"I also believe they need to speak more about the overall benefits to the organisation and stop thinking they need to be "passionate" about health and safety. Being passionate frankly just makes us look detached from the realities of business. Neither an outsider, nor a teammate, just a nuisance."

Spot on @

I may be a heretic but.... to be practical and pragmatic, ask "what are my workplace's mechanisms of injury", and link your first aid kit contents to them:
If you don't have burn risks why have lots of burns dressings? If you don't have major cut/laceration risk why have lots of wound dressings? If you don't have lots of small nicks or scrapes why have 50 bandaids? If you don't have lots of soft tissue injury risks why have multiple bandages?

A small kit used frequently, is better that a large kit which is never used -and thus ends up in the most inaccessable place when you really want it.
(one of our vehicle FAKs had 7 CPR masks - I'm not sure what the 3 crew members were expecting??)

Hi Carol

Our formal risk register of more than 150 significant risks sits on a database with the H&S team, and no-one looks at it. What it supports are:
A set of 7 critical risk bowties developed by the workers.
A matching set of 7 key critical risk controls that the workers have influence and control over. These are distilled down to an A4 page and are attached to all tailgate forms, and every SWMS'.
Where a SWMS needs to drill down further then the information from the formal register is used.

We find that it has been simplier and easier for our workers to understand and explain, as they are only dealing with what they have influence and control over.

For context we are a electricity supply company working on live electricity up to 66 kV, at heights and in excavations, lots of plant and machinery, working 24/7 including adverse weather - so some significant hazards.

The auditable part of this is that there is a obvious pathway back to the detail in the formal risk register.

Cheers
Stephen.

WorkSafe has a set of FAQs for Commercial Landlords on thier website.
In summary they are a PCBU and have duties to consult, co-operate, and coordinate with you as another PCBU with overlapping duties - I doubt that you would need to treat them as a contractor depending on how much control and influence you have over thier work.

Our experience is that for short time periods (less than 2 weeks) then the easy option is for Doctors to give time off - especially injuries on Thursdays.
For long-term injuries our employees often want (and need) interaction with thier workmates, rather than just sitting isolated at home for weeks on end - we tend to underestimate just how much of thier social interaction our workplace is for many!

Sometimes we just don't have the alternate duties available for long term injuries, which can become problematic to balance the employee's needs/our needs/ what ACC wants - especially non-work related.

At a previous employer we reluctantly had an employee back on graduated return to work plan for non-work-related injury. They managed to injure themselves worse than the original injury and ACC were very unhappy - especially when we pointed out that AAC had pushed for GRTW.

You might want to have a look at Worksafe's:
Good Practice Guide: Managing Work Site Traffic Feb 2021. There is a section on seperating walkways and forklifts and other lifting/reaching plant.
Guide to Working safely with pallet racking systems April 2021.

Your thoughts on remedial actions are in line with thier guidance.
I would give more thought to item #2 = why is it not reasonable practical to use pallet wrap or stap down items on pallets?

New person = we have formal driver assessment before they can drive our fleet, it's non-threatening and focuses on both hazard indentification and good driving behavoiur. Someone who has a drivers licence for 10 years may have been a mediocre or bad driver for 10 years (by definition 50% of drivers are below average).

New vehicle = It depends on what the magnitude of change is:
When we recieved the first generation of 4WD utes that had ABS, traction control, stability control, etc we discovered that many got stuck because our very experienced off-road drivers hadn't adapted thier driving style to how the new 4WD systems work ( i.e putting your foot down harder and letting the electronics work for you) - so our vehicle trainer did a education and practical session with them.
We didn't do this with the next batch of utes as there was only an incremental change in technology.

In my experience it is far cheaper to replace nylon web slings than to have them re-certified - effectively they are consumerables.
This conversation came up often when I worked for a company that tested and certified lifting equipment, how many of these slings would pass re-certification as you are still paying for the test regime?

Hi Averil

This was discussed previously here: https://forum.safeguard.co.nz/discussion/766/safety-conversations

Cheers
Stephen.

