Rank: Super forum user 
|
Oh, and just to throw in a couple of typical examples of incomprehensible risk assessments, I give you (a) HAVS and (b) Noise.
Ever tried explaining m/s2 or decibel scales to the workforce? And why would you want to?
That's not being condescending or patronising, rather acknowledging that to many who 'didn't do' maths or science at school it's just something they struggle to grasp any tangible meaning or frame of reference from - not comprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ron
It depends your workforce. Mine do understand the science and some are brilliant mathematicians. Just telling them what to do will not work. They are excepted to create the RA’s themselves with help from H&S. (we mainly make sure that they don’t get hung up on their own pet issues and the RA’s have enough breadth). Having produced the RA's they are used as for the basis of the safe working methods, so yes all staff who are involved in this work sign them off, as they are part owners of the procedure. Usually the RA’s are relevant for only a small group (one or two dozen people at most)
Of course not all RA’s are treated like this eg the FRA is centrally managed and most staff are not involved in it directly.
As I said it depends on your workforce: horses for courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
cres wrote:All this is very well but,
I know of Civil Cases within my company that have been lost or should I say not fought by the insurance company because the risk assessment has not been signed. So now although I completely understand that its what's within the risk assessment that must communicated by actions and words such as IIT but I'm being pushed to get them signed by 100's staff as our insurance company are insisting upon it?????
What I would call a No Win Situation
Cres
Totally agree and this has been my experience as well. We get a sign off for all training, briefings and when we issue method statements, risk assessments etc. No debate - too costly not to do this.
Where a lot of folk go wrong is just leaving it at that and not ensuring that the risk assessment content is well communicated. As said by others, just throwing around bits of paper does not make you safer. You need to get some real value from the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
On a slight tangent, I recently had a dispute with a Site Manager who developed and approved his own Risk Assessments and Safe Systems of Work.
I couldn't grasp how this approval process ensured his management arrangements were robust, without a review by A N Other!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am an enforcement officer and risk assessments are all well and good but i very rarely find that they cover the risks or that they are actually able to be understood by anyone let alone me! I like to see as matter of course that each employee has had training in the job they carry out and it is practical training appropriate to their work activity and the work environment not training that requires sitting infront of a dvd and also that the training has been provided by somebody competent and who understands the work carried out at the business. As a matter of good practice and a due diligence defence for the business to a certain extent I like the employee to sign to say what training they have received and when and that they have been shown safe workign practices and risk assessments for their job role. It is always appropriate to question employees and ask what they understand the risks are and how they should be controlled nto matter how basic their answers might be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am of the opinion that the person carrying out the Risk Assessment needs to be identified. Everyone that may be affected by the assessment should, especially from a claims perspective sign to say they understand the assement and any method statement / safe working procedure resulting from it. From a litigation viewpoint, no signature - how do you prove he/she has read, understood. So, it is good management practice to get the signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Agreed, the only signatures usually needed on the risk assessments are the authors, usually me and a supervisor, and the responsible manager.
The job, then, is to communciate the controls (and some explanation of why) to the operators through training and writing of SOPs/MSs.
The amount of information to be understood: as I already posted earlier L21 para 64 says "The information provided should be pitched appropriately, given the level of training, knowledge and experience of the employee."
Then obtain the operators' signatures confirming receipt of training.
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Just read this thread and found it amusing to say the least.
By the way... Hi Ant!
From a legal point of view, signing a document does not constitute comprehension of its contents, just awareness of its intention.
Training, Training, Training is the ongoing theme in all education and understanding. Proof of that attendance and training along with test results is key to someone showing their level of intelligence and comprehension, and that will be key to proving either competence or incompetence if it is defficient in their work records.
The first thing to be evidenced in any legal case will be proof of training and information given tothe employee.
The last thing a judge would want is a risk assessment with a signature on, it would mean absolutely nothing and more importantly would prove absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I find it amazing this thread is still going, a relatively straightforward question has given rise to a number of different opinions and interpretations of the regulations - not criticising, just an observation.
