<![CDATA[SafeBuild - Occupational Health & Safety Forum]]> http://forum.safebuild.co.za/ Occupation Health and Safety Forum for the Building and Construction Industry en Sun, 20 May 2012 01:27:03 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forum.masterbuilders.co.za/images/misc/rss.png <![CDATA[SafeBuild - Occupational Health & Safety Forum]]> http://forum.safebuild.co.za/ Recording of Statistics http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?669-Recording-of-Statistics&goto=newpost Thu, 17 May 2012 08:46:06 GMT *By Ken Monk: Chairperson Saiosh KZN Branch * There has long been a joke that the comparative form of lies is Lies, Whoppers and Statistics. Does... By Ken Monk: Chairperson Saiosh KZN Branch

There has long been a joke that the comparative form of lies is Lies, Whoppers and Statistics. Does this apply to your safety statistics? Even honest people can be motivated or tempted to produce statistics that could justify the cynics. It’s often the competitive spirit that lives in almost all of us, although an instinct for survival tempts others to be economical with the truth. What would be the point of statistics, if they are less than truthful? Incorrect statistics seem a great way to retain a job, if there is a low probability of being caught out, although sooner or later the truth has a way of being revealed.

Accurate statistics are an essential management tool. If you don’t measure, you absolutely cannot manage! Every incorrect statistic is a threat to the employer, the worker and every other stakeholder. With safety statistics, the reason for inaccuracy is often misunderstood components of measurement and what they signify. Even responsible managers may quibble about what constitutes a Lost Time or Disabling Injury – and their reasons for excluding a particular incident can be very difficult for traditional Safety Officers to accept. It is all very well to note that an attempt has been made to level the playing fields with ANSI Z16.1, to help HSE professionals around the world to apply common factors that enable incident frequency and severity comparisons to be made. However, sad to say, the facts are still open to interpretation and manipulation.

Take the case of a right-handed worker who suffers a greenstick fracture to a bone in the little finger of his left hand. Although he may report the injury and be referred to the site clinic, where his hand is X-rayed and strapped, he should be back on duty within a few hours. He is hardly disabled and has no need to miss the next shift. Would his manager include this incident in the Disabling Injury statistics? In the traditional convention, any injury that causes the worker to miss his next shift or damages any bone is unequivocally a disabling injury, there is no argument. However, senior management are increasingly challenging this traditional interpretation. Of course, we can be excused for viewing an amputation in a different light to the cracked pinkie finger of our example. Until, on evaluation of the records, we find that such cracked fingers occur frequently and are the result of poor equipment design, inadequate maintenance or lack of training. Overlooking the seemingly minor event could lead to entrenched carelessness or design flaws that culminate in a major catastrophe.

Let us examine the derivation of some of the terms used in safety statistics. The important fact to note is that correctly calculated statistics help us to compare a large parastatal employer with a small local business employing a handful of workers. The basis for most worldwide statistics is that workers are employed for 40 hours per week and would take leave for two weeks per year. Thus, our statistical worker spends (52-2) X 40 hours = 2000 hours per year on duty. To enable accurate comparison between small and large employers or divisions, a nominal number of 100 workers are used, giving us a figure of 200 000 hours per year.

In the USA, two different bodies have tried to set a standard by which statistics are recorded. The first is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), which has been mentioned above. They have set a method of calculating injury statistics that differs slightly from that applied by the second body, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). ANSI prescribes the following, which are very similar to OSHA, except as highlighted below.

Disabling Injury Incident Rate (DIIR) is an expression of a percentage of a raw number of disabling injuries to workers by applying the formula:

N (Actual number of Disabling Injuries) X 200 000 ÷ total actual hours worked.

Disabling Injury Frequency Rate (DIFR) is a ratio of actual disabling injuries per million man hours worked, expressed as a percentage. In effect the DIFR figure is DIIR X 5.

This is where the ‘slight difference’ in calculations arises: OSHA has tried to consider the smaller employer by using 200 000 as the multiplier for both DIIR and DIFR, effectively making Incident Rate and Frequency Rate the same. Most industries in South Africa favour this method but if comparisons are to be made between competing companies, it is important to apply the same formulae to all calculations.

Disabling Injury Severity Rate (DISR) is calculated thus:

Total absence days resulting from workplace injury X 1 000 000 / total man-hours worked at the site.

