Inhouse training/ Employee Training

bpc16

Hi All,

I am seeking advice on in house employee training please.

Having spoken with some of my employees they tell me that previous external trainers who have come in to do training here know less about the operation of equipment than the employees who have been here long term.

My question is legally what constitute a 'competent person or trainer'? For example if I have an operator who has 10 years experience operating gantry cranes can he/she do internal training or be a mentor/buddy to a new employee with a log book for training?

I have sought advice from QQI, FETAC, Solas but they are as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike. Nobody knows or else I am left on hold or passed from person to person without every getting an answer to my question.

I have just returned from abroad where in house training could be done once you had done training on plant or equipment and had a training qualification too. Is this the case here also?

In the event of an accident happening in the workplace what is deemed as adequate or sufficient employee training??? (Especially in areas that don't have Solas courses or formal training courses available)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Mrs OBumble

Moved from Work and Jobs, as I think you'll get better information here.




I suspect that the answer will depend on what your insurance company thinks.

onedmc

If you have defined your policies, procedures and competences then all you need to do is ensure that the employee has been fully familiarised with theses.

As part of your policies you could do somthing like, an employee must watch a competent employee 3 times doing the activity, and be monitored/accompanied for 2 weeks etc.

You should then record the employee progress to this competence.

A good training professional should be also able to produce material to support the competence based training programm.

pedronomix

In-house training is as valid as outsider provided. Certain categories do require certification by registered certifiers, forklift operators spring to mind!!

bpc16

Hi folks,

Thanks for the responses, I am aware that in-house training is as valid as outside training.
But in the event of an accident (god forbid) and it ends up in court, will the competence of the trainer be brought into question?

I am qualified with a Cert in Training and Assessment from abroad (recognised by QQI) and also have a Postgraduate Diploma in Education and Training. I have completed a course in Overhead and Gantry Crane Safety also. But I wouldn't have the same operational experience of gantry cranes that lads working in the yard for years would have.

Who is more competent to be the trainer? The guy that has been using the gantry crane everyday for 10 years and has no training experience or the guy that has done all the theory, has experience training and has a limited operational experience?

Its a very grey area in the legislation. And the HSA wont commit to giving a straight answer in the event of something going wrong. The last thing I want is to either put myself or a colleague in the firing line if something was to happen or there was an injury using the piece of equipment we trained them with/on.

pedronomix

You are being overly cautious/zealous on this topic and tbh quite impractical on the reality of the workplace. Most workplace accidents are caused by someone not following the correct procedure and thus irrelevant to the trainer. Post accident enquiries etc will simply seek establish that adequate training was provided, your records come into play here. Employers liability insurance deals with the rest in most cases unless there had been flagrant neglect/recklessness and then the directors can be prosecuted.
Too much book-learning compared to real experience is causing you these concerns!!

bpc16

Thanks pedronomix,

The reason I was asking is because I have a Safety Consultant who comes to site and provides rather expensive training, whereas I feel it would be more practical and cost effective to have an experienced staff member provide the training. (As he knows more than the trainers who were here previously and provided by this safety consultant).

Obviously the consultant is trying to sell his training and therefore using scare tactics of what if something goes wrong and you end up in court etc...

I am merely seeking advice so as to be informed and to do the most practical and cost effective thing for the company rather than paying 490 euro a day to train 6 people. Cost effectiveness is the reality of the workforce today.

Managers want training done as cheap as possible and as quick as possible all I am trying to find out is what is deemed an adequate level of training? Because in my real world experience of dealing with management if it cost too much the training doesn't get done and the lads will be fine, and that's the reality of the workplace!

sconhome

If I recall correctly from my Site Safety days the key word is 'reasonable'.

If the training is given inhouse by someone considered competent and God forbid in the case of an accident happening once the training was shown to be carried out by a competent person (not necessarily certified) and all reasonable precautions were put in place then you will be ok.

It's having the backup to demonstrate the competency of the person that is important ie work history, records of their training, experience and demonstrating ability to communicate the lessons that count too.

There's no point sitting people in a room and saying here you go, sign here you're trained. Having a protocol, training notes, presentation that can be handed out to reinforce the training and gathering signatures to say "I understand and will implement" will backyou up.

pedronomix

bpc16 wrote: »

Thanks pedronomix,

The reason I was asking is because I have a Safety Consultant who comes to site and provides rather expensive training, whereas I feel it would be more practical and cost effective to have an experienced staff member provide the training. (As he knows more than the trainers who were here previously and provided by this safety consultant).

Obviously the consultant is trying to sell his training and therefore using scare tactics of what if something goes wrong and you end up in court etc...

I am merely seeking advice so as to be informed and to do the most practical and cost effective thing for the company rather than paying 490 euro a day to train 6 people. Cost effectiveness is the reality of the workforce today.



Managers want training done as cheap as possible and as quick as possible all I am trying to find out is what is deemed an adequate level of training? Because in my real world experience of dealing with management if it cost too much the training doesn't get done and the lads will be fine, and that's the reality of the workplace!

I am 100% with you on your view and the last poster too!! PNMX