Hi Don

There are some that have mandated intervals that exist at a level lower than Regulation, but others do not: for example Worksafe's Best Practice Guide for MEWPs states 'refresher training not exceeding three years' but the ACOP for Cranes is silent on refreshers.
My industry refresher periods are mandated by EWRB, as well as our industry assoiciation safety rules.

However unit standards do not actually expire, so most PTEs have 'recommended' a two year interval where no regulation exists - if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount.
A good example is fire xxtinguisher training, providers list anywhere from yearly to 3-yearly intervals citing compliance with HSWA and 'good practice'.

Cheers
S.

Hi Don,

I work for a PTE and this is an interesting grey area! First Aid, like you said is regulated by the NZRESUS Council. No other course, that we are aware of (unless there is some international requirement), has a specified time-frame/refresher period.

Industry may unofficially stipulate 2-3 years, but ultimately this comes down to each individual workplace. A PTE may decide to specify an end date on the certificate, but this doesn't necessarily have a lot of weight behind it.

Alex

Thank you

Thank you

if i was cynical i would say that it inceases thier FTE funding by a large amount. — Stephen Small

The other cynical viewpoint on refresher training is doing it to cover your ass if something was to happen, i.e. (irrespective of if the refresher training is of any value) companies consider it valuable to be use it as evidence of "taking all reasonably practicable steps" to manage the risk and if an incident were to happen they should not be prosecuted/convicted of any breach of duty... however the reality on this one is it is more likely that companies know/want to do what they can to make sure their workers are competent and the "refresher training" has just become the standard practice. And if they think about stepping outside of this "normal way of doing things" they feel exposed to the risk of prosecution if something were to go wrong.

@MattD2
Good perspective, and I agree with the company viewpoint about being exposed if stepping out of the norm - especially if the training is not related to the company's core business.

I have no issue with refreshers covering key points, but what irks me is the perception that we have to undertake full Unit Standard training every year/two years/three years.
This country has some outstanding trademen who's apprenticeship is unit standards based. If we took the percieved need for referesher training of unit standards every 2 years to a flawed conclusion, no-one would finish thier apprenticeship!

Note in my earlier post I referenced the BPG for MEWPs - it states that 'one means of demonstrating competency is completeing nationally recognised NZQA unit standards' which leaves the door open for an equalivent traning course. likewise the refresher only needs to cover listed requirements in the BPG.

The HSWA is explicit in requiring workers be trained S36 (3)(f). I believe that this (and other parts of the act) imply that a workplace needs to ensure competency (cavate to this: relevant to the level of supervision) of a worker for a task - assumption is not adequate. So, my triggers for 'refresher' training are:

• Explicitly stated in a Code of Practice (i.e. STMS under CoPTTM)
• Change in standard or methodology
• Change in or introduction of new tool, equipment or technique
• Need to establish current competency.

This last one is a bit trickier. if a person is regularly undertaking the task (person whose sole role is driving a forklift) .... ? vs Person very rarely ever does it, such as 'helicopter underwater escape training (how often does a person crash a helicopter into water)?

Then the pragmatic me jumps in. Any business worth its salt (especially in todays employment market) invests in the development of its people as a core part of work, not a bolt on. When a person starts this time is loaded into 'learning how we do things', then evolves into developing additional capability and maintaining currency, and then starts letting go of past competencies and replacing them with higher functions. It is a pretty consistent time load, just with a different focus. And to make (H+S) training requirements consistent and reliable I put everything on a two-year cycle and stagger different disciplines, so that no person has to do more than one requisite training in any three-month period. (3 months over two year = 8 training sessions). Ideally, I avoid training a person for a task they will rarely be performing in the next two years.

The question 'when did they do the training / refresher' or 'were they trained' is finite and quite poor 'investigation' on its own. Certainly, as an H+S Inspector I didn't ask only this. the focus should be 'what evidence does the business have the person was competent to undertake the take?' is a better position.

I recently completed an investigation into a fatality where we asked just this question. Our findings were consistent with those of many other enquiries I've conducted:
1. Workers capability / competency was assumed, rather than established (evidence-based)
2. Formal training wasn't provided because it wasn't 'required' (by a COP / GPG / Other)
3. The quality of formal training was never questioned, turned out to be very poor.
4. Internal / Informal training was provided by individuals with no credentials or verifiable industry expertise.

Irrespective of the type or caliber of H+S approach being run, people need to know how it works - this is training. Training doesn't happen on a single point, and the more critical the skill, knowledge and understanding the higher quality it needs to be delivered with.

I am looking at NZQA courses that our staff are doing, and are utilising every week. I can prove my current competency from the work records.

The real kicker for me is that every one is quoting it as a worksafe requirement when it is not.

But below is the reply I got from Worksafe. It is the party line without any direction.