DISR in respect of physical absence from work in the case of non-permanent disability is easily determined from actual absence. With permanent disability, it is more onerous. Refer to the COID Act, which provides a full list, as per the following examples:

Death or permanent total disability: 6000 days
Loss of arm below shoulder or leg below thigh: 4500 days
Loss of hand at wrist or elbow or leg below knee: 3000 days
Loss of one foot below the ankle: 2400 days

The calculation for death or permanent total disability is based on a theoretical average remaining working life of 20 years, working 300 days per year. Whilst a young worker, in the first years of employment, would expect to work more than 20 years, a worker with longer service might have fewer than 20 years.

Clearly, DISR can be a telling indictment in the event of a single incident in which several fatalities or permanent disabilities occur, especially in the case of rolling indices, where the ratio will continue to punish the site for a full year afterwards.

The statistician who focuses only on the abovementioned three indicators could be in for a nasty shock, even if the rules as explained are diligently applied. It is clear that one cannot hide statistics that are a matter of public record, as is the case with all disabling or fatal cases where it is mandatory to report the incident to the authorities. The concept of honesty in reporting becomes blurred in cases such as the finger injury described earlier.

Unless all incidents that result(or could result) in injury are diligently reported and investigated, with appropriate tables to compare ‘minor’ to ‘significant’ injuries and those that have high potential to lead to serious situations, the opportunity to devise effective corrective (or, preferably, preventive) actions is easily lost.

In fact, for the purist, all incidents that result in, or have the potential to result in, loss (ie death, injury, fire, theft, asset damage) should be appropriately analysed against a common set of factors, such as, for example, time, day of the week, location and any other relevant factors. Of course, this can be hard work that is of questionable value if incident data capture is random. The analysis obviously needs qualified investigation and accurate records, which is where many good intentions can fail. This brings us to the dilemma of how to encourage reporting. Clearly, if a worker believes that reporting an incident could result in personal threat, such as disciplinary procedures, loss of friendship or loss of esteem, a near miss with potentially serious consequences can be concealed.

All of the concepts covered above are reactive; in other words, they are a record of failure or potential failure to prevent a loss. Once effective measurements of loss and potential loss are in place, the HSE professional can begin to really make a difference by devising prevention strategies that can serve to prevent similar incidents in future. Once effective interventions are devised, their impact should be noticeable as a reduction in incident frequency and severity indices.

Source: http://www.graphicmail.co.za/new/vie...etterID=358143 ]]> Investigation and Recording of Incidents Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?669-Recording-of-Statistics <![CDATA[Internal Health and Safety Competitions Q&A]]> http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?668-Internal-Health-and-Safety-Competitions-Q-amp-A&goto=newpost Thu, 17 May 2012 08:18:35 GMT *The purpose of a internal Health and Safety Competition:* Safety competitions are used to create an interest in the safety programme and to... The purpose of a internal Health and Safety Competition:

Safety competitions are used to create an interest in the safety programme and to encourage employee participation. They use the competitive spirit in man to help maintain high safety standards.

How much time and effort is needed by management to expend to get a competition going and make it worthwhile?

Safety competitions are not a substitute for management interest and involvement and cannot replace proper machine guarding, good housekeeping, adequate hygiene facilities or other elements basic to the safety programme. What the safety competition does is to create and maintain interest in the programme, encourage worker participation and improve worker morale. The competition also commends those who achieve high standards.

Describe how to go about implementing an internal safety competition in an organisation that has different departments that do not do the same kind of work and are not even of the same size?

Internal safety competitions can be based on various areas of the safety programme such as housekeeping, improvement in incident and injury rates, etc. However, the easiest way to establish an internal safety competition is to use the system of a commercial safety service provider as a basis and to include as many items common to the competing departments as possible. A good idea also is to let each department compete against itself by assessing improved performance against a laid down norm.
Using an “outside” programme as a basis has the advantage of generating familiarity with the system elements and at the same time improvements are being made in the safety system.

The judging of internal competitions appears to be tricky business. Describe how this can be
done successfully?

The committee system of judging is recommended as it reduces the bias that could be generated by individual judging. The judging committee should be small and must include members of the management team. A clear set of competition rules should be drawn up and be made known to the judges and participants.

How often should internal competitions be held?

