I've come to H&S from Quality and lean manufacturing. As far as I can see learning teams are very similar to Kaizen teams, 4Ds are similar to removing Muda (waste) from the process, and failing safely is similar to poke yoke (error proofing). So the ideas are even older than that and are main stream practice in many non H&S areas.

They are all good concepts, and I've had them work extremely well in the right applications. In the wrong situation, and without buy in at all levels then they fall flat.

The juice is always worth the squeeze! — Matt Sadgrove

is very true.
If you decide that learning teams is the latest big thing, and look for problems to solve, then everything 'looks like a nail'.

But if you have a problem that involves several levels of the organisation, and bring in a learning team, armed with the right tools, and guided by someone that knows their stuff, then the results will exceed the sum of the parts.

I think the answer is that it depends.

Chris's definition is from the ISO31000 risk management standard, and is very useful when you need a definition that applies across all situations. I've used it successfully when covering risk management across all arms of the business.

But I'm told that across the ISO body of standards there are something like 19 different definitions of risk. Which says to me that the definition of risk can and should change depending on the situation and circumstances.

So when discussing health and safety I often simplify it further. A hazard is something that could hurt you. A risk is the chance that exposure to the hazard causes harm.

From there, depending on the audience and what we're doing, I build on the hazard being a potential energy source, where and what the controls and barriers are to reduce exposure, and what types of harm could occur.

Wouldn't more specific plans to deal with the most conceivable emergencies for ones business be a more effective approach to plan for and manage an emergency? — Riki Brown

I'm breaking our plan into three chunks
- the emergency response plan dealing with the immediate threat and safety: fire, earthquake, floods, chemical spills, etc.
- the business continuity plan dealing with keeping the business running short term. Staff communication plan, staff trauma counselling, infrastructure assessment (IT, power, comms, roads, buildings, etc), planning the response
- the recovery plan - insurance, relocation rebuild or repair options, server and information recovery from backups, staff wellbeing.

That seems to be working, in that I can do specific plans in the emergency section and more general plans to keep things running.

A good risk assessment, developed in conjunction with the staff that are involved, will bring buy in and solutions that work.

Especially if the result is a social contract for responsible drinking, appropriate behaviour, safe driving and transport options, and having food / snacks provided. It may even become self policing with those involved holding each other to account.

One place I worked got a request from staff for a hand held breathalyser so that they could assess whether they were OK to drive. The official response we got from the police when we asked them for advice was that if they were considering using the breathalyser to check, then they shouldn't be driving.

I'll follow up with the "several staff members" angle.Either safety boots aren't really required for their role, as has been mentioned above, and they have all decided together to get a doctor certificate to get out of the requirement.

Or, the other possibility that springs to mind is that something about the job (or the footwear options they have) is causing a foot problem and the resulting doctors visits. Perhaps investigate that angle.

I know from personal experience that a good podiatrist can do much more than a normal GP. Refer your staff to a podiatrist and the problem may go away.

Most of the sign in sheets I've seen had a spot to write the visitors cell phone number or email, but not their employers contact phone. Ringing the visitors own cell phone wouldn't help in an emergency. In your scenario, the person receiving the visitor should have the contact details of the company they represent, or be able to find them.

Hi Keith,
Whenever I post here, I always seem to stir up far more discussion than I intended.

There was a pre covid sign in sheet, set up before my time. I was trying to figure out whether to start using it again.

Having fire wardens is not a legislation, but it's part of the approved fire evacuation plan for my buildings wof, so mandatory.

The fire wardens can be counted on to sweep the building, people with visitors can be expected to look after them in any emergency (even if they've popped to the toilet) and there wasn't any nned I could see. But I asked here in case anyone had a good reason otherwise. With good alternative systems in place, a sign in sheet is irrelevant.

I'm currently going through an 'all hazards' business continuity and emergency management plan, and the feedback here has been useful for that. But I still haven't seen the need for a sign in sheet for visitors to the office.

But building sites I feel may be a different matter. They don't have working fire alarms or sprinklers, often don't have designated fire wardens, and the only warning system is people yelling fire, and someone out in the car park sounding a car horn three times. Who, on the third floor, wearing hearing protection while using power tools will hear a car horn? So I'm trying to improve the culture around signing in there. But improving a culture is a difficult battle...

Thanks for the excellent answers everyone.

So it seems that sign-in sheets have a place where there aren't other systems that cover the same function.

We have established and trained wardens and head wardens and regular drills. That is better practice than a sign in sheet. We have an emergency plan that is covered in all inductions.

We have an induction system for contractors so that they know where to go in an emergency, and have a contact person that knows where they are. And we know how many staff the contractor is bringing to site. Those are things that a sign in sheet won't do. I may modify the induction form so that the fire wardens in the area of work are alerted about people working in server rooms / crawl spaces.

But construction sites are another matter. The level of compliance for signing in on some building sites I've visited makes them less useful than not having them. I've seen the team lining up to sign in only after the safety inspector arrived and a check of the book showed less than 5% were signing in on other days. But building sites never have fires so she'll be right (he said sarcastically thinking about the Sky City fire...)

I'm surveying all my clients that had them, and most have back saying they are not required anymore. Some are very slow to reply. Only DHBs and aged care facilities still require them as far as I've seen.