Under the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016 (the GRWM Regulations), a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the information, training, instruction and supervision provided to workers is suitable and adequate.
• Providing information, training, instruction or supervision for workers | WorkSafe

There is nothing in the legislation that refers to refresher training times and training requirements. There are some types of training that are based on NZ or AS/NZ Standards, these may have recommended times for refresher training, these would usually be NZQA courses.

Refresher training can be recommended or required by unit standards, set out in regulations, Codes of Practice, Industry Guideline or Standard etc. It is not WorkSafe’s role to determine when refresher training would be required.

Totally agree with you about the refresher training, When I was at Steel and Tube we completed the refresher training in house.

Yes the PTE is setting the expiry dates, and saying that we have to do the refreshers as per Worksafe, again not the case after my conversations with WorkSafe.

People (sale reps) do love to say "WorkSafe say ....."

And of course, the regulator will go a bob each way. It can be so frustrating the way we get left trying to navigate through the fog with no map or compass. arrgh.

However, I firmly believe if a workplace builds a system that can reliably produce evidence of current competency, established using a verifiable subject matter expert, the regulator will be hard pushed to say they have failed to meet their legislative / regulatory duty. More importantly the workers will be getting good quality development.

I think the issue is that some people have convinced other companies that they and their contractors must do refreshers every 2 years, and there lies the problem a few of our customers insist that we do the refreshers and will only accept specific third party providers. The PTE's have done a very good job in promoting the refreshers so at this point we are stuck, my main issue is every 2 years is to short.

I think this is where industry has shot itself in to foot! If you speak to NZQA, they will state that refresher training should be in no way linked to a unit standard, unless that unit standard is being re-reported, which is unnecessary because unit standards stay on your record of learning forever.

It could easily be argued that a worker performing a task once a week is much more likely to be competent in that task than a worker who does the task once every six months. This, therefore, could be used as part of your assessment as to the frequency of (refresher) training.

Personally, I'm all for non-unit standard based training! And in my opinion, as long as the internal training and assessment has been documented, it is far more suitable for workplaces to have work/task/site specific training, rather than some unit standard that has no bearing to what actually occurs in the workplace.

You only need to do the unit standard once (if at all - they can sometimes be much less flexible than other competency-based training that can be tailored to what you do, or includes more up-to-date info). Any refresher or follow up training should comply with the HSWA which basically says that if there's an ACOP or other code, do it to that standard or better, but you can choose how you do it. This gives you more options, e.g. make your own in-house training, do it online, get a trainer in, send your staff members to a public course, etc. Training intervals could be set based on familiarity with the task/equipment. If a person is doing the task every day and there is good supervision, 3 years might be fine to give them a tune up on best practice. If a person does the task only every 3 months, there's a good chance that they will forget the finer nuances and/or they are not achieving a good level of competence and that refreshers should be conducted more frequently (e.g. every year) to help cement the knowledge and reduce risks. Case in point for MEWP: I haven't used one in about a year, so I really should have a refresher (or at least an induction) before using one again because I've forgotten a lot of the info.

Hi Don. Your question is bang on the money. After many years of asking the same question I realised that the assignment of frequencies for training, inductions etc (except where otherwise mandated) is actually up to the PCBU to decide, ON HOW THEY CAN MANAGE IT.
So rather than mindlessly dictating a whole stack of interactions that then run the danger of failing by not actioning them, give solid consideration of the training, competency assessment and long term reassessment needs. Record your reasoning . At the end of the day you are presenting your management actions to the Courts should something happen.
There is lots of good discussion in the above replies, but let us use site inductions as a common example. How often should you re-induct your staff? Never? Every 6 months? Every year? Every 2 years? Every 10 years? The practical answer is at some period that does not make a rod for your back, serves the purpose of re-invigorating the workers safety culture, but doesn't bury your head in the sand.

We suggest practical frequencies to our clients but allow them to adjust to suit their business and record the reasons why. I have never seen a prosecution yet for someone making a management decision, I have seen a few for people failing to manage to the course they have plotted.

We have D endorsed drivers and the 'legal' requirement is a 5-yearly refresher which is too long. We make them do some online training at roughly 2.5 years. As Craig and Darren say above, you should choose your own intervals based on risk and how competent you think your team are.

We simplified the problem and changed our provider for one who stamped the date as "when the training occurred" and left us to figure out the refresher problem according to ours or the clients needs, not the training vendors sales budget.

I like that

Agree with Kate it's a balance of meeting, compliance, best practice and the risk. Here is another example: If I have been Trained in MEWP 3 yearly, but I may only use an MEWP a handful of times each year? Am I competent? or just Trained? Should the Official Refresher NZQA Training be supplemented with "internally" run re familiarization sessions/toolbox etc. Or do you increase NZQA Refresher Frequencies. Just something to consider.

