H&S Standards Arb

[Andy Clark]

so i emplore all of you who read and translate this before you get hold of somthing and use it as a bashing tool think, find out the afcts and then act.

 

orsen wells said it best it is better to say nothing and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

 

Indeed he did Kev... indeed he did.

 

 

Anyway.... Dean, To steer this thread back on track, re: H&S Standards and your original doc.....

 

Try this for an alternative..... It's the H&S doc extract from a criteria i wrote a while back.

 

I think you'll find it slightly less ambiguous, although it's admittedly a bit outdated now..... the bit about Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005 is petty defunct now, as arb waste (Logs and chip etc) was granted exemption not so long ago.

 

Even so, it should give you a good idea of "alternative" criteria requirements.

 

 

 

All company members are required to provide a copy of their current Manual of Safe Working Practices that must be signed by the person stated as being responsible for Health and Safety management . Whilst a detailed Health and Safety policy is not required by law for companies holding less than 5 employees, companies falling into this category are urged to aim towards full compliance.

This policy must include sections detailing:

 

Current Health and Safety Policy Statement, with a clearly defined Management Responsibility Structure.

 

Risk Assessment Policy in accordance with The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Method Statements

Clearly defined Risk assessing procedure (Site Specific/Generic)

Review (Frequency and date of next review)

Hazard Reporting and Investigation Policy in accordance with RIDDOR 1998

Clearly defined Reporting Procedure

Investigation Protocol

 

Accident and Incident Reporting Policy in accordance with RIDDOR 1998

Clearly defined Accident and Incident Reporting Procedure

Non Employees/Members of the Public

 

Control of Hazardous Substances Policy in accordance with COSHH 1998

COSHH and Pesticide Safety Procedure and FEPA Requirements

COSHH Assessment Procedure

Spill and Contamination Procedure

 

Fire and Explosion Avoidance Policy in accordance with DSEAR 2002

Appropriate and Identified Fuel/Substance Storage

ATEX Zoning

Fire Safety Training/Designated Fire Marshall

Defined Smoking/No-Smoking Areas

Fire Extinguisher provisions

 

Personal Protective Equipment Policy in accordance with the PUWER 1992 and Noise at Work Regulations 1989

PPE Requirements and Issue procedure

Independent LOLER Inspection/examination procedures for PPE Issue Climbing Equipment

Requesting re-issue/replacement procedure

 

Tools and Equipment Maintenance Policy in accordance with the PUWER 1992 and Noise at Work Regulations 1989

Defect Reporting Procedure

Routine Maintenance Schedule

Independent LOLER Examination/Inspection Procedure for Lifting and Lowering equipment

Maintenance Responsibility

 

Working at Height Policy in accordance with the Work at Height Regulations 2005

Ladder usage

MEWP usage

Work at Height Avoidance

 

Waste/Green Waste disposal Policy in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005

Woodchip and Log Disposal procedures

Recycling

Waste Carrier Registration

Waste Transfer operations

 

Working Adjacent Highways Policy in accordance with the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

Working on Highways

Use of signs and cones

Marking out of worksites (Chapter 8) [/font]

 

 

(P.s.... i wrote it for free! )

[Andy Clark]

Dean, while i'm on a roll...... here's a load more stuff too.

 

This is from the "Required Quals" section of the aforementioned criteria... again, slightly outdated, so best to just use as guidance.

 

 

Below is a list of all required Certificates of Competence that must be held be held and applied in line with the relevant practical operations undertaken. Please note that certificates denoted with * must be held as a bare minimum to hold Member status. Also note that whilst consideration is given to academic qualifications, Approved Members are required to also hold the relevant and supporting Certificates of Competency in-line with the operations undertaken.

 

NPTC Certificates of competence for Ground-worker Operations

*CS30/Part I - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – Maintenance of the chainsaw

*CS30/Part II - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – On Site preparation and basic cross-cutting

CS38/Part II - Conduct Aerial Rescue

CS45 - Arboricultural Ground-worker

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for Tree Felling Operations

*CS30/Part I - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – Maintenance of the chainsaw

*CS30/Part II - Maintain and operate the chainsaw – On Site preparation and basic

cross cutting

*CS31 - Fell and process small trees

CS32 - Fell and Process medium trees

CS33 - Fell and Process large trees

CS34 - Process Individual Windblow trees

CS35 - Process Multiple Windblow trees

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for Tree Climbing Operations

*CS38/Part 1 - Climb a tree

*CS38/Part II - Conduct Aerial Rescue

*CS39 - Use of a chainsaw from a rope and harness

CS40 - Carry out pruning operations

CS41 - Carry out dismantling operations

CS46 - Re-pollarding

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for Brushwood Chipper Operations

Part 1 - Prepare the brushwood chipper for operation

Part II - Operate the brushwood chipper

Part III - Maintain the brushwood chipper

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for Stump Grinding Operations

Part 1 - Prepare the stump grinder for operation

Part II - Operate the stump grinder

Part III - Maintain stump grinder

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for Pesticide/Herbicide Application

PA01 - Foundation module

PA06 - Hand held applicators

 

