have some contact at their head office or a regional manager/director to whom you could address these issues. Store managers do not plan major works to their own stores. While they are big fishes in their own ponds, they have no say in any aspect of the material of the store itself in most cases - that is done remotely. Presumably by the person you need to talk to. Again, Alison is spot on on this. If this is JS or Tesco I will be able to find the person/department you need to talk to easily, so if you wish we can talk off forum. If it is one of the others I do not retain the contacts and it may take going above the store manager's head if you are getting no joy. Not ideal as a contractor I really do know but when you have to do it, you do it. Martin

Posted By martinw Alan I don't think that store managers would necessarily thank you for empowering them with tasks that they recognise is beyond their experience. Most store managers would not know the difference between a CSCS card and a driving licence - sorry to sound harsh but it is true, as it is not what they do. What I have had a number of times in the past was that any part of the building which has construction work etc being undetraken on it becomes defined locally as a construction site(or whatever) and even though the shop may still be up and running, under the management of the store manager, in the bit being worked on seperate control for safety matters is in place - with agreed manager controlling work and safety under the ultimate authority of the store manager to tell them to stop if necessary. Also, stores locally have controls: each Tesco customer service desk had(may still have, I don't know) a triplicate book which some contractors have to use. They wrote down exactly what work is going to be undertaken based on pre-existing permission having been given, say how many hours and persons it will take and the overall staff cost. Ideally Store Manager signs it before work starts. Once work completed, white copy of this form goes with invoice to head office with comments from store manager. If overran substantially, or quality questioned by store manager, or incident happened may not get or only partially paid pending investigation etc. Alan the store manager cannot organise or authorise safety in the same way that they would not leave you in charge of the retail running of the store. They can't and shouldn't micro manage safety as they are not competent to do so. They can be responsible, but in the short term they should have there while the work is taking place someone who is accountable. Alison- hope this accord with your feelings. I am more than happy to be corrected. Martin

Posted By martinw Alan can't give the rationale for the decisions made by the HSE or the retail chains. Would it be worth getting back in touch from the people at the HSE who have previously visited you? They may be happy to give feedback and give you further information if they asked. There may even be a specific guidance document that they use, I don't know. Martin

Posted By martinw Bit of tough love there Alan don't mean to take the proverbial but Alison is not only right, she has had to face down a number of fragile egos which are the stock in trade of store managers. I really mean tough. But Alison is correct. Really. I used to much rather deal with retail safety managers when dealing with this sort of situation than store managers because they saw the real issues. Store managers have no scooby about safety with rare exceptions. That's why Alison was there(among other things - no offence :)

Posted By Liz Bennett An interesting and useful thread. May I add: 1) CDM ACoP page 18, paragraph 83 is helpful and lists "What Clients don't have to do" including in summary: (a) plan or manage construction projects... (b) specify how work should be done... (c) provide welfare facilities... (d) check designs... (e) visit the site (to supervise or check construction work standards) (f) employ third party assurance advisers.... (g) subscribe to third party competence assessments 2) I am advised that it is now agreed that it is not possible to know all of UK law that applies and that ignorance can be a defence in some cases. I would not advise depending on this and CDM deals with it by putting a duty on designers and contractors to alert clients to their duties if necessary 3) One of our clients had a work at height injury involving supervision of a task where the operative was just over 1 meter from the ground (to his feet). It was not the HSE who were daft here but the insurance company who said that supervision meant 100% eyeball contact during the whole of the task. This is clearly a nonsense. It was the hinge point for the civil claim and for the business such a key matter that they decided that they would close if the insurance company would not fight the case with the loss of 24 jobs - they offered £10K additional fees to do so. No point in trying to get things right when it is all stacked so high against good sense. 4) Saw Telegraph article over weekend that said that companies with more women on the Board do less well as they are too concerned with compliance and governance to allow the company the freedom to succeed. Perfection in detail may in the end constrain success. That may be our challenge. Answer usually depends on how much control any party retains unto themselves for other aspects of work. If you want to keep hold of access rights and detailed design/specification decisions etc then you are retaining more responsibility for work than a client who passes over the whole project to others to manage. In reality the answer is that liability is a function of outcome - you are very much more likely to be prosecuted for a fatality than an injury and for either than a poor attitude. The problem we face is that there is a fuzzy link between outcome and competence/resource/application so it ends up becoming a liability risk assessment.

Posted By AJM Thanks for your Interesting addition to the thread Liz, you raised some very valid points. I think from my perpective its a little more different as most of the guidance and regulation seems to be aimed at bigger jobs and worst case scenario. Much the same as the WAH regs are. The thing to remember is i am talking short reactive maintenance work, 30 minutes to 2 hours and in this thread i am refering to the WAH parts of that and as most people believe even a 30 minute roof leak repair comes under both CDM and WAH regs. Your point 3 is very interesting also as i mentioned in an earlier thread i think the case two years ago where the HSE where overturned was ground breaking and clearly illustrated its simply not possible if you have 50 people working all over the country on MEWPS to have 50 guys employed to stand supervising them for a full shift, it is as you say crazy. So with all that in mind i was simply looking at options in a practicable way in my field of work to add strength to the chain of supervision baring in mind the HSE work at height guidance i mentioned in my first thread. Les, I also find it very interesting what you say regarding the card system, i have heard it before, Do you personally view it as a positive system, ie does it work for you? I complete all the onspot audits etc and try to drive improvements in a positive way through discussion or debate but its all down to the indevidual i suppose. Thanks again for your input, Alan