Law about qualificactions to fell trees

[Steven P]

It is like most health and safety requirements out there regardless of the industry. Very little set in stone along the lines of "You must be qualified with this or that ticket", but a little more vague "suitably qualified", "experienced", "competent" and so on with no minimum requirements.

 

If you could get one to do this, a local tree surgeon watching the groundskeepers fell a tree, and then issue a certificate of competence complies with the regulations, if the employer and employee are happy with that.... Not sure I would want to work for them though. Not sure the insurers would either.

 

Golf courses, lots of trees, lots of groundkeepers, I reckon this is not a unique case or question to ask, but for insurance purposes a call to their insurers might be the way to go.

[Bolt]

1 minute ago, Steven P said:

It is like most health and safety requirements out there regardless of the industry. Very little set in stone along the lines of "You must be qualified with this or that ticket", but a little more vague "suitably qualified", "experienced", "competent" and so on with no minimum requirements.

 

In general, yes, but for chainsaws PUWER makes it clear:

 

“workers should have received appropriate training and obtained a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award”.

 

Some jobbing gardener, or passing tree surgeon is not likely to be going to be handing out a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award.

[Bolt]

4 hours ago, GarethM said:

 

It does open up a can of training worms, as they'll have Greens equipment, spraying, wood chipper, ladders, tractors, loaders, quad/mule etc which all will need training.

 

Not really.

 

PUWER just treats chainsaws differently to all other bits of work equipment.

 

For all the ‘non-chainsaw’ stuff mentioned above, it’s up to the employer to identify and implement adequate information, instruction, training and supervision.

Edited February 8 by Bolt

[Chopper Mike]

I'm surprised by the PUWER 98 quote, only from the point of view that it says should and not must. It looks like a field day for lawyers when something goes wrong (underlines are mine):

"All workers who use a chainsaw should be competent to do so. Before using a chainsaw to carry out work on or in a tree, a worker should have received appropriate training and obtained a relevant certificate of competence or national competence award, unless they are undergoing such training and are adequately supervised. However, in the agricultural sector, this requirement only applies to first-time users of a chainsaw."

[scbk]

You wouldn't operate a chainsaw without appropriate training - WOULD YOU??!?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GarethM]

18 minutes ago, scbk said:

You wouldn't operate a chainsaw without appropriate training - WOULD YOU??!?

 

 

IT crowds version was much more moving!

[Peter 1955]

As someone whose son is earning a living by going round the country teaching people how to safely and competently use all manner of equipment, I applaud the need for training and certification. 

 

As a crotchety Old Git who has been waving a chainsaw about for forty odd years, and has operated lots of other equipment which could be life threatening to himself and others with only a driving licence, shotgun certificate and firearms licence as evidence of his skill and qualification.......................................................................................... 🤐

 

You can't square this circle. My son was recently instructing at a venue who seemed to need nothing more than a simple maintenance course on the strimmers/mowers they were using, but he felt they actually needed a far more in depth course. Compare and contrast with a friend who ran a haulage yard. Only one member of staff had a forklift certificate to say he was competent to use it, the rest were on what we might call " grandfather rights ". Three guesses who my friend reckoned would be the most likely to seriously harm someone. 

 

When I left agriculture, I had " grandfather rights " on huge self propelled sprayers, capable of covering many hundreds of acres a day, but I couldn't legally use a knapsack sprayer to put Glyphosate on a garden. Now that my rights have lapsed, I'm no longer qualified to do the job I did for thirty years.

Sorry not to be able to give advice on how to solve the problem outlined originally, it's just that I believe it's actually the tip of an iceberg really. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Competence is borne from training, however that might be delivered / received (usually Lantra these days) and it is this aspect that I understand "the courts" focus on in accident / HSE cases, i.e. "evidence of adequate training" (MHSWR), rather than the PUWER CoC etc. requirements which tends to be more the insurance industry's domain (along with commercial requirements etc.)

Without doubt, if any employees are felling trees they must be 'trained' and should be qualified (NPTC etc.)

Regards

Paul 

[daltontrees]

31 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Without doubt, if any employees are felling trees they must be 'trained' and should be qualified (NPTC etc.)

 

That sums it up, the training is compulsory, the certification is advisory. Lack of the latter, though, would put presumption of guilt on the employer, he would have to prove otherwise.

Realistically, if someone does the course for another few quid they can do the assessment and get certificated. I'd be seriously worried about taking on an employtee who has done the training and hadn't done (or even worse, hadn't passed) the assessment.

Certification and training will pay for itself within a week, maybe two. Might even result in higher wages.

[Steven P]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

That sums it up, the training is compulsory, the certification is advisory. Lack of the latter, though, would put presumption of guilt on the employer, he would have to prove otherwise.

 

Which I think is the point. If the employer is willing to stand in a court of law to prove that the employee was suitably trained and is certified to say so, then the employer could issue any certification that they want to, or use any other organisation to do the training and certification.

 

I don't think there are many employers out there who would be willing to do that.

 

Goes back to who is going to ask awkward question after an accident, I would say the insurers would and the HSE. HSE are going to be as vague as the regulations as to the training standard and certificates, but the insurers should be able to say what the minimum they would accept is, and that is what I would use for a groundskeeper (as a minimum)