Are your briefings understood?
We had an incident on site last week where a 9 tonne dumper rolled over. The driver was OK, he escaped with a broken wrist and collar bone. The initial, unofficial, assessment is that this was a simple case of driver error as it appears that he reversed off of the haul road. However, as often seems to be the case in situations like this, there is always more than meets the eye. It turns out that the supervisor has only just joined the job and was authorised as a ‘competent person’ by the project director just 6 days before the incident. The usual foreman was off on holiday and was not providing the same amount of supervision as is normally applied in the area. (I should stress that this is routine business; if a foreman or supervisor is away on holiday, their workload is often shared between others of the same grade.) Finally, had the dumper driver understood the daily briefing?
Our labour (ground workers, excavator operators, multi-skilled operators etc) tend not to have English as their first language. Of the 19 gangs we have on site, only 3 have a supervisor where English is their first language. Adding to this complexity is the fact that the gangs are not made up of people who speak a common language, the language used on site to communicate is English. But how much does the Romanian ground worker understand the brief given by his Indian supervisor? What about the Pakistani dumper driver receiving instructions over the radio from his Albanian supervisor? Not only are we communicating in a language foreign to everyone, the language that is being used to communicate between them is being delivered by someone else who does not always have a good grasp of English.
This begs 2 questions; firstly, where is the British workforce? A ground worker earns £22/hour and many of them work 11 hours a day for 6 days a week. You do the maths, but this is a lucrative job for an unskilled labourer. The foreman are mainly from a British background, but that won’t be true for much longer if there is no one coming through.
Secondly, and more importantly, should we be adjusting our method of communication to ensure that everyone understands daily briefings? Should we be asking our supervisors to use a translating software so that the brief is input accurately by whoever is giving it and clearly understood by the one receiving it? Surely our responsibility is to ensure that everyone works safely and if we have to make allowances by changing our communication style, then we should be doing it!
Does anyone else have similar challenges? Has anyone already overcome this problem and is already doing briefings using a translating software?
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Such an interesting comment and definitely not a new issue. I have heard of a team leader taking language lessons specifically so he could communicate with his team, tool box talks being delivered in a range of different languages, pictograms being used instead of words… I agree with you the most important thing is for people to understand the safety issues and take the appropriate action. Although of course people still had accidents and sustained injuries when pretty much everyone on site was English (or Irish) and spoke English as their first language. Will be interesting to hear the views of others.
Employing migrant workers – Help with language issues – HSE
I worked on several UK projects for a French contractor who sent their engineers and operatives over to work. The site daily briefings were attended by our engineer (english speaking) who would then give a separate briefing, in French, to the operatives. It was also a rule that each team (ie: drilling) had to have at least one person who could understand and accept instructions in English. I can appreciate that this can be a lot more complicated if there are many different nationalities working on site. Interestingly, one of the requirements for getting a work visa in the UK now is that you must pass quite a high level English language test.
Joe, interesting post and a few things spring to mind..
1. Should ‘we’ expect a minimum level of language competence when employing individuals whose first language is not English? Not quite the same, but the potential Clk Wks and MPFs have to demonstrate a level in English (and other areas) as part of the selection process.
2. How often to we do prep activities to ‘tick a box’ (I.e. site briefs, tool box talks, safely briefs, ITRs!!!!) when we don’t appropriately confirm it has been understood?
3. We often work overseas and use local nationals/contractors to carry out construction/maintenance work; language differences and also differances in standards can be a significant issue (especially when you see a chap being lifted up, hanging on to the hook of a crane). This can be very challenging and a potential risk to bear in mind from the start.
I think ‘we’ manage to achieve a good level of English within our organisation. I’ve never had a problem with someone not understanding briefings but equally this problem is easier to overcome with 95% of the workforce have English as a first language. It is easier to turn to another colleague and ask ‘what did they say’?
I agree with the box ticking sentiment and often you will see people sign to say they have received and understood the brief, putting the responsibility on the individual who may not have the courage to say “I didn’t actually understand that bit”. This is where good management and team cohesion can take over; if everyone feels comfortable to speak up, the workforce will be safer.