Experience has shown that the best motivational effect can be achieved if the competition is held quarterly, with the year-end winner being the competitor with the highest overall score for the year. At the once-a-year function management announces the winner and presents the trophy or prize. ]]> Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?668-Internal-Health-and-Safety-Competitions-Q-amp-A The relationship between health and safety and human risk taking behaviour in the ECI http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?667-The-relationship-between-health-and-safety-and-human-risk-taking-behaviour-in-the-ECI&goto=newpost Wed, 16 May 2012 12:41:18 GMT *THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH AND SAFETY AND HUMAN RISK TAKING BEHAVIOUR IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY By WILLEM JOHANNES... THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HEALTH AND SAFETY AND HUMAN RISK TAKING BEHAVIOUR IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
By WILLEM JOHANNES DU TOIT

ABSTRACT

Mankind, and the development of people, exists due to risk-taking behaviour. It is not that humans should not take risks, but rather the ability to identify the magnitude of risk exposure in order that mankind‟s actions would be so selected as to mitigate exposed risk factors, that no harm should befall them.

The approach to health and safety (H&S) has always been to manage H&S environmental factors that could have a negative impact on people, capital, and organisational systems. However, the critical component of human risk-taking behaviour that would have a far greater impact has rarely been acknowledged as part of the drivers that increase risk exposure.

Human behaviour is a major contributing factor in accident causation. Although human error cannot be completely eliminated, it should be identified and correctly managed according to each individual‟s risk-taking profile. The reason people decide to take certain risks under certain conditions and the effect it has on H&S management systems is a key component to managing organisational risk exposure.

To quantify the value of individual risk-taking behaviour could provide management with better opportunities of lowering the organisational risk exposure. Human risk-taking behaviour is influenced by each individual‟s perception of risk. Such perception of risk will influence decisions on risk-taking behaviour, which in turn is influenced by the individual‟s psychological profile and environmental factors, including character and the impact of a cultural environment.

The electrical construction and maintenance industry differs from other similar industries in that the physical entity of electricity requires not only sensory perception for the identification and evaluation of risk factors, but also requires specialised knowledge and testing equipment to evaluate the parameters of electrical installation, plant or equipment. Without such competence, direct exposure to most electrical installations could be fatal.

The optimum human resource (HR) solution for managing the risk potential of high risk-taking behaviour is the rating and allocation of specific job tasks that can match and limit the individual potential for risk-taking behaviour and the impact on organisational incident statistics.

Maintaining and optimising employee job performance enables organisations to better achieve pre-set goals and missions. Such improvements being a catalyst for better job performance by setting limitations on high risk-taking behaviour, that will improve H&S performance by lowering incident rates.


To read more please follow the link below.


http://www.masterbuilders.co.za/reso...uction_Ind.pdf


Source: Prof J Smallwood ]]> Research Papers Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?667-The-relationship-between-health-and-safety-and-human-risk-taking-behaviour-in-the-ECI Induction: Employer - Employee Responsibilities http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?666-Induction-Employer-Employee-Responsibilities&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 19:44:10 GMT Good Day Gentlemen and Ladies. For your information knowledge, attention and awareness. Perhaps I am going too far?? But? I do not wish to... Good Day Gentlemen and Ladies.

For your information knowledge, attention and awareness.

Perhaps I am going too far?? But?

I do not wish to stir up a Hornets nest or cry Wolf. But this information and knowledge may stand in good stead going forward and on other projects and jobs. Or? Have I got the Bull by the horns in terms of any potential litigation?

So, as I have been involved with the contractors and subcontractors on site and doing inductions, more than 300 persons from CEO’s to Project managers and site supervisors down. I have realized that all is not well, with just doing inductions and getting on with the job.

The majority of construction contractor and subcontractor staff and employees being used on this project and others have no idea as to the reason,scope, purpose or content of the OHS act as they are supposed to. Even though they (the bigger companies) are in and have been in the business for years and have been through many inductions. They are clueless, In terms and content of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993. Sec 8. General duties of employers to their employees. Which states:

2. Without derogating from the generality of an employer's duties under subsection (1), the matters to which those duties refer include and in particular –

Sec 8 (e). Providing such information, instructions, training and supervision as may be necessary to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
Sec 8 (g) Taking all necessary measures to ensure that the requirements of this Act are complied with by every person in his employment or on premises under his control where plant or machinery is used;
Sec 8 (j). Causing all employees to be informed regarding the scope of their authority as contemplated in section 37(1) (b).

I have come to notice that the employers (Contractors and subcontractors) engaged and employed to do certain jobs tasks and activities on this site do allegedly and apparently not comply with the above section of the act.