We effectively went 'site dry' during Covid - however we still have company off-site functions where responsible drinking is OK.

Thanks @Sarah Becker
We are reviewing our providers, so perfect timing.

I am assuming that you are talking about the initial screening test only?
(i.e.saliva samples for screening, but urine samples for confirmatory testing)

When I was at a previous company we had an external auditor who wanted us to change all our documentation to match the template of another company they had previously audited. As they were not in the same line of business as us, we respectfully declined - however it subsequently took a lot of explanation about how our business differed to pass the audit.

I'm pleased to say that our current auditors are required by regulation to be accredited as competent in both our industry and H&S practices.

@Jane is this a specific emergency response plan for your business, or have you strayed into a general disaster plan? (i don't know what is relevant for your business either)

@Riki Brown Section 14 of the Regs is reasonably prescriptive about it being relevant to the nature of your businesses forseeable emergencies that you have control or influence over, especially when read in the context of Sections 13 and 15. Worksafe's website information is very much specific hazard based = flammable materials, hazardous substances, fall from heights, excavations and trenches, risk of drowning, engulfment etc.....

We are a utility critical infrastructure, so our emergency management plans have to conform to the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. We have do do all the things and much much more that are listed above.
Possibly so would essential services like farms, but a non-essentail retail business is likely to shut it's doors and ride out the storm (safer for people to stay at home, if they evacuate they are not coming to work anyway) - remember the questions during Covid levels about who be open and who should close???

I have been surveyed many times in multiple organisations, and the overwhelming majority added no lasting value whatsoever (including an industry-wide one that I ran for our business).

Pitfalls I have seen are:
Not getting the initial questions right, which result in a series of "What did you mean by......?" meetings (according to surveys 6 out of 7 dwarves aren't 'Happy').
Not following up on promises or actions, which makes staff distrust any subsequent surveys.
Only doing a single survey, so that any trends are not visible - we obviously look for improvement to justify the effort, but also need to know what to stop when things trend down!.

Don't panic, and treat them like you would want to be treated if you were the inspector!

I have always had positive and even-handed interactions with WorkSafe, even when we didn't quite come up to scratch (currently closing off an Improvement Notice) - They will point you in the right direction, but don't expect any specific detailed technical guidance.

Hi Sandra

We are in a similar place with regard to Director or Executive Manager site visits, we are still very immature (they have only been doing this for 12 months), but extremely willing to improve.
I have attached our form - page 2 is the most relevant regarding what you are asking!

Cheers
Stephen

@MattD2
Good perspective, and I agree with the company viewpoint about being exposed if stepping out of the norm - especially if the training is not related to the company's core business.

I have no issue with refreshers covering key points, but what irks me is the perception that we have to undertake full Unit Standard training every year/two years/three years.
This country has some outstanding trademen who's apprenticeship is unit standards based. If we took the percieved need for referesher training of unit standards every 2 years to a flawed conclusion, no-one would finish thier apprenticeship!

Note in my earlier post I referenced the BPG for MEWPs - it states that 'one means of demonstrating competency is completeing nationally recognised NZQA unit standards' which leaves the door open for an equalivent traning course. likewise the refresher only needs to cover listed requirements in the BPG.

Hi Don

There are some that have mandated intervals that exist at a level lower than Regulation, but others do not: for example Worksafe's Best Practice Guide for MEWPs states 'refresher training not exceeding three years' but the ACOP for Cranes is silent on refreshers.
My industry refresher periods are mandated by EWRB, as well as our industry assoiciation safety rules.

However unit standards do not actually expire, so most PTEs have 'recommended' a two year interval where no regulation exists - if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount.
A good example is fire xxtinguisher training, providers list anywhere from yearly to 3-yearly intervals citing compliance with HSWA and 'good practice'.

Cheers
S.

In our case, some of the site specific risks were not internal.
One of our sites shared a boundary with a fuel tank farm for a major port - since our major activities included welding and gas cutting, the fire risk was seen as higher than an equivilent site next to a sports field.