Defining staff competence - Small mechanical workshop

[mattador78]

Thanks very much, thats helpful. Would you ask staff to 'self certify' their knowledge and understanding / that they have read the manuals and keep a signed acknowledgement in their personnel files? I might be over-thinking this. I'm also thinking from a employers liability perspective, so we have evidence of staff formally accepting that they can use equipment safely

I guess its similar to getting formal acceptance of policies being read and understood

i would start with your "experienced staff" first your three core members and then let them determine you outliers

 

[James]

James,

Also note this from the HSE doc:

"API 579 Level 2 Method C – Approval based on past operation (grandfathering approach based on previous history) 35 This method is based on the assumption that past operation without problems shows that further use would not result in failure. This requires that no future foreseeable conditions exceed conditions experienced in the past."

You may find this justification useful.

John

Thanks John. This document is specific to pressure vessels. Do you know if similar provision is given elsewhere in a publication specific to general workshop machinery?

 

[John Broomfield]

Thanks John. This document is specific to pressure vessels. Do you know if similar provision is given elsewhere in a publication specific to general workshop machinery?

Grandfathering is fading from the formal recognition:

CSCS to withdraw ‘grandfather rights’ cards – Construction Manager

...the comments are interesting.

Google: HSE grandfathering -REACH

How about engaging the old-timers in drawing up the competence criteria? Then involve them in the assessments.

 

[James]

Grandfathering is fading from the formal recognition:

How about engaging the old-timers in drawing up the competence criteria? Then involve them in the assessments.

Hi John, that was my hope. This is the NHS, we have banding issues / "its not on my job description / thats not my responsibility" etc. I'm working on their goodwill...

 

[John Broomfield]

Good Luck!

 

[James]

We just determine who is competent and who is capable to train through basic competency tasks and time served, a simple spreadsheet controls it for us and its controlled by myself and the production manager as to who can and cant perform tasks. Roughly every 4 months we review staff capabilities in the tasks and adjust if required or leave it alone.

Quick question: Does 'able to train' indicate someone who could give training, or receive training (I'm assuming the latter)?. Who would approve the competency? - is that the 'grandfathers'...?

 

[mattador78]

Quick question: Does 'able to train' indicate someone who could give training, or receive training (I'm assuming the latter)?. Who would approve the competency? - is that the 'grandfathers'...?

We use that for the former, able to train deems them as a trainer not trainee (its old terminology from who used to control the skills matrix). For determining the competency it would be the trainer and senior management here, so we would have somebody trained by a senior staff member deemed able to train then his work reviewed by myself or the production manager and the person who trained them then sign them off if we are happy and leave them training if we aren't. From a HSE stand point you can determine competence as having sufficient training experience, knowledge and other qualities to enable them to properly undertake the duties assigned to them.

 

[James]

From a HSE stand point you can determine competence as having sufficient training experience, knowledge and other qualities to enable them to properly undertake the duties assigned to them.

Another couple of quick questions if you don't mind.

1. Would you categorise hand tools and powered hand tools perhaps as two machinery groups rather than observing practice of everything / signing off competence of each individual hand tool?

2. Similarly, do you do PUWER assessments on hand tools / powered hand tools?

 

[mattador78]

As a finisher we dont usually work with machine tools so our PUWER is pretty basic whereas i imagine your COSHH is pretty basic compared to ours. I cant see why a grouping wouldn't cover you. However that would be based on your assessments on staff, we do here have staff who are not permitted to perform additions or maintenance on specific departments chemistry due to their training level or experience. We keep that grouped so i cant see why it wouldnt work, best think you could do is write it out then audit it see where it falls down.

 

[mattador78]

Another couple of quick questions if you don't mind.

1. Would you categorise hand tools and powered hand tools perhaps as two machinery groups rather than observing practice of everything / signing off competence of each individual hand tool?

2. Similarly, do you do PUWER assessments on hand tools / powered hand tools?

You winning?