I have on numerous occasions during induction training asked all present if they know the OHS act and or any of its content, with an alarming result, many stares and blank faces.

They do not even know the basic, and in my mind the most important: Section 14 Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993. General duties of employees at work. Every employee shall at work –

a. take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions;

Note: The reason I am pointing this out is because, in and as part of the induction training, there is a section that states

“ Whenever an employee does or omits to do any act which it would be an offence in terms of this Act for the employer of such employee or a user to do or omit to do, then, unless it is proved that –

“This brings us to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1993 Section 37. Acts or omissions by employees or mandatory’s”

a. in doing or omitting to do that act the employee was acting without the connivance or permission of the employer or any such user;
b. it was not under any condition or in any circumstance within the scope of the authority of the employee to do or omit to do an act, whether lawful or unlawful, of the character of the act or omission charged; and
c. all reasonable steps were taken by the employer or any such user to prevent any act or omission of the kind in question,

Now the important part.

the employer or any such user himself shall be presumed to have done or omitted to do that act, and shall be liable to be convicted and sentenced in respect thereof; and the fact that he issued instructions forbidding any act or omission of the kind in question shall not, in itself be accepted as sufficient proof that he took all reasonable steps to prevent the act or omission.

I am asking myself, how can one hold a contractor, subcontractor or employee of the aforementioned parties responsible for any act or omission when they do not in fact know the law (OHS act). When it has not correctly been ascertained (BY US) if they are in fact familiar with the law (OHS act). Prior to their commencing work on our sites.

But in this case and more importantly the employee. The fact that contractors and subcontractors on site do not in my opinion and findings, allegedly train their employees or familiarize them with the OHS act. Is alarming and cause for concern as you will come to realize and understand as you read on.

It is okay for a contractor or subcontractor to say “please can’t you just quickly do induction for this one guy. He is an operator and an important cog in the wheel of our operation which will be held up if you do not induct him. So I do so, only to find he does not understand English very well and can hardly read yet he is an operator of driven machinery, who knows nothing of the driven machinery regulations let alone the OSH act. In this case I did the best I could without an interpreter, which is fine but in the event of an enquiry or court of enquiry, I on behalf of the company or any other employer, would be found lacking. Because he does not even know what dangers or hazards are or may be involved in the operation of the machine he operates.He had to be told how to do a HIRA and I was only supposed to do his induction. But in view of all of the above we employ and are allowing such contractors and subcontractors, who are not compliant in this regard, to do work for us and on our behalf. Am I doing all I can that is “reasonably practical” when I induct a person who does not understand English, but do not get someone to interpret. We take a chance and for granted that he will manage as an operator with many years experience. But it is wrong to allow him to work.

The contractors and subcontractors on site are placing us at risk due to their non compliance with the act in terms of the above rhetoric.In that they fail to train there employees.

Further when it comes to legal appointments. Contractors and subcontractors have appointed Section 16(2)’s CR 6(1)’s and 6(2)’s who are by law required to familiarize themselves with Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 to name a few, and this is stated on their letters of appointment “In some cases”but arrive for induction and when asked if they have received any OHS act training from or by their employer companies,they stare blankly at me and are unable to answer basic questions like what does Section 14 state? which they should know. Clearly their employers are not complying with the act. In terms of Sec 8 and Sec 37(1). We take a chance and for granted that he will manage as a 16(2) 6(1) or 6(2) etc they should know, with many years experience. But it is wrong to allow him to work.

We are relying on these appointees to control and manage their employees. How can we expect them to control their employees in accordance with the act when they the employee’s do not know much about it or have never been introduced to or trained in the Occupational Health and safety basic rules and regulations by their companies.

If on induction a 16(2) 6(1) 6(2) and other appointees can’t answer a few simple questions on the OHS act, after having been in the trade for years, through 100’s of inductions and many such appointments in which they are supposed to familiarize themselves with Sections 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 to name a few, then how can I allow them to work on my site.

