Understanding Health & Safety Compliance

This post is for every Health & Safety Professional. (I would love to hear your input and comments.)

A while back I "had" a client that phoned me up and asked me whether I do training too, to which I replied, "Yes, I do, I am a registered Facilitator, Assessor and Moderator, So yes, I do training"

He then replied to me that I should rather stick to training, because I know absolutely nothing about Health & Safety Consulting.

When I asked him why he would ask and tell me something like this he replied: " The Client Agent on site advised him that he DOES NOT need an appointed First Aider on site, and I told him that he had to appoint one, so I know nothing...

To give you some background so that it will make more sense: This client was a Sub-Contractor on site. He had ±6 employees on site at any given time. The Law in South Africa states very clearly that: "Where there there are more than 10 employees at any workplace, the employer of those employees must ensure that there is a First Aider appointed that is available on site during normal working hours." This is Written under section 3(4) of the Safety Regulations.

This is what the Client Agent went on, and this is also the reason "according to him and my client" that my client did not require an appointed First aider - having only 6 employees on site.

Some more background: Since August 2014 it is compulsory to be registered with the SACPCMP as a Health & Safety Professional if you want to operate in the Construction industry. There are 3 main levels of registration: Safety Officer, Safety Manager and Safety Agent. I am in the middle, registered as a Construction Health & Safety Manager.

Now you would think that a Construction Health & Safety Agent (the top tear) should know more than a Manager or Officer, right?

Now, back to my story.

So the Client Agent referred to the "LAW" and said as it clearly states, my client does not have more than 10 employees on site and for that reason he does not require a First Aider.

My client then proceeded to contact me to give me a peace of his mind because what I told him does not correlate to what the "LAW" required from him. (and I knew absolutely nothing about the law)

Now here is my issue with "THE LAW" and how Health & Safety professionals interpret "THE LAW"

Had that Client Agent just started at the top of Section 3 he would maybe have come to the same conclusion as me. Because in the Safety Regulations under section 3 where it talks about first aid, it starts off as follows:

Safety Regulations Section 3(1) - ) "An employer shall take all reasonable steps that are necessary under the circumstances, to ensure that persons at work receive prompt first aid treatment in case of injury or emergency"

Here it does NOT state only after having more than 10 employees must the employer ensure that his employees receive prompt first aid.

Now, you can interpret it any which way you want, but when I look at Health & Safety Compliance I look at comprehensively covering my clients.

There would be people commenting now saying that that Sub-Contractor can fall under the Client or Principal Contractor's Health and Safety and the Client's or Principal Contractor's First Aider can stand in for the Sub-Contractor's employees. They will also mention 37.2 agreements, Section 5 of the Construction Regulations, etc. unfortunately it is NOT that simple, but I will elaborate on that in my next post...

It comes down to - If you as the employer do not have more than 10 employees at your workplace, you as the Employer will be a qualified First Aider and You as the employer will provide First aid treatment to your employees should the need arise, or you can just appoint a First Aider if you do not have the time or do not want to provide First aid to your employees yourself while you do not appoint more than 10 employees on site...

The duties of the First aider do not now disappear because you do not have 10 employees working for you....

Another fun fact: Section 3(2) Where more than five employees are employed at a workplace, the employer of such employees shall provide a first aid box or boxes at or near the workplace which shall be available and accessible for the treatment of injured persons at that workplace.

What happens to the first 5 employees? the LAW clearly states only if there are MORE that 5 employees the Employer must provide First Aid Kits, so do they NOT need a First Aid kit? What happens when one of them gets seriously injured? do you just toss him a roll of toilet paper and say "Stick it in the hole. Hopefully the blood will clot"? Remember you do not have a First aid kit, because the law stated that you do not need one...

It is my experience that people "Health & Safety professionals and Employers alike "just read and understand the "LAW" - the Occupational Health & Safety Act and applicable regulations at face value and take from it what they believe is applicable to them.

Finishing off with First aiders and when to appoint one...

Lets say, you have 20 employees working in teams of 5 (4 teams of 5 employees) Now, the LAW clearly state you must appoint a First aider when you have more than 10 employees, so here you can not argue that it is not applicable to me...

Safety Regulations Section 3(4) "Where more than 10 employees are employed at a workplace, the employer of such employees shall take steps to ensure that...at least one person is readily available during normal working hours, who is in possession of a valid certificate of competency in first aid"

In which one of the 4 teams will the First Aider operate? Because the ratios are 1 for every 100 employees for offices and shops and for any other workplace - 1 for every 50 employees"

So according to your ratios, you only need ONE First aider - So in which team will this appointed First aider operate?

What happens if an employee from one team gets seriously injured and your first aider is working in the other team at the other side of town? Remember... the LAW clearly states the Employer must provide "PROMPT First Aid"

This is where I sell comprehensive insurance to my clients. Yes I compare Health & Safety Compliance to having insurance in place. Compare the 4 teams operating at different sites to 4 vehicles (and they probably use 4 vehicles to get to site and back anyway) Which one of the 4 vehicles do you insure? Can you insure only 1 of the 4 and use that cover for the other vehicles when one of them are involved in an accident or are stolen? How will that conversation go with your insurance company?

"Hello ......surance, my one vehicle was just in an accident, can I use the cover from the other one to fix it?" Or "Can you please insure my vehicle that was JUST in an accident? What will the insurance company's answer be?

So how will I explain to that person's family that got seriously injured that I could not provide him with prompt first aid that could maybe have saved his life, because I did not see the need to appoint a first aider in his team AND the LAW did not state that I needed a fist aider for every team? Remember the LAW starts off by saying "An employer shall take all reasonable steps...to ensure that persons at work receive prompt first aid treatment"

Or do I keep my First Aider at the office on Stand-by and send him out to site as and when the need arise? Even then - will the First Aider be able to provide prompt First Aid?

Needless to say, that Client I referred to is no longer a client of mine.

I am here to advise my clients on what is best for them under ALL and ANY circumstances. I am the Health & Safety Professional appointed by my clients to guide and lead them to Health & Safety Compliance.

It worries me when there are Health & Safety Professionals out there that does not fully understand the Legislation and are unable to interpret it correctly.

I leave you with this last thought: "The Legislation (the Acts and Regulations) refers to minimum requirements. It refers to the bare minimum an employer must comply to." NOT to the maximum. Unfortunately there are lots of grey areas in the Legislation that is open for interpretation. Hopefully the person interpreting the legislation keeps an open mind and consider comprehensive cover rather than the bare minimum.

Have a great day all, and please send me you comments...

Kind Regards