26
ACCESS IN ACTION • AUGUST 2014
ACCESS in ACTION
Verification of Competence
Where does it fit?
By Phil Middleton
The topic of Verification of Competence (VoC) was raised at a recent EWPA board meeting
and it was agreed we should investigate the VoC assessment process and evaluate whether
or not we as an association get involved by providing assistance in the way of guidelines or
assessment tools or simply a position statement.
We are all aware of the emergence of
VoC in recent years. Its place in industry
could be argued and whether or not it is
the prime contractors demonstrating due
diligence under the WHS Act or are they
simply following global company policy.
What if the concept of VoC has been
rolled out in Australia as a result of global
company procedures?
Australia has some of the most stringent
WHS laws surrounding operation of
high risk plant in the workplace. It is
worth asking - is the very existence of
the VoC assessment discrediting our
national training frame work? Does it
mean operators that have attained a HRW
licence or have successfully completed
Yellow Card training or any other
national recognised training, need their
competence to be regularly challenged?
The EWPA has remained silent on its
position of VoC assessment because of
the apparent lack of clear guidelines. The
need for a VoC was unclear regarding
its function or relevance when placed
alongside valid reliable training.
A person that has successfully undergone
training and has been deemed competent
should always be assumed to be
competent unless deemed otherwise
through unsafe actions or the lapse of
an extended period of time. High risk
work licences have no requirement under
the licence conditions for the holder to
undergo retraining upon renewal.
Historically the association considers
if there was any doubt to an operator’s
competence then they should undergo
retraining.
WHS Legislation
From previous research I was confident the
Act and Regulation did not place a duty
upon companies, requiring them to assess
competency of an operator on their work
site. While reading through the WHS Act
2011 and the regulation I was looking for
clear links to VoCs.
My findings were as expected; the Act and
Regulation do not mention a requirement
or place a duty upon a company to assess
competency of a person that has received
appropriate training or holds a high risk
licence.
What it clearly states under section 19 of
the Act is; it requires a person conducting
a business or undertaking, that’s the PCBU,
to provide relevant information, training,
instruction and supervision to protect
all persons from risks to their health and
safety arising from work carried out.
Regulation 39 states the same but covers
more on the type, suitability and relevance
of information, training and instruction.
Even though the Act was silent on
VoCs perhaps it could be found in a
code of practice. Unfortunately EWPs
do not have their own code of practice;
however I found a code of practice on
Worksafe Australia’s site; moving plant on
construction sites.
Under section 3.3: Controls for the safe
operation of plant it states: ‘A system
should be adopted to verify that personnel,
who are required to hold a certificate of
competency, hold a valid certificate and
are authorised to use the plant.’
The Act and Regulation do not place
a duty upon a company to assess
competency of operators that hold high
risk work licences or a certificate of
competence. However there is a duty
placed upon the company to verify their
licence is valid and relevant to operate the
plant they are using.
Regulators
Even though confident about my
legislative findings, I thought I should try
and validate them, so I approached two
regulators to get some reference I could
use as support to the VoC assessment
process. Both were at a loss to be able to
concisely reference the requirement of a
VoC assessment.
However both agreed any process that
could potentially identify or assist in
managing risk has merit.
For those that have worked with any of the
regulators you will understand regulators
are very guarded about making statements
unless it’s quoting a creditable document.
The following is an ‘unofficial draft
comment’ from one of the regulators.
‘VoCs could work within an organisation,
providing that competency was assessed
by a competent person, supported with
prior qualifications; years of operator
experience etc and applied to certain roles
and operations within the group. VoCs
should not have any portability unless
they are used by an RTO, with trained
assessors, based on training packages/
elements of competency which have been
demonstrated or assessed.’
I would say the draft comment is
logical and has clear guidelines for VoC
implementation. If that was published it
would eliminate the subjective nature of
the VoC process
Companies
Because the VoC assessment process
is not driven by legislation, it must be
driven by industry. I sought feedback
from two large companies; the first
response was a statement from a HSE
manager from a large principle contractor
who said: ‘A large number of companies
require some form of verification of
competency for plant operators, both
where a certificate of competency is
issued or not. My experience has been the
Principle Contractor obtains some form of
verification and does not rely solely on the
certificate or training record an operator
may have obtained.’
The main concern appears to be the
operator, while possessing the appropriate
licence or certificate, may not have
operated for some years which in turn
brings their competence into question.
