The challenges SME face with SDS What are SDS for? Safety Data Sheets (SDS) are a key to chemical safety safety, providing information on the hazards associated with chemicals and the precautions required for their handling, storage, emergency response and…
What are the options for determining competence. Its not about attending a one day course
One of the most common questions we get is when a refresh of a training course is required.
The answer may be “never”. There are of no mandatory periods – for the simple reason that competence is developed in many ways, such as working on the job. Sitting in an NZQA endorsed course for 6 hours with virtually everyone passing is not proof of competence.
We get asked about “Work and Height” training – but there is no one qualification for this. We get asked about a “Forklift License” – but aside from a Class Endorsement on the driver’s license (allowing you to drive on the road) there is none.
We get asked how to determine a person working in a job there is no relevant formal
qualification for – which is most labouring work.
So what are the options for determining competence?
For trades and roles with a formal training structure leading to a formal qualification, such as the trades or nursing, training is fundamental. And will include a significant practical “on the job” element.
Where there is no such training structure, competence requires checks on whether someone can apply their skills correctly in real-world conditions. To this end 1 on 1 observation on the job by and experienced person using a competency checklist for verification of competency. This can be done on a regular basis (e.g. 6 or 12 monthly). It may be done for someone starting a new job, returning from a long break, following an incident or near miss or when introducing new equipment or procedures.
The verification of competency process is an effective model for establishing competence.
Training is likely to be part of the process as well, but it certainly does not stand on its own.
Navigating the complex landscape of Health and Safety (H&S) in New Zealand isn’t just a matter of “doing the right thing”—it’s about managing a rigorous legal framework that demands precision. For businesses in Auckland and across the country, the cost of a misstep often far outweighs the investment in professional guidance. It is easy and expensive to get it wrong. The documents are long and technical. Therefore, seeking specialist advice is crucial for ensuring health and safety performance and compliance for businesses in Auckland and throughout NZ..
Naturally we recommend the Winsland team.
There is a common misconception among small business owners (SMEs) that Health and Safety (H&S) is a “big company problem.” Many believe that with fewer employees and less complex operations, the risks are negligible.
However, the reality in New Zealand tells a different story. Whether you are a retail shop, a small construction company, or a family-owned workshop, Health and Safety is not just a legal obligation—it is a critical factor in business survival.
Managing health and safety paperwork needs to be a balance between what is desirable and what is practical. You need documentation to:
• record what has been done
• track what still needs to be done
• communicate clearly with your team
The real question isn’t whether paperwork should exist — it’s how do you manage it efficiently in a digital world?
Winsland have taken these challenges and built a system designed specifically for small and medium-sized businesses. Managing health and safety information is now simpler and more practical for all users. And its FREE.
Targeting health and safety spend so it is effective (optimises safety and ensures compliance) and strategic (enhances the business). Understanding health and safety cost is essential for organisations aiming to make informed decisions.
At face value, implementing safety measures, training, equipment, and maintaining compliance do drive direct costs that impact the bottom line. So targeting health and safety spending is critical to the success of a business. Only spending on safety after an incident occurs (e.g., legal fees, compensation, fines) is often far more expensive than proactive prevention.
Understanding why people take risks gives a clue to how to reduce risk taking behaviours. Here’s a starter;
Complacency: Repeatedly performing a dangerous task without a negative consequence leads the brain to recalibrate “danger” as “normal.”
Competing Priorities: Individuals often prioritise efficiency, production pressure, or social pressure (looking “uncool”) over safety.
Cognitive Shortcuts: If a risk hasn’t resulted in a recent accident, people assume the risk is low or non-existent, especially if the risky action provides a “positive feeling” like speed or job satisfaction.
Ignorance: A simple lack of knowledge, skills, or mentoring prevents people from knowing how to perform an activity safely.
We are defining psychological harm as bullying, harassment or work induced stress which is unreasonable, repeated and has the potential to cause serious mental harm.
In an employment setting, sexual and racial harassment is defined in the Employment Relations Act 2000. There is no definition of bullying so the courts have had to rely on WorkSafe guidance material. Worksafe define bullying as an action which is unreasonable, repeated and has the potential to cause serious mental harm. These criteria seem sound to us as well as tests of what constitutes bullying or harassment.
Given mental harm is typically invisible, this area is open to spurious claims from disaffected workers. On the other hand, many employers are not prepared to recognise and deal with mental harm.
