supervisors responsibility Duty of Care

[Alan Reade]

. You really need to read the HASAWA and look at HSE prosecutions. Nine out of ten prosecutions are made for breeching section 2.1 "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
Its also your employers duty to follow section 2.3 "the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;"

Key words "training and supervision.

now if the employer can prove the supervisor has been fully trained then the supervisor may well be prosecuted , but it would be very unlikely as most companies will fall down on the strength of their H&S Policy , risk assessments and method statements. THE HSE know that they will win the majority of cases going for the employer under section 2.1

You may or may not be right DS but consider the following comments/suggestion that may be offered in defense by a reasonable person,

1) The key words in your statement are actually “It shall be the duty of the Employer”

2) Employers may well provide adequate and suitable training which is their duty; it is however the duty of the operative to take best advantage of supplied training.

3) If; as you say, it can be proved that the Supervisor is competent he can then considered to be guilty of negligence. This may be harder to prove than incompetence.

Definition: A supervisor is the lowest, or most-junior, management position. It is usually a step above lead, but below Manager.
A supervisor is responsible for the day-to-day performance of a small group. It may be a team, or a shift. The supervisor has experience in what the group does, but is not necessarily better at it than everyone he/she supervises. The supervisor's job is to guide the group toward its goals, see that all members of the team are productive, and resolve problems as they arise.


All the above said, Old hands or not we all have a duty to keep up with the times.

Regards
Alan

 

[Double-Standards]

You may or may not be right DS but consider the following comments/suggestion that may be offered in defense by a reasonable person,

1) The key words in your statement are actually “It shall be the duty of the Employer”

2) Employers may well provide adequate and suitable training which is their duty; it is however the duty of the operative to take best advantage of supplied training.

3) If; as you say, it can be proved that the Supervisor is competent he can then considered to be guilty of negligence. This may be harder to prove than incompetence.

Definition: A supervisor is the lowest, or most-junior, management position. It is usually a step above lead, but below Manager.
A supervisor is responsible for the day-to-day performance of a small group. It may be a team, or a shift. The supervisor has experience in what the group does, but is not necessarily better at it than everyone he/she supervises. The supervisor's job is to guide the group toward its goals, see that all members of the team are productive, and resolve problems as they arise.


All the above said, Old hands or not we all have a duty to keep up with the times.

Regards
Alan

.
That was my point Alan , the employer as a duty to provide training this includes the correct training to his supervisors.
There was a case not long back I think it was in Birmingham where a roofing supervisor had asked his men to go onto a roof to remove some tiles that they could not reach out of a cherry picker. The men had a risk assessment for the method of working from the cherry picker but not for the method the supervisor had asked them to do.
They were spotted by the HSE and it ended up in court, the managing director could prove he had supplied training , and suitable work instructions including on his Risk Assessment it stated the supervisor was to contact the H&S department if they needed to change the method
of work of which he did not. The supervisor was the only person fined.

The moral to the above is if you are supervising men , make sure you know the RA'MS inside out and that your men are working as per the RA'MS

 

[BetterTAX]

There is also this part to the Health and Safety at Work act 1974:

7 General duties of employees at work.It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—
(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and
(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

But I'd say you're correct in assuming that a supervisor has "overall" charge to make sure things are being done as they should.

We've been talking to HSE lately and what comes across all the time is how it is the duty of the employer to provide and pay for training, particularly H&S training.

However, it also comes to our attention that employers don't pay for training and will employ only those qualified already (unless they dip under the CISRS radar). Would it also be true to say that if you asked for the cost of course to be covered by your employer, they'll likely refuse? You are then meant to report said employer to HSE... probably at the cost of your job?

 

[dangeruss]

I have came into contact with several old school industrial Dinosaur Scaffold Supervisors of late who are so out of touch it's shocking can't work a computer understand the legal requirement for Risk assessments, method statements, W@H SSOW or even demondstrate a basic understanding of SG4 10 or TG 2008 These dinosaurs are walking a thin blue line if the **** hits the fan the man with the curly wig will sentence these out of touch individuls under HSWA 1974

Supervisors take the Kings shilling albeit some through Nepatism as opposed to Being Competent ie knowledge, experience and qualifications:idea:

Point being Supervisors have enhanced roles and resposibilitys and are accoutable, move with the times this is the new millennium reeducate yourselfs legislation will win every time the Health and Safety Executive are the supervisors Crown Court

Its not really their fault. If they are employed to carry out a specific job ( supervising) their employer has a legal responsibility to make sure they are adequately trained to do so.

 

[poacher turned gamekeeper]

The Jurassic Supervisors I am talking about are breaking all the rules without their employers knowing, and should be formulating RAMS with the help and advice of their HSE dept. And I will stand by them putting men to work so if the cak it's the fan they should and will face the man in the curly wig!!! Granted company MD's are accoutable but they employ supervisors to do just that Supervise including the relevant paper work RAMS, TBT's etc

 

[Double-Standards]

The Jurassic Supervisors I am talking about are breaking all the rules without their employers knowing, and should be formulating RAMS with the help and advice of their HSE dept. And I will stand by them putting men to work so if the cak it's the fan they should and will face the man in the curly wig!!! Granted company MD's are accoutable but they employ supervisors to do just that Supervise including the relevant paper work RAMS, TBT's etc

. Supervisors are still employees and as such should be trained to do their job if they haven't been fully trained and their roles and responsibilities are not defined in the H&S policy it will always be the MD in front of the judge.