I like and agree with Martin's take on the process. The notion that an organisation can insulate itself from any potential liability by ensuring RAs are signed off by individuals is at best optimistic, and at worst, foolhardy. A sagacious lawyer would highlight the folly of this strategy in a blink of an eye. I guess it's a case of action speaks louder than signatures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi all I was wondering if you help with a query I have on digital acceptance risk assessment forms for employees? I am trying to establish whether acceptance of a risk assessment form by an employee logged into a digital platform using their unique username and password, and pressing "ok" would legally be deemed acceptance they have read and accept the risk assessment. Would this be considered the same as "signing" an RA document with a digital scribble?
I am trying to find an HSE guidance form for this in the uk but no luck so far.
Many thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There has been lots of discussion about this on a recent thread. A signature is not a legal requirement on a risk assessment, but it might be useful as it can be used to confirm that for example some has read and understood it. But in reality, that might not be the case and you to demonstrate evidence training and monitoring as well. What you cannot use a signature for is as a means of passing responsibility from the employer to the employee. The employer is still responsible for adequate training, supervision, and supply of information. The method of signing any document is not an issue and the system you describe is perfectly fine, but you must remember that a simple signature is not a get out of “Jail Card” for the employer, simply a small part of the evidence that they are running an effective H&S system.
|
 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The reason HSE don't publish guidance on this is that they don't care about risk assessments being signed by employees in the first place. The system you describe is a traceable one that proves the employee has acknowledged the document. As such it is as good as a signature. It does not of course prove that they have read, still less understood it, any more than any of us has probably read or understood the various terms and conditions that we have to tick a box for to do things online. I recall an occasion where this kind of system was used to get employees to sign up to various policies that the organisation established. You had to select "Accept" or "Reject" for the policy. One employee chose to "Reject" the policy initially. I believe they were reprimanded as this wasn't a genuine choice.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I will refer you to web site T&C's where 99.9999999% click accept very few actually read. They are now pushing to abolish the accept cookies pop-up enacted by the EU because at the end of the day the web publisher makes withdrawing consent so convex and convoluted most people just press accept anyway. As to the example: you can prove the system was logged on with a unique identifier, you can prove a selection was made - you cannot prove definitivley who conducted those transactions or from where. I am currently in discussion with our IT department about recent "confidential" deployments (salary slips etc.) which unless you deliberately clear cookies when closing the browser the system stays logged in.
It is one of the reasons the "keep me logged in" box advises to uncheck on shared computers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I will refer you to web site T&C's where 99.9999999% click accept very few actually read. They are now pushing to abolish the accept cookies pop-up enacted by the EU because at the end of the day the web publisher makes withdrawing consent so convex and convoluted most people just press accept anyway. As to the example: you can prove the system was logged on with a unique identifier, you can prove a selection was made - you cannot prove definitivley who conducted those transactions or from where. I am currently in discussion with our IT department about recent "confidential" deployments (salary slips etc.) which unless you deliberately clear cookies when closing the browser the system stays logged in.
It is one of the reasons the "keep me logged in" box advises to uncheck on shared computers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Dazzling Puddock  I have never seen the point in getting an employee to sign of on seeing a risk assessment
but I do however get employees to sign off on seeing a written safe system of work/ method statement or any documentation produced as a result of a risk assessment being carried out.
Exactly this ^ The findings of the risk assessment should be transposed into a SSoW. The staff should be briefed, trained and competency assessed on the approved safe method of work, not the risk assessment. That is why the HSE state you dont need to have a seperate risk assessment and SSoW, if the findings of the RA have been recorded in the SSoW. The employer only needs to communicate the findings of the RA, not make employees read and sign the RA. Just because they have signed the RA, it does not mean they have understood it and are competent in its application.
|
2 users thanked Lee3183 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
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.