Add a line at the bottom of the assessment form "Signed on behalf of the Union" David

Stu, I have had this issue before and at the time our RA forms had space for TU or ROES signatures. The signature was to prove consultation had occurred during the RA process and some reps would sign others wouldn't Personally, I didn't have a problem with this until the QA guy classed it as a non-confromance! Now, I have a sheet which is signed off to indicate risk assessments have been done in consultation, to keep them off the risk assessment David's solution was something that went through my head too, but the QA chap made me decide on the other.

I think I would add a small section to the risk assessment sheet: Those persons present during the assessment...................... and just write in the names. Further - if the assessment is to do with the task the union rep does at work he/she should then sign the assessment as the operator/worker etc. to say it has been understood.

Wow!!! That's telling you !

I agree with sean it's management responsibility. It is not a requirement to involve the union so why is it a non conformity, or is this just in house. I have trouble involving our union, I have to badger them to get them to carry out inspections which they are entitled to do. During the R/A process it is management led with employees in the area having involvement and this is the case for the reveiw. I am the advisor and I am there for advice and guidence if required.

we involve the operators in the risk assessment as its good practice to do so we name all the people involved in the assessement inc union reps on the form they can sign if they want to But all operators sign to say they were involved in the process and understand the risk assessment whether they are a union rep or not because they should be involved in and understand the assessment.

To Alan Partridge ( I hope you really are not a comedian) The term 'suitable and sufficient' needs to be regarded in all risk assessment. If all parties are not consulted in the work process or work activity the risk assessment cannot reach the above term. Signing off the risk assessment is a management function as they can review accordingly and make changes so far as reasonably practicable for improvement. Please do not over complicate the risk assessment process within all work activities one risk assessment does not fit all situations. So a balance must be reached by the employer to justify the methodoly and the type of risk assessment that should be followed. The Unions are there to carry out a function and to support their members so they are not exposed to undue risk. Whether they need to sign a document or not should be reflected on how they support management of health and safety in the company. I hope this information helps. Kind regards Patrick Brown ( and I hope i will not be DOA)

Have you asked the union reps what they see their role as and reflect that on the RA? The purpose of union involvement is the same as involving an employee...to demonstrate consultation with employees and/or their reps and to ensure it is suitable and sufficient. Therefore change the wording to reflect this on the RA along the lines of: ....the following persons have been consulted in completing this assessment... This would then be seperate from the sign off/approval/acceptance or whatever you want to call it.

DOA, not all parties need to be consulted with to make the R/A Suitable and sufficient. I only include those who carry out the task and the manager who is in charge. How does having a union rep or other parties that do not carry out the task, do not understand the task, the hazards or risks make an assessment suitable and sufficient? They may not even be considered to be competent. The way forward as I see it is either do not involve them unless it is something they understand or simply put 'in consultation with the union and put the union reps. name in the box. If he is there he cannot odject to that, if he does object write it into your procedures.

I am not sure if I have missed something here or whether there is some previous 'history' but.... while I have no problem at all with consultation with H&S reps, ROES etc, I certainly don't believe for a second that it is a 'requirement' in order for a RA to be deemed as suitable and sufficient. I would have thought that many of us do RAs with little or no consultation, and in some circumstances there is little opportunity to do so. I would be surprised if the IOSH helpline or whatever supported that contention, and if they did ...........................!

This is obviously aimed at someone, you appear to be letting off steam and then informing IOSH that it is not a place to let it off. I have read all the posts and all are keeping to the subject and either agreeing or not as the case maybe. Some are even asking for clarification by asking the question. As you say this is a way of getting your own back you must have had a problem with one of the people submitting a post, this is between you and them and not the whole page.