Would you ??:confused: ]]> General Discussion Brian http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?666-Induction-Employer-Employee-Responsibilities Neww Bee over here . http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?665-Neww-Bee-over-here-.&goto=newpost Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:20 GMT Hey Guys my name is krial and i am an computer science student from IIT Mumbai (INDIA) . i love to watch movies , playing my favorite playlist . i... Hey Guys my name is krial and i am an computer science student from IIT Mumbai (INDIA) . i love to watch movies , playing my favorite playlist . i love adventurous sports . i like to make friends so the people who are reading this thread please reply me and introduce your self here and lets get friends . ]]> Introduce Yourself krialsharma http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?665-Neww-Bee-over-here-. <![CDATA["State Of Affairs: The Construction Regulations]]> http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?664-quot-State-Of-Affairs-The-Construction-Regulations&goto=newpost Wed, 09 May 2012 13:26:47 GMT At a Department of Labour Health and Safety Conference held in Johannesburg in February, the Department informed delegates that the Construction... At a Department of Labour Health and Safety Conference held in Johannesburg in February, the Department informed delegates that the Construction Regulations will be promulgated in the second half of the year. Upon hearing this, the Master Builders South Africa Health and Safety Committee, on which Master Builders KwaZulu-Natal serves , requested that a meeting be arranged between MBSA and Department of Labour to discuss and obtain accurate information on the state of affairs with regard to this matter. Herewith the feedback received from Master Builders South Africa from the meeting that followed:

"State Of Affairs: The Construction Regulations

Mr. Maphaha mentioned that some of the reasons that were causing delays with regard to the Construction Regulations are that DOL has been receiving more comments about the envisaged permit system. He said that the general feeling was that DOL does not have the required capacity at present to administer the permit system.

The legal department of DOL has also echoed the same sentiments and has urged DOL to build the required administrative capacity and reposition itself to meet the challenges that will be imposed by the permit system. The legal department also suggested that there should be a Plan B in place should things not unfold according to plan so as not to disadvantage contractors with delays in issuing permits. Numerous enquiries were received on whether or not the permit system will be piloted first or implemented from the go. These were some of the challenges that DOL faced and had to resolve.

The Regulations are currently with the Chief Inspector’s office which must address these concerns after which it might be returned to the legal department and the state law advisors. The next task of the Technical Committee will be to work on the guidance notes that will be published with the Regulations at the time of promulgation. "

The Master Builders KwaZulu-Natal Health and Safety Department are committed to keeping you informed on the state of the Construction Regulations and what impact it will have if any on our members. ]]> Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?664-quot-State-Of-Affairs-The-Construction-Regulations Case Study: Suspended Insulation Ceiling Collapse http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?663-Case-Study-Suspended-Insulation-Ceiling-Collapse&goto=newpost Mon, 07 May 2012 12:37:23 GMT Case Study: Suspended Insulation Ceiling Collapse By Theo Gregersen (GCC Mech. Eng.): Full Member of Saiosh and Ex Department of Labour OHS... Case Study: Suspended Insulation Ceiling Collapse

By Theo Gregersen (GCC Mech. Eng.): Full Member of Saiosh and Ex Department of Labour OHS Deputy Director

A ceiling that was being installed in a cold storage room collapsed causing the death of one person and serious injuries to a second person. Two contractor employees who were walking on the suspended ceiling, fell through the insulation material ending up 10 metres below on the concrete floor. One died at the scene from his injuries and the second sustained very serious leg injuries.

The work being performed

A newly constructed cold storage room was being insulated with a thick polyurethane insulation board. The walls and ceiling had been clad and the refrigeration system was being installed. This installation required the assembly of a system of copper piping in the roof area to carry the refrigeration gasses for cooling purposes.The installation process required a gas torch to join the many joints in the copper pipe system.

When the copper piping installation had been completed, the two injured workmen were tasked with removing all the construction equipment which included the oxygen/acetylene gas set.The method of removing the gas bottles was to carry them one at a time across the suspended ceiling. They were carried by the two workmen.

While the gas bottles were being carried and the two men were standing on different ceiling board panels, the distributed load was supported by the ceiling. As soon as the two men turned towards the solid walkway next to the suspended ceiling, they both stood on one panel at the same time and the panel could not support their combined weight together with the weight of the acetylene gas bottle.

The combined weight tore the ceiling board out of the channel edge supports and the two men and the gas bottle fell to the concrete floor 10 metres below. The one person died at the site and the second received very serious leg injuries which resulted in an inability to walk properly for the rest of his natural life.

