By Malcolm McWhannell
President, Crane Association of New Zealand
Industry training is a much debated and, at times, contentious issue. However, all industry wants is to have people who, in the terms of Section 13 of the Health & Safety Act 1992, are deemed to be adequately trained. This ensures that employers are meeting their obligations and are employing competent persons.
A lot of this discussion is based around a “competent person,” which is defined in the Approved Code of Practice for Cranes as a person who has acquired, through a combination of training, qualification or experience, the knowledge and skills to perform the task required.
The chief executive of the Crane Association mentioned the Code of Practice in detail in the April 2010 edition of Contractor. However it is worth repeating that the latest Code of Practice for Cranes makes mention of some of the unit standards when defining a competent person for rigging loads or operating cranes. These are a good benchmark for one to base their competency on.
It should be noted that the units listed are the minimums that the industry considers should be achieved and I am confident that many people starting out in industry (and a number who have been in the industry for a few years) will see the benefit of moving forward from just doing the minimum, to attempting national certificates.
Training and assessing in recent years has definitely increased and, with unit standards included in the latest ACOP for cranes, we don’t see it slowing any time soon.
Having been involved in the industry for a good number of years, it is interesting to note that, for the first time that I can recall, there is now a requirement for people to hold some minimum standards which are measureable. Also, as an employer, I can now have greater confidence that people who come to me seeking employment, if they hold unit standards, have received some basic training and achieved some level of competency.
Of course we all continue to learn and no piece of paper can cover every possible scenario that we are likely to strike on the job.
Opportunity, the training organisation which was originally the Power Crane Association ITO, has been in existence since 1996 and has worked hard over the years to develop unit standards covering the crane and piling industries. When it changed its name to Opportunity Training in 2004 it also became the standards setting body responsible for the scaffolding, rigging, industrial rope access industries and a year or so later for the elevating work platform sector.
All of the unit standards that the ITO is responsible for have been developed by industry for industry and have great support with members of the Crane Association and non-members alike. These units are constantly be reviewed and developed to meet the times of more modern machines and methods
From my own viewpoint through the construction company I work for, I meet a lot of subcontract companies that are poorly informed, or ignorant about, the responsibilities they have, and often a 10 minute “training brief” in the corner of the yard constitutes a now competent person for the task. Or I’m told “they have been operating or carrying out this task for some 15 years mate! He’s competent all right.” Yet when observed working there are some serious questions to be asked with regard to safety and ability.
Now after singing the praises of unit standards there are some draw backs. Personally, I believe there is no substitute for hours spent in the field with a good tutor (experienced/competent person). Many unit standards don’t require or stipulate set time in the field or industry which the unit is based. The crane industry does mention that the minimum experience before assessment is made should be between 10 and 12 hours per credit.
As I mentioned earlier, competency is gained through a combination of qualifications and experience and we all keep learning. Beware of the person who you think is taking unnecessary risks and who says that they know what they are doing as they have been doing a job the same way for 25 years and never had an accident – there is always a first time – and it could be the last time for him and people around him.
The other issue I have is that many unit standards are written in general terms that allow industry as whole to use them. This means detailed, specific information to the task or machine are not addressed. This is quite often the root cause of accidents I have investigated. The company has undertaken training and assessment to the unit standard but not followed up with specific training relevant to a particular task or machine. I do recognise however that it would be impossible to write unit standards which are specific to a particular machine or specialised task.
The last area I would like to touch on is training outside the unit standard. Ensure the trainee has plenty of time in the field or given task under a competent person. There should be a good number of written/verbal questions (documented) along with a practical assessment (documented) with a pass/fail mark at the end (documented).
If you don’t document all of these areas it could well be argued that it was merely a training session and a place to eat your lunch, not a measurement of competency.
Contractor Vol.34 No.5 June 2010
All articles on this website are copyright to Contrafed Publishing Co. Ltd.
