You cant do that unless you have a ticket!

MTS247

I’m constantly being told by people who have done their cert4 or dip in OHS that you need a ticket/unit of competency to perform any task at a workplace. I argue “no, you just need suitable training or instruction!” Am I wrong?

From OHS act 2004.

21. Duties of employers to employees

(e) Provide such information, instruction, training or supervision to employees of the
Employer as is necessary to enable those persons to perform their work in a way that
Is safe and without risks to health.

Doesn’t say must be trained in or must hold unit of competency, says trained, instructed information or supervision.

I think people get their Must Should Could Might mixed up; I think what they mean is, if an accident occurs, the employer is better off if the employee has a unit of competency from and RTO.

Or is there a document somewhere that states everyone must hold a unit of competency for everything?

Thoughts please.

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

Apocalypsse

You only need tickets for stuff like towers/trucks/loaders (except Dingo style loaders), dont need tickets for chippers, stump grinder, chainsaws. Some places do their own competency tests on certain gear tho.

Eric Frei

Chainsaws .... well you should get a unit for that.

The obvious is getting the units covers you in as far as showing in document form you were competent at that assessment ...... but what you do after that?

This area will always be debated, if the equipment requires a ticket like EWP or forklift, you'll need one. But in reality for most tasks and machinery you do not.

OHS people many times need to justify their existence, flamin leaches most of them.

__________________

MTS247

Victoria are throwing huge amounts of money at RPLs getting farmers certificates and the like.

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

jmcg.insight.gardens

Had a teacher ask us at college what we thought of Lawnmower men getting a ticket so that they were competent to mow peoples lawns, seems they were trying to get a consensus around :.....................:

I'm not going to post my reply,...........I can't per rules.

jmcg.insight.gardens

is that a fact about not needing a ticket for a chainsaw? I thought that in a work situation you did.

Where do I verify that I wonder?

Eric Frei

You need to be trained and competent ... the "ticket" validates that but because you do not have a ticket do not assume that you are incompetent.

Employers want to see tickets to cover their asses.... because it alleviates another problem, "oh, he never showed me that so it's not my fault".

That's the other issue. With a ticket they are supposed to know all about the said topic so if they screw up it's their fault not your fault.

__________________

jmcg.insight.gardens

So by law say, it is not necessary to have a ticket?

I think training to use a chainsaw would be pretty important, I wouldn't feel very comfortable with anyone using one that hadn't had some training in the use of a chainsaw, at least all the safety issues are then covered. There are so many things that could seriously go wrong.

I'm not even game to use one myself, I wanted to get a ticket in the past but my boss at the time wouldn't let me, now I'm happy to leave it to a bloke as they have a lot more strength than me.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Landcare and the volunteers at the moment, I have a couple of guys that are already a bit of a worry, they are too gung ho already, I'd like to validate somehow that we need to get someone with a ticket in, I'm already having heaps of problems explaining things to them, they are a PITA. I suppose that I'll have to use the insurance tactic.

Eric Frei

Heck, I could do a deal and come down and ticket the lot with some training.

Now I'll do some hypothetical scenario .....

__________________

jmcg.insight.gardens

Oh don't scare me Ekka,

geez these guy's can't seem to grasp that trees are under legislation, that they have a TPZ, that you can't cut through major roots without harming the tree for heavens sake. They are also Tidytowns at the moment, which is to be revised hopefully.

The two just don't go together in my estimation, one plants weeds and one has to deal with introduced weeds.

It,s a new group and they are giving me nightmares already.I'm already telling myself to breath..... at some of the suggestions so far, ignorance is bliss it seems. I am thinking of supplying them the local Landscape Policy to give them a little bit of light reading.............

But they are keen and do listen so far, hopefully it will sort out. I'm keen to get some work done on our local environs here, we have some nice habitats to regenerate and I'm meeting with Delta soon.

I will keep your offer in mind tho, but I'd still like to get an Arborist for any tree work, much safer.......... one of these guys has demolished a sizable grevillea by just walking through a garden.....

Julie

sueann

one of these guys has demolished a sizable grevillea by just walking through a garden.....


Bigfoot???

jmcg.insight.gardens

nah.............numbskull, er yes he did tread on it, at about 60cm high, that's a mean feat.......

Apocalypsse

OHS says he is liable as well for that, its not just the employer.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Hmm , I suppose he would be liable too, an employer is to try to the best of his ability, through discussion and safe work practices to minimise the risks, but one would assume that the employee would have to be to some extent liable for going ahead with the work.

That's what you pay insurance for I suppose.

So if one of the volunteers would like to get a recognized chainsaw ticket,where would I suggest they go, TAFE? I'm not sure if they could use it though, more investigation of OHS policies for me again.........

MTS247

From Vic OHS act.

A person must not carry out work, or an activity,
at a workplace if—

(a) the regulations require the work or activity,
or class of work or activity, to be carried out
by a person who holds a permit or certificate
of competency for that work or activity, or
class of work or activity;

(b) the person does not hold a permit or
certificate of competency (as the case may
be) for that work or activity, or class of work
or activity, in accordance with the
regulations.