Any refresher or follow up training should comply with the HSWA which basically says that if there's an ACOP or other code, do it to that standard or better, but you can choose how you do it. — Darren Cottingham

Where in HSWA does it say that?
HSWA basically just says that a PCBU has to provide training when relevant. And the regulations essentially just reword that vague statement to the equally vague "workers must be adequately trained in the safe use of what they need to use to do their work" - even when the regualtions cover specific circumstances like first aid the requirement is still a nondescript "trained to administer first aid".
Regarding the ACoPs - HSWA is actually saying that compliance with an ACoP can be used as evidence that a duty/obligation has been complied with, not that you should/must follow the ACoP. However on the flip side an ACoP can also be used as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk and what should be considered reasonably practical to manage that risk. i.e. follow the ACoP and you should be able to successfully argue you have fulfilled your duty, but also if there is a ACoP relating to the work then you will not be able to argue that you are not guilty because you weren't / couldn't have been aware of the hazard/risk or how you could of reasonably control it.

To often (and this thread is one example of it) we confuse training with competence - there can easily be situations where no matter how many times a person is trained and retrained on a task they will never be competent at that task, or on the other hand another person may be competent in that task with little to no training (due to having experience/competency in other similar tasks).

To go back to the original post - there is no "definitive rule for refreshers", as the act/regulations address the "requirements" as workers must:

• be competent to do their work (i.e. having the knowledge and experience), or if they are not competent that they are supervised by someone who is competent, and
• They have received training on the safe use of what they use to do their work.

Each company then needs to determine how they will comply with these requirements - which could be to outsource the training to a PTE, which could use refresher training as the assessment of current competency. Or it could bean in-house training program.

The only "definitive rule for refreshers" I have actually come across is has been in principle contractor / subcontractor situations (or sometimes client / principle contractor), where the rule is being dictated by the company you are doing the work for (because that is what is written in their H&S Management System) - however this more often ends up in a focus on compliance management rather than risk management.

We have D endorsed drivers and the 'legal' requirement is a 5-yearly refresher which is too long. — Kate Thompson

To take that example even further - you only need to be retested for your drivers license in NZ once you hit 75 years of age... I'm sure most of us know a licensed driver that isn't exactly still a competent driver...

Clause 226(4)
"Nothing in this section prevents a person from introducing evidence of compliance with this Act in a manner that is different from the code but provides a standard of work health and safety that is equivalent to or higher than the standard required in the code."
Our understanding of this is that you follow the code's recommendations as regards recommendations for managing H&S (which includes training) or do it better than the code. Obviously you still need to ensure that workers are competent and are receiving training at an interval that suits their needs. Please let me know if you have an different interpretation of that because legislation is often worded in impenetrable ways, so we're hoping we have the right interpretation!

Agree that it is essentially an interpretation issue, however Section 226 is addressing how ACoP can be used in criminal or civil prosecutions/proceedings, but not (directly) addressing any specific duty or obligation under HSWA. Although if I was summarising how ACoPs fit into the HSWA legislative regime to a business owner I would use (and have) a statement such as yours.
However the full section reads:
226 Use of approved codes of practice in proceedings
(1) No code of practice issued or amended under this Part confers rights or obligations capable of enforcement in any civil or criminal proceedings.
(2) However, an approved code of practice is admissible in any civil or criminal proceedings as evidence of whether or not a duty or obligation under this Act has been complied with.
(3) The court may—
(a) have regard to the code as evidence of what is known about a hazard or risk, risk assessment, or risk control to which the code relates; and
(b) rely on the code in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances to which the code relates.
(4) Nothing in this section prevents a person from introducing evidence of compliance with this Act in a manner that is different from the code but provides a standard of work health and safety that is equivalent to or higher than the standard required in the code.
Which is to say:

1. You don't have to do what the ACoP says,
2. But if you do what the ACoP says you have complied with the relevant duties/obligations,
3. If there is an ACoP you can't say you didn't know about the risk or what to do about it,
4. But you can manage the risk in a way that is different to the ACoP as long as you have managed the risk

The hard part is the subjective nature of determining what is a "better" / "higher" standard?
Example is WorkSafe NZ have a Good Practice Guideline on Health and Safety in Welding (about 32 pages of actual "safety" information), compared to the Weld Australia's Technical Note 7 on Health and Safety in Welding which has over 150 page of "safety" information (and is actually one of the listed sources of the WorkSafe NZ Guidelines) - but even though it is likely more thorough does the Australian document actually specify a higher standard of safety. (and yes I know I am referring to a GPG and not a ACoP, but MBIE / WorkSafe NZ haven't release many ACoPs since HSWA was enacted, and mostly have revoked existing ones to be replaced with GPGs instead)
The easier example to point to is if the ACoP says retrain every 3 years then if you retrain every 2 years you must be safer, the problem is that could actually do very little to raise the standard of safety if the retraining is of little value to begin with.
And on that last point - could more frequent retraining actually have a negative impact on safety? One of the biggest issues workers raise with me when they get called up for retraining is "the added stress from needing to make up the day lost to training"... and what sort of "shortcuts" are going to be made to make up that time?