The recent topic and thread concerning flat roof safety and ladder work has generated a lot of interest from a wide range of window cleaners. All comments I read with interest. It has shown me just how urgent we need to clarify what the law actually says. This I plan to try and do at the Windex semminar
In the meantime!
I want to start with defining competency
To start with the Regulation 5 of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005 (statutory law which means you must comply with) states: “Every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height, or work equipment for use in such work, unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person.”
Peter Bennett has recently supplied an excellent article online which spells out competency and is worth reading Peter is managing director of PASMA.
To see the full article on
www.cleaning43.com or
SHP online
http://www.shponline.co.uk/article.asp?pagename=features&article_id=9782Peter outlines ............Confusingly, there are various definitions of competence. Capability, ability, skill, fitness, aptitude, proficiency, and know-how: all of these descriptions fit most people’s understanding of the term in a work environment. In the context of this article, training could be best defined as the process of bringing a person to an agreed standard of competence by instruction and practice.
It would be reasonable to assume that competence and, by extension, the training to achieve competence, particularly in the field of working at height, would be universally acceptable and welcomed in the workplace, but, in reality, it depends on to whom you are speaking.
There is a suspicion among some sections of the workforce that this enthusiastic drive for competence is, at best, a posterior-covering exercise on the part of management, or, at worst, an effort to deflect responsibility, allowing blame to be attributed to the lowest echelon of the organisation.
In truth, it matters little what motivates organisations to aspire to achieve competence in their workforce, at any level, because the very existence of competence is empowering, if it is used and harnessed correctly. We may not always be in a position to significantly alter behaviour but, at the very least, we can be confident that a competent and therefore empowered workforce is, at least in theory, making an informed choice to make the right – or indeed, wrong – decision, with the benefit of knowledge of best practice.
And it is the last paragraph I strongly believe in
There are also two legal case law which defines competency
Case Law Brazier v Skipton Rock Co. Ltd Co. Ltd (1962)
Meaning of the word “competent” Considered by Mr Justice Winn.
Academic training and qualifications were not the only criteria in assessing competence, since experience may be an equally valid factor
Case Law Gibbs v Skibs A/S Marin (1966)
Justice Cantley considered the meaning of the expression “competent person” under the Docks Regulations 1934 “I think that a competent person………is a Person whom is a practical and reasonable person who knows what to look for and knows how to recognise it when they see it.”
Competency therefore = Qualification, experience and knowledge
It would then seem reasonable to apply the statutory law in Regulation 5 of the working at height regulations and the two case law and that to be deemed competent is to have both practical experience and qualification