The Inquiry

The inquiry identified the following:

No Risk Assessment had been conducted by the Client or the Contractor.
No stability specification for the strength of the ceiling boards was available on site.
There was no Health & Safety Plan in the construction file.
The construction file had no record of the appointment of a Health & Safety Officer, a Competent Person, a Health & Safety Representative, or any other appointment required by the Construction Regulations.
The two injured workmen were not being supervised by anyone with knowledge of the dangers attached to their work and they were not trained in the dangers attached to their work.
There was no qualified first aider on site who could attend to the injured persons, who therefore had to wait for the ambulance to arrive before being assisted, by which time the one person had died.

Legal implications

The inquiry identified that various persons were legally accountable for the incident.

The Client had contravened the following Construction Regulation:
4(1)(a) by not preparing a Health & Safety Specification for the construction work.
4(1)(d) by not ensuring that the contractor had a Health & Safety Plan.

The Contractor had contravened:
The OHS Act:
Section 8(2)(d) by not establishing what hazards to the health & safety of persons were attached to the work being performed.
Section 13(a) by not making his two employees conversant with the health & safety of the work they were instructed to perform
The Construction Regulations:
5(1) by not having a Health & Safety Plan for the work being performed.
6(6) by not appointing a Construction Safety officer in writing.
7(1) by not causing a risk assessment to be performed by a Competent Person.
General Safety Regulation 3(4) by not having a person with a first aid certificate on site.

Recommendation for prosecution

It was recommended that:

1 The Client be prosecuted for contravening Construction Regulation 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(d).

2. The Contractor be prosecuted for contravening:
Section 8(2)(d) and 13(a);
Construction Regulation 5(1); 6(6); and 7(1); and
General Safety Regulation 3(4).

It was further requested that the above recommendations for prosecution of the Client and the Contractor should be considered together with Section 38(2) regarding the injured person’s injuries and further that a culpable homicide charge should be considered with regard to the death of the one person.

Source: www.saiosh.com ]]> Investigation and Recording of Incidents Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?663-Case-Study-Suspended-Insulation-Ceiling-Collapse OHS Training courses - Accredited http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?662-OHS-Training-courses-Accredited&goto=newpost Thu, 03 May 2012 15:17:16 GMT I'm looking for some institutions that gives accreddited OHS training. I'm up to SAMTRAC and I want toi further my career in the OHS field. Mainly in Engineering and Construction. Any valued accredited courses will be appreciated as well as institutions that gives the training.

please send me a mail, it will be highly appreciated.

jacquesnortje@adlu.co.za ]]> Training Courses Available jacquesn http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?662-OHS-Training-courses-Accredited Curriculum for OHS Practitioner http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?661-Curriculum-for-OHS-Practitioner&goto=newpost Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:25:35 GMT Dear Members, Over the years, you will have experienced concern over either not finding qualifications which you could study for, or more... Dear Members,

Over the years, you will have experienced concern over either not finding qualifications which you could study for, or more importantly a lack of understanding from managements about what it is that OHS Practitioners really do. The Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) identified this and appointed the Mining Qualification Authority (MQA) to prepare a standard which covered both the responsibilities as well as the knowledge and skills needed. This work was done by a committee from a wide range of organisations; Saiosh was one of these. The committee has completed their work after nine months, and the organisations involved are required to inform their members of the full process.


Attached please find a prepared a summary done by Robin Jones, the president of Saiosh of the document which members can view or for those that would prefer to read the full document can do so too.

As you can see, Saiosh has representation at this forum, and I suggest that those of you that would like to make comments on this document and don't belong to Saoish do so soon, in order for your concerns to be table/heard.

They will be collated and a collective reply will be forwarded to the Mines Qualification Authority. As the MQA has a deadline to present the final decision on this process to their Board I will set a deadline for replies by no later than Wednesday 9th of May.

For more information please visit: www.saiosh.com and subribe to their monthly newsletter.



Source: www.saiosh.com.
Attached Files
]]> Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?661-Curriculum-for-OHS-Practitioner Update: COID Standard Assessment Rates 2012 to 2013 http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?660-Update-COID-Standard-Assessment-Rates-2012-to-2013&goto=newpost Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:50:11 GMT Attached please find the COID Standard Assessment Rate for 2102-2013 and Industry Classifications, Classes, Subclasses and Assessment Tariffs –... Attached please find the COID Standard Assessment Rate for 2102-2013 and Industry Classifications, Classes, Subclasses and Assessment Tariffs – Compensation Fund.

Regards,
Attached Files
]]> Registration in terms of Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases (COID)Act Neil Enslin http://forum.safebuild.co.za/showthread.php?660-Update-COID-Standard-Assessment-Rates-2012-to-2013