Cripes, this one has clearly put the cat among the pigeons! Our RA's are carried out by competent people (management or supervision), with input as required from task operators. It's not a Union function to carry out the RA's. Our Union request (maybe even demand?) that they are involved in each and every RA, as part of a small team. I'm personally happy for them to do so and feel that it's good practice for all those involved to sign the RA's. Perhaps 'sign off' is a misleading term - I'd like them to sign purely to indicate that they were involved in the process, and not to assume responsibility for the RA itself. Perhaps the wording on our RA's needs to be tweaked to relect this. Such documentation helps, down the line, to counter any accusations of a failure to consult - and there have been a few due to a lack of trust between management and Union (operational management, not H&S management)... I'm going to 'lob' this one, then duck back behind my parapet - if the Union reps are not competent to carry out RA's then, why do they need to be involved at all, and is it appropriate for them to do so? Maybe it's best as a management function but with full and proper consultation on the outcome? My feeling is that I'm happy for them to come on board, but if they do so then at least be prepared to put pen to paper and document the fact that they have assisted. Perhaps there is no 'right answer' for this one? Cheers Stu / Alan Partridge

Union H & S reps are not accountable under legislation for the employer's duty of care, training those reps as risk assessors will effectively disbar them from acting effectively on behalf of the union due to the conflict of interest. it may even prompt them to relinquish the union role, making it necessary for someone else to take over. Under the SCSR Regs the reps are entitled to access to all pertinent H & S information affecting members, so it makes sense to involve them in the RA process, even to the point of arriving at a consensus of risk. But it isn't absolutely necessary, as long as they union reps have access to the risk assessments. Both I and a colleague are appointed H & S reps, as well as being trained and competent risk assessors for our employer. Wearing both hats can be tricky at times but we manage somehow, by separating our dual roles between distinct locations and not fouling our own doorstep.

Please discussion forums should not be used in this way. All comments whether good bad or different are not means to score points against each other. I have read an article from Lawrence Bamber a Past President of IOSH explaining about "All system go" in HSW Health and Safety at Work Magazine Feb 2010 pages 32 -34. It talks about the safe system of work and the vital components. Risk assessment is one of those vital components and how you ensure that these are suitable and sufficient willl (1) depend upon the system you are operating (2) the consultation process irrepective who signs the document (3) are you really following what is required to maintain a safe systems of work. The article is for NEBOSH students but references have been made to Wilsons and Clyde Coal vs English. I would go one step further and look at R vs Associated Octel. Read the document it will answer some, maybe all your questions Kind regards Patrick Brown

Aunty if the unions are pen shy why not get them to use the suggested inspection form in the Brown Book F2534? That will give their input into an inspection and also requires the safety rep to sign the form. Then you have some form of a record, signed. Your RA is then automatically responding to a 'concern', and you would be carrying out the RA anyway. Two birds with one stone? Or am I being too simplistic?

It is great to know the issue is still causing such debate 17 years after the consultation rights for workers/workers representatives and risk assessment requirements were introduced via the Framework Directive 391/89/EEC! Such is the importance of worker involvement via H&S Reps. Safety Reps are entitled to be consulted ‘in good time’ - ie before – as regards ‘any measure at the workplace which may substantially affect the health and safety of the employees’ whom the safety rep represents. Risk assessments are one such measure. While this is a reflection of Regulation 4A (a) of the SRSC Regs, the following is stated [in ‘Consulting workers on health and safety’ L146: HSE] regarding the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 ACoP: ‘…. the risk assessment process needs to be practical and take account of the views of employees and their health and safety representatives ….’ During a consultation on worker involvement in 2006, the trade unions argued for a specific legal duty for H&S Reps to be involved with the risk assessment, to clarify the situation. This was vehemently opposed by the CBI and EEF, so the HSE made no such amendment. So the HSE guidance states that employers need to consult the employees and their health and safety representatives during the risk assessment process. This implies that to be ‘suitable and sufficient’ the employees and their representatives should be consulted during the risk assessment process. Risk assessment is a management responsibility and there is no reason why the employer cannot record the involvement of H&S Reps separately. Demanding that H&S Reps sign a Risk Assessment indicates they cannot be trusted. Why not have a system that records all measures where consultation takes place, say through the records of a safety committee? Oh yes. H&S Reps are also entitled to take copies of documentation the employer is required to keep through any relevant statutory requirement – for example written risk assessments. Cheers. Nigel