Between supporting people that are isolating (ensuring that they can work from home and offering to provide supplies and mental health support if they need it), contact tracing for people that were in the office while contagious (very few transmissions at work so far), providing masks and other PPE for field staff, keeping our protocol document up to date as per latest government release, tracking which clients still require vaccine passes, administering RATs as required (interoffice travel only at the moment), facilitating applications for the leave support scheme, and answering the constant stream of questions related to the above, I seem to be spending 10% to 20% of my time devoted to Covid related matters. We have had between 5% and 10% of staff isolating at any one time since February and I think that would have been higher without the effort put in. It's a busy time to be in H&S

I did not expect this question to generate so much response. It was a one-off question about a one-off trip, and is not going to be worth writing up a company procedure for, unless it starts to become more common. However, I've been talking offline, reviewing what's been said here, and looking further where I can. These are my thoughts are all that feedback:
!) The benefits for cycling more and driving less are huge - mental health, physical health, direct cost, indirect environmental cost, etc. The Waka Kotahi information above stresses this a lot.
2) The risk factors are the same for a car. Driver error, other vehicle error, road and traffic conditions. I've looked up the accident rate and it's slightly higher per km for cyclists than drivers, and the likelihood of injury is greater. But the mitigation is the same - driver training and being aware of the risks. Where is our risk appetite? If we are too worried to allow cycle use in company time, why do we allow car use? The line is arbitrary. As per Chris H above, we aren't in the business of fixing hazards associated with NZ roads.
3) Other factors such as maintenance of the bicycle, whether it is suitable for carrying any required cargo, and whether the clients will have a positive impression. We allow private vehicle use for some instances, and stipulate that the vehicle must be presentable, suitable and well maintained. The same extends to bicycles.
4) Insurance. This could be considered commercial use. But a bicycle is insured under house and contents, rather than as a vehicle so doesn't have a commercial use clause. If there is an accident while riding a bicycle on company time, would the riders vehicle third party insurance cover damage to any other vehicles or property. There have been a lot of bicycle thefts covered in the newspaper recently. Would the bicycle be insured against theft while at the client's site? I am not an expert on this level of insurance but am happy for anyone here to answer, although it doesn't really fall into our H&S lane.

For a start I wouldn't be encouraging people to cycle to work. — Andrew

By encourage - we have provided bike sheds and showers so that people feel more comfortable about riding to work. And we take part in the Aotearoa bike challenge month Love to Ride challenge as one activity in the 'Be Active' part of the 5 ways to mental health stress and wellness initiative. So we enable cycling to work, and encourage a healthy and resilient lifestyle.

All sweaty and hair a mess with cycle clips — Andrew

As i said, this site is only a few blocks away.

As from there do the risk assessment. Personally. Id err on metal vs metal rather than metal vs a squishy thing. — Andrew

The consequences are greater, but the exposure is very small- likelihood being made up of exposure and chance of the risk happening. There are a lot of higher risks deemed 'as low as reasonable practical'.

What is the company culture in terms of sustainability? — Jane

Sustainability is a project I'm working on, moving from just claiming to be in favour of it to having policies and 'walking the talk'. Watch this space, but there are bigger challenges to close out first.


Thanks for the debate though, it's helping me get my head around the issues.

Hi Riki,

My advice has always been to always apply up. Apply for a job that you're underqualified / under experienced for, and then grow into it. Employers are more likely to choose an applicant with ambition and a lower starting salary than one with less drive and a higher starting salary.

Garth
https://www.linkedin.com/in/garthforsberg/

Some DHBs have been telling me that they need an assurance that only vaccinated contractors go to their site but are also reserving the right to request full name, date of birth, date and type of vaccination and other personal information for any staff that might be going to their site in the future.
I've said yes to the assurance, but no to the other request.
The wording similarity between each DHB makes me think they either all have the same lawyer or they are cutting and pasting from the Act but getting it out of context.
Other non-health clients have made similar demands.

It says on the website in the links that submissions closed 04 October 2019. Will there be more consultation?

One SOP format I saw had a why column, with both Quality and Health and Safety notes in it. There was an instruction such as "place guards over the edges", and a why column saying "because they are sharp and you'll cut yourself!" I might implement that on the next SWMS I write up.

We recently changed providers, after several complaints from staff that the existing service had not met their needs. They had cancelled and changed appointments at the last minute, and then not handled the complaint well.

The change process involved reference checks with other clients of the provider, as well as interviewing the providers to determine their processes and capabilities around service provision and complaint handling. But it is a difficult call to make due to the confidential nature of the service being provided.

However, we are very happy with the new service and the staff feedback that we have had has been good.

I've always told employers that if we are sending staff overseas, but they are still paid from New Zealand, then we were still paying ACC levies. These staff were then expected by ACC to be protected by an equivalent or better H&S management system and legislation as was required here.

I may have been technically incorrect, but I was convincing enough to then be required to set up site safety plans and other systems for them while working and staying overseas.

We are setting up a 3 pillar system of stress management:
1) reducing and managing stressors at a system level (i.e. managing workload and overtime),
2) improving resilience and mental wellness at a personal level (5 ways to mental wellness), and
3) having a safety net when things go wrong, that includes Employee Assistance Service, emotional first aid training for managers and personal stress management plan training.

One company I worked at had a stress management policy of "providing free massages on a Thursday." While that was nice, it didn't address any systemic issues or build staff resilience.

Nothing in the ISO standards, but some of the other standards I've had to "work with" and be be audited to listed specific documents that had to exist. The auditor spent their time writing down the reference number of the document without ever reading the contents. They are the guys that need the cross referenced index in a specific manual.