Ask the Expert
EO_001 - What should be considered when developing random Drug Testing policies?
EO_002 - Would it be illegal for an employee not to wear PPE that has been provided?
EO_003 - Should fire drills be announced in advance?
EO_004 - Are written Risk Assessments required in law? (UK and Northern Ireland related question).
EO_005 - How do you establish positive Key Performance Indicators?
What should be considered when developing random Drug Testing policies?
Drugs’ testing is an invasive procedure, whether it involves taking body fluid samples or cutting hair, and invasive procedures beyond those necessary for surgical purposes or expressly sanctioned by proper laws, constitute an assault on the individual, no matter how minor the physical hurt caused. It further presumes a state of guilt with the onus on the individual to continually prove his/her innocence.
Safety professionals should seek good practice for improving safety. In this regard, the correct approach is to set standards for safety and performance and to expect workers to meet those standards after appropriate induction and training has been provided. Where workers fail to meet the required standard (or appear likely to be unfit to do so) then the role of the manager is to work with the employee to determine why and to inform him/her of the requisite performance requirements (including abstinence from substances likely to impair performance, and to report the taking of medication that may do so). It is by setting the standards, monitoring performance and, where necessary, retraining or removing consistent under-performers that good safety practice is established without the infringement of human or civil rights. In these circumstances it is immaterial whether the under-performance is due to incompetence, medication or drug use, the approach is the same and is acceptable, in law and in principle.
If any individual worker is involved in “illegal” activities, it is up to the police to collect the evidence and to prosecute, and there are internationally recognised standards controlling how this is to be done. It is not for employers and advocates of drug screening to subvert justice by adopting such highly irregular practices. Safety professionals must ensure that their concern for the safety and welfare of workers is holistic, far-seeking and ethical.
Would it be illegal for an employee not to wear PPE that has been provided?
If the PPE is appropriately provided then it must be worn, failure to do so is a breach of the employees' duties.
However many people view PPE as being a "last resort" control measure. In effect PPE is an integral part of the overall control of a work operation rather than a last resort. Certainly it should never be used as a convenient substitute for engineering controls, safe working procedures or competent practice, but in many circumstances it is the appropriate means of protecting the employee from harm and in that respect will always be 100% effective. If it is less than this then it is the wrong PPE for the purpose, or the wearer has been inadequately instructed in its use.
Particular types of PPE, such as Respiratory Protection Equipment must be fit tested to the wearer to ensure that the scenario of contaminated air leaking into their breathing space does not happen. It must be well looked after and maintained to ensure that it remains suitable for its purpose and finally the wearer must be suitably trained and assessed as competent before being authorised to work with RPE in hazardous atmospheres. If these conditions are met, then RPE will always fit, and will never leak contaminants into the breathing space.
The work operation is controlled utilising a variety of means, e.g. competence, engineering controls, PPE, each of which contribute varying degrees of safety, but all of which contribute 100% to ensuring the operation is safe before it starts.
Should fire drills be announced in advance?
There is a case for adopting both approaches. Pre-warned drills will allow for close observation, monitoring and feedback to participants, including briefings for those who were unduly tardy or who didn’t participate. Use this approach to train staff in the procedure and methods of exit from the premises.
No-warning drills will allow testing for real, supported of course with the same types of feedback to all staff. If this takes place after the pre-warned training type it may be more effective as everyone should be aware of what is required of them.
Are written Risk Assessments required in law? (UK and Northern Ireland related question).
It is often stated that written risk assessments are required where there are significant risks. In reality the regulations require that an employer record the significant findings of an assessment, which is a different matter entirely.
The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regs. state that significant findings are to be recorded, with the emphasis being on significant,
(6) where the employer employs
five or more employees, he shall record -
(a) the significant findings of the assessment;
A finding is a conclusion arrived at after examination of the facts of the situation. For it to be significant it must have an important influence or effect on the proposed activity or operation. By way of example, an assessment of a work operation that shows all the necessary controls to be in place must conclude "work operation safe to proceed".
Alternatively, where essential controls have yet to be identified or implemented the conclusion must be "work operation not safe to proceed".
Both of these are significant findings, the former permitting the continuation of the work operation, the latter prohibiting it, and by extension requiring that the operative/manager do more before he can give the go-ahead.
It is up to the individual how much more they wish to write into their record of findings, but it would be preferable if time and energy were devoted to developing and implementing the necessary control mechanisms, and writing safe working procedures if these are required than writing volumes of risk assessments.
How do you establish positive Key Performance Indicators?
KPIs are often set in the form of targets to reduce accident rates. However accidents and accident rates are failure indicators and may thus be regarded negative monitoring of performance.
To achieve a positive measuring/assessment of performance consider setting targets that are the detailed performance requirements that should be achieved by designated persons or teams in order to implement the plan. The plan should specify who is to do what, by when and with what result.
Thus, by way of example, a key objective may be that all workers are trained, assessed and certified fit and competent to provide a specific service within 6 months.
The results or outcomes expected will be documentation of who has been trained, when it took place and the assessment results, including certificates.
A plan will be drawn up to achieve this objective and within that plan will be targets such as:
1. Prepare a list of all those to be trained,
2. Obtain evidence of medical and physical fitness to carry out this type of task,
3. Schedule training dates,
4. Appoint trainers and assessors,
5. Notify all listed employees of training dates,
6. Provide training venue, equipment etc.
7. Carry out training and assessment,
8. Obtain assessment documentation and certificates,
9. Review the outcomes and prepare any necessary remedial actions (e.g. where one or more failed any element of the fitness or assessment procedures).
Thus it can be seen that by setting a clear objective or standard, namely that all workers are fit and competent to …, the performance requirements to achieve that objective follow. And by monitoring each performance requirement in turn we can effectively measure progress towards achieving the key objective.
Once the objectives has been achieved, a new objective can then be agreed, for
example, maintain the level of competence and fitness to carry out this work
amongst all workers, and corresponding targets to achieve this drawn up.
This approach will apply to all elements of the company’s business in varying degrees of complexity, and can be used strategically and managerially.