Looking for a bit of advice/second opinion on an issue I’m currently having on site.

Basically, we’ve started a new project, carrying out a reconfiguration of a large depot for a large UK chain and it involves a lot of high risk activities. The client have a direct subcontractor who they’ve worked with for a while, who carry out the dismantling and installation of all the high level racking in the store. Part of this task involves using harnesses attached to the racking to climb up and down whilst they fit it at a high level. This is a new task for me, so I wanted to find out more about the process, and came across an organisation called SEMA. Long story short, they are the UK’s only national body for racking and shelving, and off the back of the organisation, they have a training course called SEIRS, which is affiliated with CSCS. The HSE requested that this course be developed, and it is currently the only recognised training course and is referenced in the Warehouse and Racking ACoP that only competent people should carry out these works and then recommend SEIRS training.

I asked the contractors carrying out the task for proof of SEIRS cards. They’ve not got the cards, and upon speaking with the owner of the company he told me ‘I am not doing that course again, I have been doing this job 25 years and I don’t need it’ , then one of the client's onsite construction managers came up to us and said they don’t require any tickets. The issue I am having is that I have no other way to determine competency, and am I right in thinking that if an ACoP is recommending to go through this training, then they should have it. Much like a scaffolder would be required to have a CISRS card or an electrician an ECS card. The client appear to have no system to manage their direct subcontractors, we have construction managers who don’t enforce guys to wear safety boots or helmets (including the racking team who are moving large bits of metal in the racking) and no competencies are checked for any contractor.

We’ve come onto the project as the Principal Contractor, and requesting PPE, documentation and proof of competency etc and it’s causing a bit of an issue.

I feel like we are properly stuck in the middle, because we are the PC, but we have a client who doesn’t want to check competencies on site, and direct contractors on the project who simply believe they do not have to even report to us at all. I am very conscious of our legal duties and keeping everyone safe, and I was hoping for some advice if anyone here has dealt with a similar situation? I am lucky to have full management support on this, but it's also a huge project for the company, but I am struggling to come up with a resolution to this issue, short of telling them to stop work, which essentially stops the entire project. 

I've reiterated to client and contractor that this training course allows us to see operatives have task-specific training for a fairly high risk activities which involves using harnesses, scissor lifts and climbing at heights of up to 10m. The training is recommended, and they have no other alternative method of demonstrating competency other than essentially giving me their word for it. 

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Amy, tricky.

I don't think what you are referring to is an Approved Code of Practice given the seal of approval by the Health and Safety Commission (as was) or HSE to give this docuement the quasi legal status that HSWA gives an ACOP.

Instead I think you are referring to one of SEMA's Codes of Practice which are in effect the gold standard to which HSE would point in terms of GUIDANCE.

Think you need to approach this from the point of view of compliance with Work at Height Regs + all the structural bits of CDM.

Then ask the contractor doing the work under your supposed management as PC, but presumably without a direct contractual relationship to give you REAL clout to justify what they are doing.

My very FIRST position would be to ask why they are doing any work from open steelwork, with or without harnesses (attached, as Brian points out, to racking that has probably not got any paperwork to say that it has been designed, constructed and maintained for such loading).

In pre-CDM days this would probably not have been a "building operation" as defined in Section 176 of the Factories Act 1961.

But the definition of "construction work" in CDM took the definitions of "building operation" and "work of engineering construction" and closed off some perceived loopholes in the application of the Construction Regulations 1961 and 1966 to make the sort of work you are discussing fall within the scope of CDM.

It's essentially the same as knocking down a building with the same risks - falls from heights and temporary instability of partially dismantled racking to name the most obvious parallels with demolition.

So, if they don't want to follow the SEMA guidance it is up to the contractor to demonstrate how they are complying by other methods (including as regards training and competencies).

Not an ideal contractual relationship but you are where you are.

Good luck, Peter