Worker Safety Advisers are go
Chris Dyer examines the results from a trial advice scheme for smaller organisations and the HSE's plans for its future.
Research shows that workplaces with union safety representatives and safety committees have significantly better accident records than those with no consultation mechanism, recording up to 50% fewer injuries (Worker involvement pays dividends ).
But the majority of the workforce are not members of a trade union or employed in workplaces where unions are recognised, and for some time the HSC/E have been looking at ways to develop effective representation in small firms and workplaces without union recognition.
At the HSC's "The way ahead" conference in May 1999, the HSE's then director-general, Jenny Bacon, described the lack of effective arrangements for health and safety consultation between employers and workers in the workplace as probably the biggest single failure of the HSW Act-regime.
Recognising this problem, the HSC's Strategic plan for 1999/2002 took "promoting full participation in improving health and safety" as one of its five themes. This aim was reiterated in the government's Revitalising health and safety strategy (Employers face major health and safety at work shake-up ), point eight of the 10-point strategy being: "Partnerships must be developed to help realise the full vision of the Robens report for worker participation in occupational safety and health." HSC chair Bill Callaghan said that he would "in particular . . . like to see an increasing role for safety representatives. As well as contributing significantly to health and safety, they also encourage the kind of partnership approach we are looking for".
HSC consults
In 2000, the HSC published a discussion document to promote "public debate on arrangements for employee consultation and greater involvement in workplace health and safety". The suggestions included introducing "roving" safety representatives - specially trained, union-appointed representatives, who were able to visit the workplaces where members of their union worked. A similar system has worked in Sweden for more than 25 years.
The HSC said that the introduction of roving safety representatives would raise significant issues, including:
Following analysis of the responses to the discussion document, the HSC agreed with ministers measures to improve consultation with workers (HSC confirms repeal of safety reps Regs). These included new Regulations to harmonise consultation arrangements (see HSC drops harmonised safety reps regs ) and the setting up of a Worker Safety Adviser (WSA) pilot scheme.
WSA pilot
The scheme set out to introduce specially trained safety advisers to workplaces that had no safety representatives appointed by trade unions recognised by the employer. The advisers' role was to liaise with management and the workforce over health and safety issues on site - and advise them where there needed to be improvement. The WSAs were also to try to promote discussion and consultation between employers and workers over health and safety issues so that more sustainable improvement could be made. The project ran from the end of 2001 until early 2003, with the WSAs visiting companies between April and November 2002. The HSE has now published an analysis of the pilot and says it is encouraged by the results1.
Bill Callaghan said: "What has impressed me was that where employees were involved they really did help solve health and safety problems. We now want to take forward the approach but more work needs to be done to find practical and cost-effective ways of doing this."
The pilot ran in four sectors throughout Britain:
The 88 employers participating in the pilot provided access to 105 establishments. The employers were predominantly small, around two-thirds had less than 25 employees and a similar proportion turned over less than £500,000. The nine WSAs who participated in the pilot were recruited through the unions leading in each sector - Unison, T&G, Amicus, and UCATT - on the basis of an agreed person specification. Evidence for the changes brought about through the WSA pilot was gathered through surveys, study work and observation.
No pressure
When the pilot started, most of the employers did not feel under external pressure to improve their health and safety activities: only one in three had been inspected by the HSE or local authority in the previous three years. Only three enterprises had established health and safety consultation structures: two had health and safety committees and one had a broader consultative committee. Most used an informal approach when liaising with workers on health and safety matters, usually relying on managers to disseminate information. Four in five workers said they had discussions with managers about health and safety. Most of the managers had limited health and safety experience, with the result that many of the enterprises lacked clear policies and risk assessments.
The pilot found a proactive approach to be important. Enterprises taking part in the pilot usually did so because they were asked if they wanted to participate. One-third of managers said they became involved because they knew their organisation had particular health and safety issues or because the pilot might help improve workplace relations, which suggests that some employers were seeking benefits beyond health and safety improvements. There was no evidence that individual workers were looking for ways to address health and safety issues, suggesting that without some external driver there is unlikely to be impetus from workers to involve external advisers.
Biggest benefit
At the end of the pilot, three-quarters of employers said that the biggest benefit derived was increased awareness of health and safety in the workplace; one-third said communications with workers had improved (not just increased); and nearly half said the benefits of the pilot exceeded their expectations (see box 1). Nearly half of employers said they would consider contributing to the costs of a WSA, although the level of charge would be crucial to their decision. One in 10 said they definitely would contribute.
Originally, an average of three visits was planned for each workplace to gauge progress and encourage further work. In practice, the majority of workplaces had a higher level of WSA involvement than this: just over half received at least four visits and one in 10 had six visits.
The average length of visits was between one and two hours. Nearly all of the employers said that the number and duration of visits was about right; those who did not wanted more visits. Most of the employers said it would have been helpful for the visits to continue. Nearly all of the employers said they had no problems from being involved in the pilot.
