Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi, this is my first post here and I am after some advice really.
I am the Health and Safety Functional Role Person where I work, and have been made aware that a senior member of staff has put their signature on the fire safety daily check records when it is known that she does not carry out such checks.
The reason I believe is that we had an internal audit take place and after I noted that signatures were missing where staff had said they had done them in our planner they hadn’t signed the records, some going back months. So rather than lose points the senior member signed instead.
Should I be saying something? As it doesn’t sit well with me.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Jamie and welcome.
The lack of signatures prior to the internal audit suggests that people have not carried out daily fire checks. This needs to be investigated as to the reasons why.
As for a senior manager completing the blank signatures - I would raise this with your line manager in the first instance, or at the appropriate level within your organisation. Alternatively raise the matter with the senior manager but don't forget to ask them what they have done to ensure staff complete and sign for the daily fire checks.
Interested to learn how this turns out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is always a delicate issue when dealing with negligent managers - and especially those above your pay grade. Whatever method you chose to go is down to you as you know the culture in your firm. But you must do something. The fact that you know puts you in a postion that failing to do something makes you liable of a failing. At the very least, if you are in England or Wales, it might be worth advising that Article 32(2) (b) makes it illegal to enter a false record or Article 32(2)(c) to claim later those records are true. I agree with RayRapp, if you have no formal method or recording or communicating this issue, e-mail your Line Manager and let them earn their money by deciding what to do next. Good Luck --------------------------------------------------------------- Editted extract from the Fire Safety Order: Article 32 (2) It is an offence for any person to—
(b)make in any register, book, notice or other document required to be kept, served or given by or under, this Order, an entry which he knows to be false in a material particular;
(c)give any information which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly give any information which is so false, in purported compliance with any obligation to give information to which he is subject under or by virtue of this Order
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think you need to be careful to differentiate between somebody adding a missing signature and somebody "falsifying records".
If a fire check was undertaken but not signed against, there is a big difference to signing it after the event in order to make sure the paperwork is correct, and signing to say something has been done when it hasn't been.
|
 2 users thanked Mr Insurance for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Mr Insurance  I think you need to be careful to differentiate between somebody adding a missing signature and somebody "falsifying records".
I completely agree. It is easy for those who do not know the particular form to come to a conclusion of wrong-doing, without actually knowing what the purpose of the signature is on that form. Small steps first I would suggest, in order to find out some facts. The investigation might or might not be career changing for someone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Mmm, perhaps, just perhaps, they have been doing a diary entry and hadn't twigged there was a formal document. I might use it a a conversation starter and way to encourage change and compliance into the future. Use a negative event towards positive change in the future. Nothing lost and lots to gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: JamieDeacs
I....... have been made aware that a senior member of staff has put their signature on the fire safety daily check records when it is known that she does not carry out such checks.
A signature next to a record - especially a 'fire safety daily check' - usually means it is that person that has carried out that check or they are signing it on behalf of another person where it is known they have completed those checks Adding a missing signature to this - when you have no idea if the check was done - may well be seen by the Courts as fraudulent.
If you think it unlikely, cast you mind back to the Grenfell Inquiry and imagine the grilling you would get from the QC for taking such an action
|
1 user thanked Messey for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What's with all this tippy toes business...the original post made it quite clear, the senior manager signed off the daily fire checks due to an upcoming internal audit. Whatever their reasons it is poor practice. Just because they are a senior manager it gives them no right to act in such a manner and sets a poor example to subordinates.
If it was a simple matter of staff forgetting or not bothering to sign off the daily fire checks, then ok this needs to be addressed. On the other hand, if staff have not bothered doing the daily fire safety checks this is altogether a more serious breach and must be treated as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Why have you got daily check records? What purpose do they serve?
If it is a system "because" and the purpose is to illicit a signature rather than the activity e.g. unlocking a fire door at the start of a day then the practice rather than a manager's behaviour requires question.
Some call them "bluffing boards" people intent on completing check lists because we wrote a system that said we should - unfortunately if you tunnel someone's vision in this manner they stop seeing what is happening on the periphery which may be potentially more serious than an inch or two of ink.
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Why have you got daily check records? What purpose do they serve?
If it is a system "because" and the purpose is to illicit a signature rather than the activity e.g. unlocking a fire door at the start of a day then the practice rather than a manager's behaviour requires question.
Some call them "bluffing boards" people intent on completing check lists because we wrote a system that said we should - unfortunately if you tunnel someone's vision in this manner they stop seeing what is happening on the periphery which may be potentially more serious than an inch or two of ink.
|
6 users thanked Roundtuit 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.