Hi,
Waivers and disclaimers are generally a statement of some of risks you may be exposed to and the company stating their non committal to any responsibility in an adverse event. Most of us know this will never stand up in a court of law. (Not worth the paper they are written on). Safety procedures must be in place as no one can contract out of their H&S responsibilities.

I have made a start but what a muddy process to wade through

Thanks guys I did find information under NZS 4503:2005 for hand operated Fire Equipment. "It is a requirement that all portable and wheeled fire extinguishers be inspected at least every 12 months" and there are no set standards for the inspection of fire extinguishers for cars. (Light vehicles).
This is conflicting information to what I was told by the company that completes the annual checks on the office fire extinguishers. He stated that all the work vehicles, over 20 of them require the same annual testing and tagging at the same cost as the office ones. I think we will adopt or own regular checks as suggested and replace any that appear substandard and conduct the shake test.

A lot of workplace scenarios are being discussed. We must remain guided by the MOH and MPI in regard to Covid restrictions and controls. It is still a matter of choice in NZ unless you are on the coal face in certain high risk environment's. Moving forward I think public assess maybe denied in certain places. We do not have the right to push vaccinating on to people until it is policy.

Interesting topic as we have been reviewing this process at the moment. Risk Assessments are commonly used in my industry and the Risk Matrix can cause confusion with a few of our team. The need for additional training is what I have identified with some completing them well and others not so and use it for a point of arguing the outcome, at least it is generating discussion. The main problem is the difference between reducing the likelihood of an accident occurring with the appropriate risk controls to ensure it is safe to proceed, dropping the likelihood from say red to yellow or green and the consequence remaining the same, still catastrophic if it occurred

Oh and new Policies and Procedures (SOPs)

Hi Alex,
Just a few pointers on reporting to the board and what they usually like to see.
-Any Heath and Safety improvements/investments major spends and why.
-Incident/accident reports (significant) not just the near misses but trends should be mentioned.
-Graphs with full data including LTIFR along with a comparison to National data of similar industries as a comparison
-Staff training investments and special achievements
-A bit about contractor management if relevant
-Photos to support the above
-I usually finish the report with a Health and Safety funny.

I too have managed a large food processing company with seasonal workers. We had an established Health and Safety Committee (Mainly site/department leaders) and a H&S Reps committee (elected by the permanent workers for the workers) both meetings were conducted separately, which worked very well as the workers were very pro-active without management present at their meetings. A HSR spokes person would come forward to the Committee meetings. As long as workers have access to a HSR rep at any given time then this would be acceptable. Companies investing in expensive H&S Reps training for seasonal staff would not be very practical.

I agree Cathy I have found WorkSafe's Hazard Substance calculator very useful for both small and large companies.

No one should be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in the work place, meaning impaired as they could pose a risk to their selves and their work collogues. Cleaners handle chemicals, maintenance and repairs, hand and power tools, heavy lifting, driving vehicles etc. The usual would be random, post incident and pre-employment testing. You can have this requirement written into you contractor Pre-Qual. process. The form of testing is up to the Principle to decide, Urine and Oral Fluid can both be covered in your D&A Policy and then the process when you have a failed test.

Interesting reading and a nice outcome.

For high risk tasks where a worker maybe exposed to certain chemicals or dusty environments as an example, then it is the responsibility of the employer to monitor the on going health of that worker for example, annual lung function, and if working with machinery, annual hearing tests and if that worker ops out of an annual health check then they are not being monitored effectively and may not be suitable for the task. This must be reflected in the workers employment agreement. For less hazardous occupations the annual health check is offered but the worker can decline that offer and sign an opt out form usually provided by the occupational health professional

I have used, MyOSH, Vault, Viking, Mango, IRIS (for Event management) and verious complicated inhouse systems. I prefer Mango even though it is an Australian system.

Attached is a draft of questions to go with the above presentation. I hope all you H&S Safety Professionals know the answers :smile: I generally have a good interactive session asking questions and then complete a group Q&A session. It takes around 1.5 hours. Then issue all participants a certificate of attendance.

Hi, attached is the basic original presentation I am happy to share, I have many versions of this for different businesses and industries but the message is the same.

Hi Sandra,
I have a presentation I developed that covers exactly that. Health and Safety Responsibilities training and then I follow up with a group Question and answer session. It takes around 1 and half hours

Hi Averil,
I am happy I was able to help :)

Hi Averil,
I have developed a lot of Industry Pre-Qualification procedures for different industries. Some are desk top assessments of Health and Safety Management systems and other more involved score tested assessments and work place audits for evidence. One size does not fit all and it depends on the industry you are involved in. Happy to help and I can forward you some examples if you e-mail me on chrissyatbwsafetydotcodotnz

Yes I agree Jon you have provided additional detail and I like the comment it is (a ticket to the dance) :smile:

Totally a conflict of interest! Pre-Qualifications were initially a process for deciding which contractor was best suited for the job. It was an assurance that they had suitable procedures in place prior to a principle engaging them. I have found that Site Wise Pre-Quals, initially did not cater for everyone and the scoring system was not particularly consistent with top marks only given to those with a Site Safe Health and Safety system. Blatantly linking it to a sales pitch I think is in-appropriate. Also the name Pre-Qual. should be renamed "Re-Qual."for those contractors you want to retain and you have no intention of putting them through a tender process to re-engage them, completed every two years.