I am mindful of L21 and in particular para 13 which states that 'suitable and sufficient' isn't defined in the regs, and that 13 (a) (ii) mentions that this will ofetn require involvement of everyone concerned, although there is no specific mention of 'reps' or ROES. However, I would have thought that whether a RA is seen to be 'suitable and sufficient' is pretty fundamental. Does it correctly identify the hazards, evaluate the associated risks, and does this lead on to informed decisions on how those risks can be effectively managed SOFARP. Surely that is the 'end game'? Consultlation with 'reps' etc may be desireable, helpful etc but surely not crucial to ensure S&S. As I have said previously, there are I am sure a great many cases where RAs are done where there is little or no opportuntiy for such consultation. I am not sure that 'trust' is the issue here. Reps and ROES have varying degress of knowledge, competence, interest, support etc. Some will be able to provide valuable input into a given situation, and others not, depending on the circunstances. I am not sure if that boils down to trust, but rather a simple fact of life.

I'm quite happy to keep the post going. Phil I take it your view is the HSE guidance stating ‘…. the risk assessment process needs to be practical and take account of the views of employees and their health and safety representatives [consult] ….’ should just be ignored! 'Suitable and sufficient' is fundamental. H&S Reps functions include those to help identify when managers etc get it wrong ie helping ensure the risk assessment is 'suitable and sufficient'. Of course, the HSE have already estimated that 60% of employers do not consult their employees - quite a significant amount of criminal neglect here. Perhaps that is why the HSE is spending several million pounds in the next few years on initiatives to improve worker involvement. It isn't a case of consultation being 'desirable' or 'helpful' - it is a legal requirement. Farrell Are you saying that the HSE guidance stating ‘…. the risk assessment process needs to be practical and take account of the views of employees and their health and safety representatives [consult]….’ should just be ignored? On competency I thought I had referred to Reps being 'involved' with the risk assessment process - not doing them. Reps have a right to be consulted and have other functions so that they can assist managers etc develop safe systems of work based on the general principles of prevention in Schedule 1 of the Management Regs and make sure such systems work in practice. At least, that's what trade union reps are trained to do. In their capacity as representatives they do not need to be health and safety experts, H&S Advisors can have that role. In the risk assessment process, they can help ensure all the relevant workers are included, that actions proposed from the assessment are based on the principles of prevention and not the cheapest PPE etc etc. Perhaps the section entitled 'Requirements to consult health and safety representatives on risk assessments' in the SRSC Regs needs a greater airing. [page 14 in Consulting workers on health and safety: HSE L146: 2008] It does happen that some professional H&S advisors - even IOSH Chartered - are H&S Reps but in this post I am only referring to the role of them representing people. Trust is an important factor in any relationship and keeping H&S Reps/RoES out of a legitimate legal function is unlikely to enhance it. Cheers. Nigel

Nigel - sorry no that is NOT my view and I think if you read my posts again you will see that is not what I haver said at all. I for one think it is bordering on obtuse to suggest that an assessment would be inherently unsuitable or insufficient merely because there hasn't been consultation with a rep, ROES or otherwise. That IMVHO would be an absolute nonsense. As I have said twice, I am sure that there are many cases where there is little or no opportunity for consultation to take place. Does that then mean that the RA can't possibly be suitable and sufficient? Can I suggest that you read my posts in the wider context rather than 'selectiviely'? Can someone forward me the directions to Utopia?

Indeed, and at the risk of being accused of being 'pinickety' (is that a real word?) if I did full consultation with every UA H&S rep, ROES etc etc BUT the RA DIDN'T correctly identify the hazards, or evaluated the associated risks or identified the apporpriate risk controls, would that RA be S & S, on the basis that I had carried out wide consultation? Yeah, I know i'm being obtuse now! I have no problem with consultation, in both general terms and in connection with RA (and I don't think I have suggested otherwise!), indeed I accept that it is normally (not always in my experience) helpful, desirable (sorry Nigel) etc but with my feet firmly planted on the ground I cannot for the various reasons I have already stated see that it is THE overwhelming factor that makes or breaks the suitably or sufficiency of an RA. Surely the absolute bottom line is whether the hazards, risks and appropriate controls have been identified - regardless of who has done it, been consulted or not or had a part to play in it. Seems like basic stuff to me. The 'end gane' is to me pretty straightforward. Has it done what it is required to do; keep people 'safe'? If so - surely that makes it S&S?