The Importance of Low-Level Health and Safety Training

By Mark Dennis

Background

It is a contention of many employers today that their responsibilities for health and safety are either ‘new’ or ‘from Europe’ or both. However, for certain fundamental requirements, both statements are untrue. This is certainly the position so far as low-level health and safety training is concerned. There is a widespread lack of awareness of the importance of providing health and safety training for all workers. This article considers some reasons why the subject deserves more attention.

The legal obligation to give workers health and safety training is certainly not new. In England, case law has established the employers’ duty of care as common law for many years. One leading case is Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company v. English, upon which the House of Lords gave judgement in 1938 – seventy years ago. Cases such as this established that employers should provide, among other things, a competent workforce, safe systems of work and adequate supervision and instruction. All these requirements underline the need for health and safety training for all workers.

Some 35 years later, in 1972, the Report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work (the Robens report) devoted a whole chapter to the subject of health and safety training. The opening words of that chapter (13) are still true today: “Most people are agreed that safety training is of vital importance. There is no unanimity about what in practice should follow from this proposition.”

Legal requirements

The Robens report led to the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974, which made the employers’ common law duty of care criminally enforceable. The Act includes a duty (S 2(2) (c)) to provide “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.” Thus, the failure to provide health and safety training became a criminal offence, irrespective of whether or not injury or harm was caused as a result. This is still the position today. However, the qualification “so far as is reasonably practicable” means that the training provided should be commensurate with the risks that it is intended to mitigate.

The general duty was made more explicit in 1992 by the introduction of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (which were revised in 1999). These state (Regulation 13) that employers must provide employees with adequate health and safety training in five different circumstances;

1. on recruitment;
2. if transferred to different work or given new responsibilities;
3. if new equipment is introduced or existing equipment modified;
4. if new technology is introduced; and,
5. if a new or altered system of work is introduced.

The duties mentioned so far are general in scope. However, they are supported by more specific requirements in other regulations. There is not space here to set out the requirements in detail; but the main health and safety regulations with specific requirements for the training of workers are:

• Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002
• Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005
• Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992
• Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996
• Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
• Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005
• Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
• Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
• Work at Height Regulations 2005

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 also contains requirements for employee training.

Civil liability

The majority of regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974 are actionable in civil proceedings. This is known as a breach of statutory duty. It means that any failure by the employer to comply with the requirements of the regulations could make a claim for compensation more likely to succeed. (It should be noted, though, that the outcome of each individual case will depend on many factors.) Nevertheless, it is prudent for safety practitioners to review the legal duties of their employer to provide training for employees; and ensure that the necessary action to comply is taken.

One example of how this can occur is the case of Jeffery O’Neill, who tore two discs in his lumbar spine while working for DSG Retail in 1997. O’Neill claimed that his employer had not complied with the duty to avoid manual handling operations, or to carry out a risk assessment and reduce the risks to the lowest level reasonably practicable. Although the county court dismissed the claim, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding that the employer had breached the Manual Handling Operations Regulations by failing to provide proper training; and that the injury was foreseeable. O’Neill was awarded £39,000. (O’Neill v. DSG Retail [2002] EWCA Civ 1139).

Practical considerations

It can be seen, then, that the legal obligations to provide health and safety training are extensive. In addition, there are sound practical reasons for providing safety training to all levels of the workforce. Indeed, the existence of these practical benefits helps to explain why training features so strongly in health and safety legislation. Laws are generally there for a reason.

Workplace accidents are frequently reported in the safety press. It is almost certain that any safety journal randomly selected will include reports of accidents which were caused, at least in part, by a failure to provide safety training.

A more structured analysis is provided by a report from the former Department for Education and Skills: The Supervision of Trainees on Work Based Learning Programmes (2002). This included a breakdown of accidents to trainees over a seven-year period. It showed that over 25% of all accidents to this group were caused by inadequate training, instruction, or employee error. It is likely that accidents attributed to error have failures in training or instruction as their underlying cause.

In summary, effective training helps prevent accidents, preserve life and allow people to work more effectively. It also has a significant role in building and improving a positive safety culture, which is a prominent contributing factor for companies with low accident rates. (Cooper, M; Cotton, D (2000): ‘Safety training – a special case?’ Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol 24, No 9)

Barriers to training

If there is such a compelling case for low level health and safety training, why are so many accidents caused by a lack of it? In part, it may be due to the lack of importance attached to health and safety by company directors. This has been established by a survey recently carried out by RRC Training, which is summarised in an article by Gary Fallaize in the Safety & Health Practitioner (March 2008).

Another reason may be that the training demands made in the name of health and safety are sometimes perceived as excessive, in relation to the risks. The present author has had experience of the requirements for safety training being repeated and duplicated. A case in point is the acceptance of safety passports, where one organisation will not accept a passport issued by another. This leads to employees having to undergo repeated training, which is unlikely to significantly reduce the risks to their health and safety. It has to be accepted that directors and senior managers will perceive this to be a waste of time and money.

The way forward

The HSE has recommended four ways of identifying health and safety training needs for workers:

• Review records of accidents, injuries and cases of ill health.
• Look at risk assessments to see where training has been identified as a factor in controlling risks.
• Consult employees for their views about how the work is done.
• Observe and question employees when they are working, to understand what they are doing and why.

(HSE (2001) Effective Health and Safety Training HSG222)

From these actions, it should be possible to decide what training is needed and what the objectives are. Giving people the wrong training or too much is a waste of time and money. Indeed, sitting through training that is irrelevant or unnecessary can have a negative effect, which is the opposite of what was intended. One way of reducing this is for organisations that issue safety passports to co-operate more, to accept passports issued by other organisations, providing the validity of the training can be assured.

Short training sessions, such as toolbox talks, can often be more effective for low-level employees than longer courses. Experienced staff such as supervisors or managers may do some training in-house. However, as training requires particular skills, it is worth while considering some “training in training” for employees who deliver it. The Professional Trainer Certificate, awarded by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) is an ideal qualification for employees delivering in-house training.

However, there can be benefits from using an external training provider and training employees to nationally accredited standards. The Working Safely course, accredited by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), provides, in one day, an introduction to the essentials of health and safety; and is suitable for employees at any level, in any sector.

Alternatively, the CIEH is about to launch a new Level 1 Award in Health and Safety in the Workplace qualification. This will cover the basics of health and safety for employees about to enter the workplace, or who have recently started work. The qualification will be based on a half-day training programme.

Other training courses are available as well, of course. It is advisable for any safety practitioner planning a health and safety training programme to research the market to see what is available. This can be especially important for low level training, as the number of people to be trained is likely to be relatively high, making the costs involved significant.

Conclusion

This article has set out the legal obligations of employers to provide health and safety training to employees, even at low levels, in their organisation. There are sound economic and practical reasons for this training as well. There are many possible ways in which such training can be delivered. Hopefully, increasing numbers of employers will reap the benefits of giving good, relevant training to all their employees.

Back to top