Thank you all so much for your contributions to this discussion. I'm blown away by your insights and shared experiences.
I am currently studying towards the NEBOSH IGC and I find that the content is lifting me up and helping me see more than before. I'm starting to question organisational structure and resourcing and see the interconnection between this and H&S outcomes.

@Andrew Thanks for sharing your insights on this. Your fact-based, evidential approach will no-doubt be a safety net to "always do the right thing".
I guess your being the one person doing two roles might mean you will naturally have an aligned approach. I wonder whether others who work in organisations where these roles are split have different experiences?

@Andrew I like your comment about risk and customer service.
My views about HR might be strongly influenced by having worked for corporates and in unionised environments where HR would be perceived to, at times, take in a position purely to protect the business. Now that I work exclusively in H&S, I have a realisation that I am earning a living by working to keep people safe. I could do my job half-arsed but this would be unethical - for more reasons than if an HR person were to do a half-arsed job. This essentially sharpens my focus.
Do you ever find you need to take off your HR hat and put on your H&S hat to get the best outcome?

Hi Graham
Glad to hear that you as a rep have access to this forum.
Historically in an organisation I worked for, a lot of health and safety reminders to workers were along these lines - "You need to be more careful." I currently train managers and team leaders to step away from this default as this is not H&S management - we are loading up our people with the responsibility to take more care instead of managing the risk closer to the source.
Regards, Michelle

Thank you @Simon Lawrence and @Andrew. It was only yesterday that I read a description of a H&S professional which included "passionate about H&S". I stopped and felt something wasn't quite right. Having a background in HR and recruitment, I often feel this word is over-used and mis-used. I concur - we need to be more than "a bouncy little rabbit who makes meetings last too long while everyone else studies their fingernails."

And "Cheesecakes".

Hi Chris,

There is a sample hazard ID checklist in the "Safe Use of Machinery" - Best Practice Guideline available from the Worksafe website. This might give you some ideas.

Our workplace has printed signs near tool workstations which act as checklists and work with whiteboard markers. This is for our daily pre-starts.

We find that our Test n Tag regime gives us some coverage as this is a third party who is also checking that guards are in place and undamaged.

I would suggest you might like to combine this documented check with scheduled tool maintenance.

Not exactly what you asked but I hope you find this useful.

Thanks Tanya - great discussion point. One more hazard to add - carbon monoxide.

Anyone wishing to participate in Worksafe's online consultation for the proposed amendment to the Wood Dust WES, please direct message me your email address. I have two documents put together by the Wood Processors & Manufacturers Association which I would like to share with you;
- a WES Review fact sheet and a Consultation Questions guide.
The deadline for the consultation is 5pm on 7 August.

You can often find a recommended refresher frequency on the NZQA document. These are easily found online. @Stuart Keer-Keer, if you have specific questions on recommended refresher frequencies, feel free to ask me.

The catch is that refreshers are often quicker and cheaper to obtain than letting the training lapse completely and having to do the full course. There is often a months grace after expiry in which a refresher can still be obtained. The training providers can advise on the grace period available.

For my record keeping I differentiate between three separate kinds of training records - "Training" for training which does not expire such as degree, diplomas etc, "Licences" for training which expires or requires refreshers and "SOPs", specific inhouse training also often requiring refreshers.

Thanks @Andrew.

Yes we do provide popsicles to staff on very hot days and are considering a fruit bowl including bananas.
However refreshing these options may be, some of our staff need to take care to limit sugar intake.
What's really needed is the replacement of salts lost through sweating.

Over and out.

Thank you @Jonathan Godfrey for your reasonings and explanations.

In my workplace, we use "significant discomfort" reports as an indicator that we have to do more to ensure the safety and well-being of our workers.

There are so many variables in managing heat so for us, "significant discomfort" reports help us know how we are tracking.

