Training for safer handling
October 1st 2004

Bernard Foad, training director at safety training provider, ESS Shorco, looks at the issues surrounding manual handling and how these can be successfully addressed

The main legal requirements surrounding manual handling are contained in the Manual Handling Operations Regulations, supported by relevant sections of The Health & Safety at Work Act and the Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations.

The common requirement of these regulations is that the employer must conduct a risk assessment of any manual handling tasks that present a significant risk of injury. This assessment is not simply looking at the size and/or weight of the load, but also has to consider other risk factors such as the working environment, the capabilities of the individual and the scope of the task itself.

Besides the employer, all staff are also legally required to hold a level of awareness. They need to know the outcomes of the relevant risk assessments and operating procedures or work instructions that relate to the tasks that involve manual handling risks. Supervisors, in addition, also need to be aware of the need to ensure their teams are aware of, and complying with, the relevant instructions and procedures. This generally means ensuring that the day-to-day work practices are well managed and supervised.

Employees have to also make sure that they correctly use any equipment provided for them and report any deficiencies or shortcomings to their line manager or supervisor. Managers and supervisors must ensure such complaints are acted upon and employees are kept informed as to the outcome of their complaint.

How is this best addressed by training?

Training alone is not the answer, but when used as a tool within a structured management approach, can provide a useful vehicle to develop understanding, raise general awareness, and encourage staff to work in a safe and efficient manner. Additionally, a well informed and well trained workforce who are confident in their work practices are more likely to be willing to raise issues and concerns in a constructive and knowledgeable manner – so that problems might be solved and not suppressed or ignored. The training therefore should address the tasks, hazards risks and controls at a level relevant to the needs of the delegates: it should stress those issues and elements which impact most closely on the delegates’ roles and duties, and provide them information and guidance which is relevant and comprehensible.

Casual workers

When using casual staff the problem is how much to invest in training, both from a cost and time point of view. The reality is that the level of training ought to be the same for all staff, whether part-time, fulltime or casual. There is a point of view that says that part-time or casual staff need more time and attention, as they may not be so familiar with the workplace risks as the full-time employees. In any case, the employer either has to ensure the parttime staff have adequate training to ensure their safety, or to provide them with close supervision at all times to safeguard them.

What forms of training

We normally suggest a balance of theory and practical. If the delegates are simply being made aware of their responsibilities then the theory will be the major part of the programme with a demonstration to support the lecture. If the delegates are involved in the physical tasks or they are to be assessors, then they will need more practical experience. All practical work should imitate as closely as possible the typical tasks that delegates will face at work.

Also, employers ought never to overlook the necessity to refresh their staff’s training at suitable intervals. Normal guidance is to re-visit these courses at least every three years – more frequently if there are local concerns or if the processes, activities, personnel, etc, change.

Cost arguments

The question of cost will always remain a major factor. People need to know what they are going to see in terms of monetary returns. To cite an excellent example, as a general principle, lower back injuries attract claims from employees in the region of £150,000. If we then take the ratio of insured vs. uninsured costs as being between 8:1 and 36:1 (HSE figures) – the true cost to a company from such a claim could be in the range of £1,200,000 to £5,400,000! So you can run the figures any way you wish – a training package that prevents claims like this is arguably justified.