NPTC Certificate of competence for MEWP Operations

CS47 - Use of Chainsaw from a MEWP

 

IPAF Powered Access License (please note that licence held, must be relevant to equipment used)

1b - Static Boom

3b - Mobile Boom

SPECIAL - Including IAD

 

C&G NRSWA Street Works Qualifications

Unit 002 - Signing, Lighting and Guarding

Unit 010 - Monitoring Signing, Lighting and Guarding

 

Considered Academic Qualifications:

 

City& Guilds Phase II in Arboriculture

Btec/EDEXCEL National Certificate in Horticulture (Arboriculture)

Btec/EDEXCEL National Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture)

RFS Certificate in Arboriculture

Higher National Certificate in Arboriculture

Higher National Diploma in Arboriculture

RFS Professional Diploma in Arboriculture

 

 

 

 

I think the key point to remember in all of this though, relates to company size.

 

 

I mean, your original post asked the question in relation to a 1-2 man band. Well let's not forget, that unless you have 5 employees or more, LEGALLY you don't need a great deal of the H&S stuff (if any), so wouldn't realistically be expected to comply. (especially for your domestic and back garden work)

 

 

HOWEVER.... thanks to this good ol' "where there's a blame, there's a claim" society we now live in, in order to mitigate against the fear/threat of inherent liability, MOST large companies you work for (either as a subby or standalone contractor) and 90% of local authorities, will insist that you have it pretty much ALL in place, so as to alleviate their own risk of prosecution under H&SWA.

 

Hence why more and more BIG companies, are winning the BIG jobs.... regardless of quality of work.

 

 

So think the bottom line in all of this, really depends on who you want your client base to be, how much you want the work, and how much "above and beyond" you're prepared to go in order to compete.

[Andy Clark]

Oh, and one more thing.....

 

Kev, if you re-read my original post, you'll notice that I never once mentioned the AA....... in fact,the only organisation I mentioned by name was AFAG, which is of course a constituent sub committee of the HSE.

 

Interesting to see which conclusions and comparisons you drew from my post though.

 

 

So just remind me again...how does it go...??

 

so i emplore all of you who read and translate this before you get hold of somthing and use it as a bashing tool think, find out the afcts and then act.

 

orsen wells said it best it is better to say nothing and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

 

 

Ah yes... that's the kiddy.

[Dean Lofthouse]

Once again, thanks Andy, very helpful

[skyhuck]

Blimey... Well, i'm not even going to begin trying to step up to the plate with that one Kev.

 

It's fairly obvious from the length of the post, that it's a subject you feel very... erm... "passionate" about, and I for one commend that.

 

(Ahem)...HOWEVER.... We've all been there, and all done it. Some perhaps from different perspectives than others, which therefore gives very different views (and ultimately OPINIONS) as to what goes on behind the scenes.

 

For example, you mention the AXA/insurance issues back in the early 00's.... yes, agreed, the AA (amongst others) were seen to do their bit to work towards resolving the situation....

 

BUT... at the same time, was there not also an EX AA CHAIRMAN, pushing HIS OWN arb insurance company, by which in order to attain cover YOU HAD to become an accredited member (by meeting a criteria very similar to that of the AAAC), PLUS pay an annual membership fee, PLUS be annually audited?

 

 

And take examples of more recent years.... NHSS18 for example!!

 

In the numerous meetings at Stonely as part of the consultation process, did the Arb related members of the consultation committee under the guise of representing the AA , not push that AAAC members should be automatically accredited as NHSS 18 compliant?

 

Plus, lets not forget that those Arb related members, are again, senior directors of contracting companies that the Highways Agency already uses.

 

(I'll send you a copy of Jonathan Hazells e-mail reply on the subject... Makes VERY interesting reading)

Therefore...... A) Why is the highways agency using its own contractors, to assist in writing its contractor criteria??

 

and B) Why were the AA pushing for auto-accreditation, based on it's own AAAC criteria?

 

 

 

So my claims of "conflict of interest" is Tripe eh?? Erm, think i'll leave that one for the jury to decide.

 

 

 

(P.s... It's a shame we never actually met when i used to run the old OCA panel of contractors..... remind me to send you a copy of the updated membership criteria. You'll love it )

 

This, unfortunately, backs up the feelings I have had regarding the AA.

 

When a problem does arise, such as the insurance hike, they seem to see it as an opportunity to further their agenda, rather than defend the industry as a whole.

 

Thanks for some great, INFORMATIVE posts Andy, they really do reflect the REAL WORLD experience of an ordinary tree firm.

[Quickthorn]

This is not the first time you have told us all how the AA saved us all from extortionate insurance costs.

 

I traded through that period, and do not believe the AA made any difference what so ever.

 

I have NEVER been offered an audit to reduce my premiums.

 

Ditto..I also traded through this period, as a member of the AA, and I can't remember any of this about audits etc. My insurer withdrew from the market, and the next best premium was x 5 of what I was already paying. No way was that sustainable where I lived, so I had to pack up climbing, the alternative being to carry on uninsured.