Taken from the below Worksafe article,"Recognising the signs of thermal discomfort or stress and raising concerns is important for both businesses and workers to manage health risks that come from working in an environment – that is too hot or too cold. Workers and businesses need to be aware that there is a link between heat and fatigue, which leads to potential for more fatigue-related accidents."

https://worksafe.govt.nz/about-us/news-and-media/temperatures-rise-in-the-workplace/

In our workplace we apply a variety of measures - rotation, ventilation, extra hydration breaks and access to water coolers. Our plan for next summer includes electrolytes. A slushy machine would be an easy way to dispense this as we are always looking for ways to increase our productivity... a win/win.

I have seen first aid items in retro packaging that were manufactured prior to expiry dates being introduced!

A recent article on Stuff mentioned a bar in Perth issuing their female staff with a tighter, lower cut shirt than the male staff are required to wear. Some staff reported feeling uncomfortable wearing such tight and low cut shirts. The manager is trying to justify this requirement by citing Health and Safety "Baggy shirts catch on things and could cause injury in the workplace." However that same manager appears to be doing nothing to address this 'hazard' by allowing male staff to continue to wear their regular shirts.

I get the point being made of PPE being a final resort. However I recently suffered a FAI when someone in the factory shut a rubbish bin lid which then gave me a face-full of dust. This could have easily become a MTI as it took more than a day for my eyes to settle down. My point is - eyes are vulnerable and projectiles are not the only risk. I now make a point of always wearing eye protection in production areas. I have colleagues who have suffered similarly, and have since made the same decision for themselves. Businesses who make the wearing of eye protection mandatory may be taking the approach to take all reasonably practical steps to prevent injury.

Hi Darach, I agree that the starting point is a risk assessment, however by law employers need to consider whether the workplace or roles are safety sensitive as this is the justification which deems random drug testing as reasonable. If your site or the work your people are doing is not safety sensitive, random drug testing may not be reasonable.

Often. It's a real investment and you can only read a small excerpt before buying. And once bought, there are the limitations of only having one saved copy and one hard-copy. And it's only valid till it's reviewed again.

Hi Darren, My workplace has forklifts and other machinery. We have water-coolers in all work areas. Our staff are given extra mini-breaks in between break-times with the sole purpose to re-hydrate. The rehydration message is emphasised during hot weather.

Hi Alan,
Sounds like you are seeing past the excuses and seeing the risk. Also sounds like your management team are not being real about the risks. By all means make your visitors also wear safety glasses - end to that discussion.
Yes, those wearing prescription glasses which are not safety glasses are unprotected and perhaps at greater risk of ending up with glass in their eyes.
I recently reviewed safety glasses in my workplace. The starting point is that PPE must be fit for purpose and fit the wearer. Start with an assessment as to what the worker does as there are roles which have different lens requirements.
Prices seem to start at $299 plus the cost of an eye exam. An eye exam is recommended if they haven't had one in the last year or two and especially if their loss of sight is getting worse with age. For staff with simple lens requirements, try Bolle as they have some, cost-effective glasses. Another good option has been Ugly Fish Glide but this is a full-price option but more attractive.
All the best effecting change in your workplace.

Great idea Peter!

Worksafe have their own Mythbusting page however this is to address general misconceptions about the Health & Safety at Work Act rather than specific cases.

Check out https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/getting-started/mythbusting-and-faqs/mythbusting/

Hello Chris,

Our workplace is about to implement random drug testing. Over the last twelve months we have started doing pre-employment, reasonable cause and post-incident testing. This has made a huge improvement to the safety of our sites and the morale of our teams! Driving incident stats including dropped stock are down! Employment Relations disputes are down! Retention, staff satisfaction and team work is on the up!

I expect that random drug testing will work to uphold the gains already made as it actively discourages illicit drug use.

Yes I would classify anyone driving a company vehicle as being in a safety sensitive role.

Your questions make me wonder about the nature of your business. In my experience with random drug testing, I have had to focus my efforts on defining safety sensitive areas more so than roles. A pedestrian in a safety sensitive area can equally cause a serious accident.

Feel free to DM me if you would like further information. Regards,