Two points:

1. If you are a NEBOSH trained representative you should know the answers to your questions

2. Take a look at your own grammar and spelling.  

I’m wondering if the author is trying to cover off a legal register and/or business continuity plan/assessment as well.  This may also be due to the nature of the review group the author submitted the document to originally.  Clearly the document will not be suitable for any of those purposes. 

If so, those type of consequences aren’t going to be relevant to a large group of people at the site or facility.   

If these RAs are a final version as opposed to a draft I would not expect so many spelling/grammatical errors. It does smack of a lack of attention to detail, which for an important document is a concern - worth a subtle mention. 

Workplace RAs don't normally include business contunuity risks. There may be a legitimate reason for this...again, ask the question.

If you have been asked to review these RAs then you are quite within your rights to ask any question and to make any comments as you deem necessary. But before you go too gun-ho just make sure your comments are well drafted and polite.   

Except many documents are written on computers whose in-built spelling and grammar checkers are defaulted to American English meaning that mistakes (color etc.) do not necessarily get flagged by the system

If you are reviewing them then address any errors/concerns you have, otherwise what's the purpose of the review?

In the event a spelling mistake does slip through unless it substantially changes the meaning and causes real misunderstanding (for instance writing does instead of doesn't) then in my experience it's unlikely to affect the course of any legal process you may get involved in.

Achrn you are right in theory but my concern would be if that the document might be “taken over” by the corporate risks and the direct risk to people downgraded. If that was the case the document would no longer demonstrate a “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment.  

Originally Posted by: usakutiya

Strongly agreed.
Thanks alot.

Monicaaa

You're back

Originally Posted by: jwk

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: jwk

Agree with Sweep, business risks belong on the risk register, not on the workplace RA. It's good that they're being considered, as these are the things that drive Directors to take H&S seriously, but they should be recorded separately as they have a different purpose,

I'm not aware of any statute requiremnent that the written record of a risk assesment needs to be a document exclusively relating to the H&S of individuals.

What is wrong with a document that covers both health and safety risks and business risks?  If both can be covered adequately in a single document, why not do it that way?  Why (with reference to the previous posting) is it "clearly" the case that a single document can't cover both purposes?

Though it isn't normally done that way, I don't see a problem with a RA recording business risk outcomes in addition to harm to individuals.

I agree, it's not statute, but business risks and operational workplace risks are dealt with in different places, so keeping them apart just adds to clarity, that's all. Npt syaing its 'wrong', just I don't see its helpful,

I think that assumes lots of stuff.  If this workplace has a management team comprising one workshop manager reposnsible for the workshop and one MD responsible for all director tasks, then these risks are absolutely not dealt with in different places - they are likely dealt with by exactly the same people, and recording the business risks arising from teh workshop operations alongside the health and safety risks arising from teh workshop operations would seem perfectly fine to me.

Even a larger organisation might have a management structure where the same management team is responsible for manging business risk and safety risk - if you target a number of different specialist markets, for example, you may have management responsibility split by operating sector rather than by business function - and then business and H&S risks could be sitting together with a sector management team, rather than a functional management team doing H&S for all sectors while a different one does business risk for all sectors.  My business operates in a hybrid between the two - some business risks are addressed across the business, but some are managed by sector (and some by country).  As it happens, we don't put both business risk and H&S risk in one document, but I think we could without breaching our statute duties, which is why I questioned the apparent certainty that it's clearly inappropriate to do so.

This may come off as a little blunt but why are you asking us? The key to a good employee rep is communication. Go back to the person(s) who wrote it and ask them?

Your role is to not pick up on spelling mistakes, it's to help improve the safety culture or the company, helping to keep people safe. If you send off an email picking up on what's wrong with the assessment you will just put a wedge between you and the Management. This might not be your intention, but trust me it will come off that way.

Go back to who wrote the document, get them to go through it with you and ask to be involved in any others or reviews.

Spelling mistakes are deliberate to see who delights in pointing these out :)

The problem with forums is you take your chances with responses. You tend to get good, bad and indifferent comments, but don't be too disheartened as we all try to help - just some do it differently than others.

45 years in construction, over 20 years H&S Management in many diciplines, now I remember why I do not visit often, too many di*ks, stellagalloway spot on BYE