It seems to me that it is saying, that if a regulation says you need a ticket or licence to do something or operate something like an EWP then you need a ticket or licence.

I don’t think it is supporting the “You need a ticket to scratch your ass” movement.

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

MTS247

Its not much of a read but here it is.

Sections

21. Duties of employers to employees
42. Requirements for permit or certificate of competency

are interesting.

Somone could dig up the other states docs

Attached Files

VIC OHS ACT 2004.doc (537.5 KB, 29 views)

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

Eric Frei

OK,

I can see now where people get confused.

Here's what I read from page 44 onwards:-
Now that piece above is about qualifications and experience.

However there's also this on page 45 directly after it:-

So in 41 experience is good enough but in 42 it says you have to have the certificate of competency. Heck, what's the answer we are looking for then?

__________________

MTS247

A person must not carry out work, or an activity, at a workplace if—
(a) the regulations require the work or activity, or class of work or activity, to be carried out by a person who holds a permit or certificate of competency for that work or activity.

I think its saying that if another "regualation" like a COP or AS, states you need a permit or certificate then the OHS act backs it up and enforces it whith fines, somthing i dont think COP or AS can do.

that s the way i read it.

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

Brent Ferris

Julie
THe simplest solution, if you need someone to use a chainsaw, purportedly one of the most dangerous pieces of equipment around, hire an arborist, Getting a certificate doesn't mean the person has absorbed all the info, or can operate one safely, just that they have a certificate. But, usually no experience.

If a certificate is required, it is usually for a government job, or someone wants to protect themselves. You could require it yourself for your own people to get a feeling of competency, but hiring an experienced person for chainsaw work is the safer road to follow. That person has to work safe. His livelihood depends on it.

And your two workers? If they can't take care to miss a 60 cm sapling, and are having trouble distinguishing what's good and not - why are you keeping them?

In Canada we have a high unemployment rate right now. I thought most countries were in the same boat. I am sure there is plenty of competition for the jobs you have. Get better people. The ones you have are a liability, and will cost you more every day to keep them on the job. Even if they are family, or related, let them get experience with other people.

jmcg.insight.gardens

Thanks for your post treeshaveneeds

Landcare is fundamentally volunteers, whom are promoted and steered by Council, the concept is to eradicate weeds and promote the regeneration of desirable habitat. The problem I'm having is managing people that have little understanding of anything but have used a chainsaw at home and think they are proficient, hence they think that they can take down fully mature Erythrina crista-galli etc. , like oh yeah.............

Yes I know they are a liability, they are driving me bonkers. Ive seen enough trees dropped to know just how dangerous it is.

No-one will be using a chainsaw that is not an Arborist, or has sound industry experience while I'm there. Full stop. They can hate me if they want. I'll be able to sleep at night. I thought I'd post up the issue, so that I could get experienced Arborists views, on the issue to take to them, thinking that they will be more likely to respect it coming from blokes, if that's their issue.

Thank you your post has been helpful.


Julie

Marx

Different states have different requirements however Safe work Australia is putting together a national OHS ACT, it should be through parliament and finalised around 2012.

Extract from the Victorian Worksafe summary of the OHS Act.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________


Training for the tree industry
OHS for tree companies

http://www.treetec.net.au

MTS247

And I’m sure that will be interpreted many different ways as well.

Correct me if im wrong but it seems the ACTs are there to prosecute and put a $ figure on people for breaking COPs.

From AS4373

Tree work is inherently hazardous and should be carried out by a person suitably qualified and experienced in arboriculture (minimum of AQF Level 2 in arboriculture). Work should be performed in accordance with relevant OHS guidelines.

So here is a "regulation" that states tree work "should" be done be at least AQF level 2 arborist.

Could someone be fined on the basis of a "should"?

__________________
"Just cause i don't use it, don't make it wrong!"

Brent Ferris

I think the fine is highly unlikely, unless you have highly aggressive enforcement officers. If the act says

not only is someone unlikely to be fined for not being an arborist, they are also not likely to follow the safe practices because 'should' is not enforceable, 'must' is. Must gives unmistakable definition, that enforcement officers can enforce knowing legislation backs them up. Should is open to interpretation, and fines and charges can be appealed, often dismissed.


Julie

This may be one of the issues. But more than likely they believe you don't know the difference, don't know what to look for between professional and wannabe professionals, and until you make it clear (and demonstrate) that you do know, and command respect, you will continue to have problems. Volunteers can be some of the worst workers to deal with. If they are for you -- they are fantastic. If they are iffy, or indifferent - they are horrible. And because they are volunteers, they can't be fired, and usually they can't be told to leave the site or not come back. They believe there are no repercussions, so what they do (or not) is what counts.

A pay structure would be highly beneficial. It doesn't have to represent a going rate, or even be in dollars. It could be in credits as to what jobs the volunteer is capable of, and qualifies for. Then, the desire to do a good job depends on behaviour and common sense and a sense of accomplishment and levels of achievement. Whether you could enact such a system with the present group is hard to say. It should be possible, particularly if you have stood firm on your decisions, and have tried different approaches and ideas. Certainly giving people credit for ideas and excellent work and accomplishments enhances their pride and their desire to do more good work.
How many know you are the boss, and there can be no other?