The HSWA is explicit in requiring workers be trained S36 (3)(f). I believe that this (and other parts of the act) imply that a workplace needs to ensure competency (cavate to this: relevant to the level of supervision) of a worker for a task - assumption is not adequate. So, my triggers for 'refresher' training are:
- Explicitly stated in a Code of Practice (i.e. STMS under CoPTTM)
- Change in standard or methodology
- Change in or introduction of new tool, equipment or technique
- Need to establish current competency.
This last one is a bit trickier. if a person is regularly undertaking the task (person whose sole role is driving a forklift) .... ? vs Person very rarely ever does it, such as 'helicopter underwater escape training (how often does a person crash a helicopter into water)?
Then the pragmatic me jumps in. Any business worth its salt (especially in todays employment market) invests in the development of its people as a core part of work, not a bolt on. When a person starts this time is loaded into 'learning how we do things', then evolves into developing additional capability and maintaining currency, and then starts letting go of past competencies and replacing them with higher functions. It is a pretty consistent time load, just with a different focus. And to make (H+S) training requirements consistent and reliable I put everything on a two-year cycle and stagger different disciplines, so that no person has to do more than one requisite training in any three-month period. (3 months over two year = 8 training sessions). Ideally, I avoid training a person for a task they will rarely be performing in the next two years.
The question 'when did they do the training / refresher' or 'were they trained' is finite and quite poor 'investigation' on its own. Certainly, as an H+S Inspector I didn't ask only this. the focus should be 'what evidence does the business have the person was competent to undertake the take?' is a better position.
I recently completed an investigation into a fatality where we asked just this question. Our findings were consistent with those of many other enquiries I've conducted:
1. Workers capability / competency was assumed, rather than established (evidence-based)
2. Formal training wasn't provided because it wasn't 'required' (by a COP / GPG / Other)
3. The quality of formal training was never questioned, turned out to be very poor.
4. Internal / Informal training was provided by individuals with no credentials or verifiable industry expertise.
Irrespective of the type or caliber of H+S approach being run, people need to know how it works - this is training. Training doesn't happen on a single point, and the more critical the skill, knowledge and understanding the higher quality it needs to be delivered with.