Skills and experience
Employers had different expectations about the skills and experience of WSAs at the beginning and the end of the pilot. At the start, they expected WSAs to have the skills and expertise in health and safety to undertake:
At the end, fewer employers specifically mentioned the need for health and safety expertise (two in five compared with four in five at the beginning), and employers were far more likely to raise the need for WSAs to possess softer skills, in particular communication (two in five) and people skills (one in five).
Matching WSAs to workplaces based on the WSAs' experience of similar workplaces or direct industry experience was seen as important, although only two employers suggested that the WSA working with them had inadequate skills and experience.
The gaps were described as insufficient direct experience of similar workplaces and the ability to work effectively with large groups of people, for example in giving presentations.
Workers' expectations
Workers' expectations of the WSA role, after their first meeting with a WSA, were:
assistance with policies and procedures;
reviewing workplace activities;
awareness raising;
providing access to information;
providing training; and
carrying out risk assessments.
The extent to which WSAs were able to involve workers varied. The follow-up of the WSA after their first visit was essential in representing the interests of employees, especially if an initial approach by workers had been unsuccessful, as employees did not necessarily have the skills and experience to put their case effectively.
Pilot works
The pilot shows that the work of the WSAs led to improvements in the enterprises' approaches to health and safety (see box 2).
The pilot concludes that WSAs can make a difference to the standards of health and safety practice at small workplaces, with benefits for workers and employers. But it could not establish a direct link between the reported improvements in processes and attitudes related to good health and safety practice and the wider economic benefits that would result from lower incidence of workplace injuries (see box 3).
In May 2003, ministers asked the HSC to develop proposals to take the WSA project forward. The Department of Work and Pensions has allocated £3 million over three years for a WSA Challenge Fund, although details are not yet available. The construction, voluntary and retail sectors are likely to be the areas where the work of the WSAs is initially focussed. The HSE is currently working on developing the pilot and is commissioning an action plan setting down:
the steps required to identify the best organisations to run it and to recruit the WSAs and employers;
the steps needed to ensure that the WSA approach is sustainable; and
options for taking it forward in various sectors and geographical regions.
Issues raised
In developing the WSA scheme, the HSE will need to address issues raised by the pilot.
It was not possible to recruit WSAs as funded secondees from trade unions and large employers; all the costs had to be met through the pilot. This has significant implications for the cost of expanding the scheme.
It may be necessary for individuals to be employed full time and permanently as WSAs, given the potential impact on their employers.
WSAs are expected to have a high level of training and would benefit from being seen to have a professional role in the context of health and safety and of worker representation. Vocational Qualification Level 3-4 standard, which equates to the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's Technician Safety Practitioner (Getting the ticket ), is likely to be the appropriate qualification level. This can be gained through the TUC Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety course, which means some 7,000 appropriately technically qualified trade unionists may be available.
If the involvement of a WSA is advantageous, this may help demonstrate the potential benefits that trades unions can bring in a workplace, which might ultimately lead to recruitment and new recognition agreements. But this is likely to be a long-term investment that the unions may be unwilling or unable to make.
A voluntary scheme should not be linked solely to worker representation, but must take account of employer needs and potential benefits - without this, access to workers and workplaces is likely to be limited.
The emphasis of a WSA scheme should be on small businesses and establishments with up to 50 employees, and it should aim to reach as far as possible towards the very smallest enterprises, in which few structures are in place, including significant differentiation between the role of worker and management.
Further incentives may be needed to secure employer commitment to the scheme.
It may be necessary to amend the Safety Representative and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 to extend indemnity to cover the work of WSAs in the same way that safety representatives are covered.
The pilot also identified three specific areas that will need to be explored in taking the pilot forward: who should deliver the WSA scheme; how should it be funded; and will it have the capacity to deliver its aims?
Delivering the service
If the WSA programme is to be driven by those experienced in worker representation on health and safety, several models could be used. Although not all of the models are mutually exclusive, most are not ultimately consistent with managing a coherent national programme.
Free market consultancy - as the role and approach of a WSA are clearly defined and differentiated from that of a health and safety consultant, "qualified" or "approved" WSAs could operate in the open market, selling the benefits of their approach to workplaces interested in taking advantage of their possible contribution. Employers and workers would use the provider they felt best suited their needs. But this is unlikely to add value to the existing market of health and safety consultants as potential clients may not be able to differentiate the WSA's approach.
Union provision - trade unions could engage WSAs and make their services available to workplaces as needed. But the benefits would need to outweigh the possibility of unions competing to gain access to workplaces, and the reservations of non-unionised employers. Unions could make agreements as to who would provide a WSA service in either specific sectors or geographic areas although, historically, these types of agreement have not worked.
A union-managed scheme supported by the TUC - this has the advantage of centralised support, coordination and provision of some services, but potential differences between individual union agendas and the needs of a wider national WSA programme would still need to be reconciled.
A TUC-managed scheme drawing support from trade unions - this is more independent, reduces possible conflicts of interest and allows unions to contribute according to their means.