The employer needs to be concerned with things related to the workplace. If there are factors outside of work, they are out of scope but perhaps very relevant – potentially more relevant than what is manifesting itself in the workplace.
If there are issues of psychosocial harm arising, there are courses of action available under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 or the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The HSWA requires a PCBU to eliminate harm or, if this is not possible, to minimise harm as far as reasonably practicable. “Elimination” will likely become an employment issue. But any lesser control is likely not to be “reasonably practicable” based on the proposed tests in legislation. It would require changes in the workplace or the individual’s employment conditions and thus likely be an employee relations issue. This is why we maintain psychological harm sits in the realm of HR not HSE, along with the fact that the procedures for managing this harm are part of an organisations management procedures.
What makes a good SSSP?
SSSP need to reflect the specific site – that’s why there are 3 “S’s”. Too many contractors roll out the same material for every site.
It’s ok to use a standard risk register as a baseline but remove what is irrelevant. Reviewers don’t appreciate reading through things that don’t apply. And ensure the site-specific risks are both included and appropriately worded in the risk register. Further, ensure the risks / hazards advised by the main contractor are included.
Same with Safe Work Procedures – ensure they describe the work accurately.
Ensuring workers are competent is fundamental to ensuring safety. To this end the SSSP needs to be clear with detailing competencies. “Height training” for example, is meaningless. Further generic courses such as a Site Safe Passport might sound good but do not establish any particular competence. What is required is documentation which details formal recognised technical training and details the nature of practical experience. We have a separate post on how we establish competency.
We smile when we see a sign claiming, “Our HSE policy is common sense.” Then, we grimace. Are these organizations brave, or simply ignorant?
While individuals bear the primary responsibility for their own safety, they do not carry that burden alone. Businesses that adopt a “common sense” policy make a fundamental mistake: they assume everyone possesses an equal measure of it. This policy functions perfectly until someone leaves their judgment at the gate and a serious accident occurs. An accident is a brutal, expensive lesson—a risk no responsible business should take.
The Illusion of Low-Risk Environments
Even office-based organizations—where the most critical risks seem to be RSI or paper cuts—cannot hide behind “common sense.” Every workplace harbours hidden dangers:
• Fire hazards and blocked exit routes.
• Faulty electrical appliances and data-cabling trip hazards.
• Traffic risks as workers navigate parking lots and commutes.
Relying on common sense suggests an organization has lost control of its critical risks. It indicates a leadership team that relies on luck or is simply too lazy to manage safety proactively.
Psycho social harm typically refers to harm arising from things such as the organisation of work and the work environment, which may cause harm or distress and thus a threat to health and safety.
It features issues such as bullying, harassment or conflict, employee performance and even remuneration – all issues typically handled by HR. In our view, that is where they belong. That’s ok if you are a large company – but that is not 90% + of NZ businesses. SME are reliant on expert advice from organisations such as Winsland.
Psychosocial harm is the latest trend in H&S and given impetus by being regarded as a “Critical Risk” by Worksafe. From Auckland to points south, business needs to be aware of this as a potential source of harm and a critical risk and, as such, they need to have controls in place to manage this – regardless of scale.
The reality for many businesses is they can’t afford health and safety support so they do it themselves on a best endevours basis. What we recommend is you look at the following – and record it somewhere as you may need to demonstrate you have done it.
Identify and document your critical risks
Maybe do this with your workers to get their views.
The key question are
~ what is it that could be fatal or cause long term incapacity?
~ might this reasonably occur in the next 20 years?
You don’t want to have more than 5 – if you do, rank them.
Ask what you do to manage or control these risks
The key questions are
~ what are the controls and how do we know they are in place and working?
~ where they are not working, how do we fix it?
~ what extra could we be doing to further reduce the risk?
~ what is the plan for improving our controls – who and when?
Implement monitoring
Develop a checklist of things you need to check to ensure controls for critical risks are in fact in place and working. Add anything else you might want to check like fire extinguishers, chemical storage etc.
Assign someone to do the checks (no less than quarterly) and keep a record.
There are two aspects that small business should understand – critical risk and approved codes of practice (ACOPs).
The change is essentially that small business does not need to worry about risks that are not critical. This means they need to be clear on what is “Critical”.
Following an ACOP will be evidence of compliance. However, ACOP are non-binding and you can achieve compliance through other means. Bottom line business needs to know and apply all of the ACOP relevant to their operations.
