Only your first aid provider can clarify their reasoning, but they may be concerned that using a mannequin in a real confined space could block exits or encumber trainees, leading to a real emergency. Navigating a confined space unencumbered is very different from doing so while handling a heavy dead weight.

Hi Sandra. We had something recently come up about first aid kits in vehicles and the opinion leaned towards doing a risk assessment and being pragmatic. I think the same would apply here.

Are emergency hammers and car escape tools the same thing? What do you need to escape from? Is the vehicle at risk of becoming submerged? Low speed travel around your average town without any nearby bodies of deep water might suggest otherwise.

Likewise, a tyre pressure gauge isn't so much an emergency item as a general maintenance issue. Electrical tape might be the same. Handy, but necessary for emergencies?

Personal alarms are a personal safety issue and quite separate from a car emergency imho - how can a personal alarm in the emergency kit help if the emergency kit is stowed in the boot? Where are your staff travelling and what situations are they being put into if personal safety is an issue that merits a personal alarm? I'd suggest you have a bigger issue if staff are asking for personal alarms.

As Alex P says, some items are very useful and should likely be included - hi-vis vests, a small first aid kit, perhaps a torch (bear in mind most people have mobile phones with lights these days).

I'd start by doing a risk assessment and thinking about the job and the hazards to which the worker is likely to be exposed to.

It might also be useful to go back to the employee and talk to them. It would certainly be good to understand why they think their personal safety is at risk rather than simply declining to provide a personal alarm.

I just wanted to say that you shouldn't dwell on covering every possible situation. As Chris says, do a risk assessment, figure out what's needed, and assess what training staff will need. Be practical. If the kit is for minor injuries during transport, you may not need much at all. Many kits in vehicles serve as on-site first aid kits that just happen to be in a vehicle for convenience, and need to be more comprehensive.

Perhaps if Rosa is talking about being an outsider in the context of manager/sub-ordinate relationships. Being a manager means you have to maintain a certain level of professional distance with your staff. Its the old case of banter and jokes with them today, but needing to fire them tomorrow. Its difficult to do that if they are a "mate". If that professional separation that makes a person an "outsider" in her context then I do agree.

If its an outsider in the context of being seen as "outside" the organisation or business, then I am with the other commenters and disagree. In my experience much more is gained by being part of the team.

Short of getting into a truck with a driver to pin him down and force some engagement out of him

Yes, engagement is a problem. It can force you into that situation of relying on work-as-imagined versus work-as-done. I imagine its especially difficult if someone is in a larger organisation where the H&S roles involved in creating policy and process become more office-based and have less contact with the frontlines.

Getting into a truck with that driver is something I have done. In my organisation I am fortunate enough to be able to spend time with the operators and I have the management support to do so. I might go out to a new job with them and pester them, asking questions about why they choose to do what they do and learn something about the role.

It's hard to argue against the usefulness of a good multitool!

Since I first posted I've had some discussion of CATs and trauma bandages. We're leaning towards including them in kits for high risk staff and our generic vehicle-mounted kits will focus on treating minor injuries you'd received in an orchard. I felt there was room for a little more in the kits but we're balancing preparedness against practicality. We're also fortunate enough the local ambulance is close enough that it is literally minutes away if there was major trauma.

The next step is to find a low cost way to secure the kits in the vehicle.

That is fascinating. That is quite the serious kit when you have Israeli bandages and tourniquets.

Its interesting you talk about bandaids. They, as you mention, are the most minor part of first aid kit but they seem to generate the most requests for us. I do like the idea of putting them in a separate small bag or container in the glovebox and that avoids opening, and spilling, the more serious contents of the main kit.

So looking at how it is actually used? We start with the larger risk register and filter it down into a smaller documents with those bite-sized chunks the worker needs.

I'm in a horticultural operation with orchards, coolstores, trucking and processing facilities. Obviously the risk register has a number of hazards that are relevant to all employees and there are other hazards only be relevant to those working in a certain area or role. This led to us splitting our risk register into a Common Hazards section and location specific hazards sections. You will see some hazards duplicated across locations in the register because of the way we classify the hazards by location. I have mixed feelings about the duplication but it seems to work alright for us.

The risk register provides a basis from which to develop inductions, SOPs, and other material. It is used by senior, H&S and HR staff in preparing those materials. Although the risk register is available to regular staff, none are expected to read it or use it day-to-day. The worker on the ground ends up with a location-specific induction and an SOP with what they need to know in their role.

Seems simple enough. The intention behind weekly is to have the scaffolding checked for safety every seven days.

Your scaffolder is being what I like to refer to as "maliciously compliant".

Hi Keith,

"unwilling to engage in your process "

There is opportunity to examine this from an HR perspective. It sounds like you have a clear process that the worker is not following before they get to the Doctor. Your HR people will know how to deal with workers that do not follow procedure.

and until then was not reported to the business.

Same answer for this second example. Being unfit for work and being disciplined for not following procedure are not mutually exclusive. Both can happen. I hope I don't sound too ruthless. You might want to examine the worker comprehension and retention after these toolbox meetings and while you know about the Doctor's letter, does anyone-else know about it and really understand why you have it?

There is no doubt they are time away from work injuries but how do you report them?

As lost time injuries. That is why we have letters for doctors and reporting processes. We try to avoid the lost time or the misclassification in the first place. IMHO, its rare to get data that is absolutely clean and accurate. You would also have a good argument as to why LTI data is inaccurate and not a useful indicator.

we have tried to get ACC to reclassify an injury

Good luck! I'm a few years out of date but last I dealt with it the health and ACC system doesnt like mis-classified injuries being reclassified into other types of injuries. The multitude of different information systems do not easily propagated a change through the network.

Changing a claim for work-related injury to personal injury is even harder. I've been involved in that several times and the employer is definitely on the back foot. Verifiable evidence is the only thing I've seen that will change ACC's mind.

I read the Judgement and I found section [50] to be key for me - WML wasn't just supplying access to land that was being used for a hazardous activity, the land WAS the hazardous activity.

[66] onwards with regard to the Risk Assessment process. If WML had assured itself the tour companies were completing their own robust risk assessments using regularly updated expert advice, for example, changing the tour schedules according the volcanic activity alerts, would WML have been found guilty? If the tour operators had been performing robust risk assessments it would seem not "reasonably practicable" for WML to duplicate their efforts.

To answer Peter's question though, it doesnt matter whether or not WML had its own workers on the island if it had control. And it was judged to have control. So Yes, I agree.

Thanks, Steve. I'll call during the week. South Island based, Steve.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I would appreciate being able to discuss this at some point with someone experienced and knowledgable.

I expect I will need professional indemnity and public liability insurance as a matter of course. I expect I have a way to go before I'll be held responsible for any $40 million buildings being destroyed as Chris recounts, but I certainly understand the necessity at any level.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Chris. I am a member of NZISM and I have my lvl 6 NZQA Diploma but I am not on the HASANZ register. I'll consider your advice carefully. Its given me food for thought.