 

Rightly or wrongly, my impression of the AA at that time was that its priority was to further the interests of the select band of long term approved contractors; if you were in that band, then perhaps the AA were saviours.

[Mesterh]

I was trading back when there was apparently probs with insurance but tbh I didnt know there was any probs

 

I only had PL back then though so maybe it was the EL that was a problem.

[Arbocop]

Blimey... Well, i'm not even going to begin trying to step up to the plate with that one Kev.

 

It's fairly obvious from the length of the post, that it's a subject you feel very... erm... "passionate" about, and I for one commend that.

 

(Ahem)...HOWEVER.... We've all been there, and all done it. Some perhaps from different perspectives than others, which therefore gives very different views (and ultimately OPINIONS) as to what goes on behind the scenes.

 

For example, you mention the AXA/insurance issues back in the early 00's.... yes, agreed, the AA (amongst others) were seen to do their bit to work towards resolving the situation....

 

BUT... at the same time, was there not also an EX AA CHAIRMAN, pushing HIS OWN arb insurance company, by which in order to attain cover YOU HAD to become an accredited member (by meeting a criteria very similar to that of the AAAC), PLUS pay an annual membership fee, PLUS be annually audited?

 

 

And take examples of more recent years.... NHSS18 for example!!

 

In the numerous meetings at Stonely as part of the consultation process, did the Arb related members of the consultation committee under the guise of representing the AA , not push that AAAC members should be automatically accredited as NHSS 18 compliant?

 

Plus, lets not forget that those Arb related members, are again, senior directors of contracting companies that the Highways Agency already uses.

 

(I'll send you a copy of Jonathan Hazells e-mail reply on the subject... Makes VERY interesting reading)

Therefore...... A) Why is the highways agency using its own contractors, to assist in writing its contractor criteria??

 

and B) Why were the AA pushing for auto-accreditation, based on it's own AAAC criteria?

 

 

 

So my claims of "conflict of interest" is Tripe eh?? Erm, think i'll leave that one for the jury to decide.

 

 

 

(P.s... It's a shame we never actually met when i used to run the old OCA panel of contractors..... remind me to send you a copy of the updated membership criteria. You'll love it )

 

Andy et al

 

First let me apologise for my rant red wine loosens the toung and numbs the urge to think befor posting. i stand by my sentiment about thinking and asking befor knoking things.

 

id like to make it clear i have an agenda, and that is a simple one, that is for a profesinal industry, with resnoble standards, were we dont break people and people can make a resnoble living.

 

how we get the is always going to be a joint aproach from many people and organisations. previously i hav spoken in threads about where i have memberships etc so lets not go over that again, i belong to the trees and timber industry but espesially arboriculture.

 

Andy i cant and wont disagree with you, and you are obviously aware of moor stuff than me regardsing highwas sector scheme 18. i know that the requirments of the scheme were largly similar to to the AAAC scheme and thus there was an appeal fo recognition as was there from bali who have one of the required training cources for the scheme, and well does it not make sence that if you have been audeted befor e you dont have to go through it again????

 

i thought it was paul smith employee of the AA and jonathan hazel now a consultant within a small practice not a national company who were there for the AA?? but others from bali etc were there.

 

the insurance example you use again has some accuracy in it but is not quite right. yep one of the people envolved in the process was chairman. but he resigned his position s that there was no clash of interest, ther ewere no member ship fees or any thing like that his company was used by one of the isurance companies and on their instruction carried out ispection so some may argue clash of interest.

 

one mans freedom fighter is a nother mans terrorist.

 

through out this industry because in relative terms we are small there will be people in all sorts of places who could be acused of being bias or feathering their own nest, and lets be fair im sure some are, but i choose to beliive in the good sidde of human nature and that being that the majority will be looking for the good of the trees and timber industry

 

id love to see the criteria you talk of andy, mail it to me [email protected]

 

cheers all

 

kevin

[Arbocop]

hello again

 

just come to the final page

 

andy wrote

 

I mean, your original post asked the question in relation to a 1-2 man band. Well let's not forget, that unless you have 5 employees or more, LEGALLY you don't need a great deal of the H&S stuff (if any), so wouldn't realistically be expected to comply. (especially for your domestic and back garden work)

 

 

 

thats not stricktly correct, you still need to do all that health and safty stuff (ecept a policy) its just the requirments to document and demonstrate recoded procedures are in the most part excempt.

 

eg vibration, follow all the steps about mesuring, monitoring etc and inform the staff but the process is not recorded.

 

but anys sentiment is very true, just do it all right and target your audience.

 

and i thin there ill leave it

 

good luck

 

hope the guy gets on well at college

 

kevin

[Rob D]

I very much doubt a one man band (with one employee) could follow all of this to the letter and still make any sort of profit.

 

This imo is why so many people dont take on employees and try to get away with most of it by using 'subbies'/ self employed persons.

 

I know there is a good reason for some H&S but imo it doesnt target the right people, if someone is a total cowboy blagger they will take no notice whatsoever about any rules regs and certs etc.

 

Anyway I'm gonna try and stay out of this thread since it will no doubt cause me to go off on one and do a bit of ranting!

 

Ditto on this one ! Not even going to start....