A joint board of management - the pilot suggests that this may be the best option, as it gives the scheme independence. The board would include the main stakeholders (the HSE, TUC and employer organisations) and would oversee policy and operations. Employers involved in the pilot said the link between the WSAs and the HSE's support of the scheme increased the WSA's credibility and the sense of benefit gained from their involvement. A joint management arrangement may help to maintain the advantages of this link without risking a perception of WSAs being involved in enforcement activity by HSE inspectors.
Direct operation by the HSE - while this could complement inspection and enforcement activities, the scheme would need to be distinguished from the HSE's enforcement work.
Paying for it
The costs of a WSA scheme would depend on both the scale of activity and the management models adopted. There are several options.
Employers pay directly - all or part of the costs incurred in providing a WSA are met by the employer. But as the scheme would be focused on workplaces where there is limited attention to health and safety, the initial direct charge would be a disincentive to participate. It may be possible to charge for second and subsequent visits once a plan of work was agreed.
An employer levy - this is, in principle, possible and is an arrangement used in Sweden, for example. But in the UK, only the construction sector has such a levy arrangement and it is likely that there would be barriers to implementing this option for a WSA scheme.
A direct discounting arrangement on banking/insurance premiums - this would provide resources to fund the costs of a WSA. But it would be difficult to establish a direct or exclusive link, as any establishment's health and safety record is influenced by many factors.
An insurance industry fund - workplaces with trade union-appointed health and safety representatives tend to have fewer injuries and accidents than those without, which should result in lower claims on insurance policies. The costs of a WSA scheme could be offset by an insurance industry fund. But the resources available to a fund would be determined by actuarial assessment and political goodwill.
A union-funded scheme - WSAs could be provided as part of the unions' workforce services and representation activities. But employers may be concerned that the services of a WSA might be linked to other recruitment or industrial relations objectives. Unions are also unlikely to have sufficient funds to provide a consistent and viable service to the majority of workplaces, and would have difficulty allocating resources generated through members' subscriptions to servicing non-members in non-organised workplaces.
Using public funds - a WSA scheme could operate independently and consistently.
Deliver the goods
The WSAs each worked an average of three days a week, including reporting time and activities to do with management of the pilot.
In Sweden, roving safety representatives visit each enterprise about once every two years. They spend between one and one-and-a-half days on site, which, by coincidence, is close to the time given to WSA pilot workplaces.
In the UK, around 3,860 full-time equivalent WSAs would be needed to visit annually all enterprises with between five and 50 employees, assuming an average caseload of 100 enterprises per WSA. If, as in Sweden, nine in 10 WSAs were part time, the overall number needed would be considerably more. This is not a realistic proposition from the current base.
The pilot concludes the most pragmatic approach is for the WSA to aim to be a catalyst for change, not an ongoing support service. An average of two days, the equivalent of three to four visits per enterprise, in a 12-month period should be seen as the average total investment required to initiate change to more sustainable activities.
Other sources of health and safety information can then be used by the enterprises. One follow-up contact may be required to assess progress, though arguably this should be a separate quality control function. This approach would substantially reduce the number of WSAs needed, leading also to reduced management, support and training costs.
Chris Dyer is editor of HSB and a freelance journalist specialising in health and safety.
1 "The Worker Safety Advisers (WSA) pilot", RR 144, York Consulting with Fife College of Further and Higher Education, HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 2728 4, £20 or free at www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/index.htm.
|
More than three-quarters of employers said they changed their approach to health and safety as a result of the pilot: one-third revised or updated policies and procedures;
a quarter introduced new policies and procedures;
one in five started regular health and safety discussions with staff;
one in eight set up a health and safety committee;
one in 10 carried out risk assessments;
one in 12 gave staff new responsibility for health and safety; and
one in 12 introduced a health and safety training plan.
More than half of the employers that made changes said they probably would not have acted without their involvement in the pilot. Four employers reported that Personal Protective Equipment was now provided; others had bought new equipment; and others had undertaken building renovations specifically to address the health and safety problems identified. More than two-thirds of workers said discussion of health and
safety matters had increased since the pilot. |
|
The nine WSAs undertook 380 visits to 105 workplaces - an average of 42 visits per WSA. Based on the salary and expenses paid, a WSA working on a full-time basis would have required an annual salary averaging £24,533 (though no pension contributions or other benefits were paid other than those paid to seconded WSAs). The average salary cost per visit was £261, though this would be lower for a full scheme, as the caseload would be bigger. The average expense per workplace was £143. Again, this would be expected to fall with a fuller caseload, as there would be efficiencies with combined visits. While it is possible to identify changes and costs associated with delivery of the WSA service, the financial value of these changes is unclear. This is mainly because it is difficult to link preventive action with a likelihood that an incident may occur, or should one occur, what the consequences may be in severity of injury. HSE research indicates
the cost of work-related accidents and ill health is up to £262 per employee
to each employer, and the economy bears a cost of up to £729 per employee
annually. |
