Auditing Network works

Also includes Works
Post Reply
User avatar
gregmcc
Site Admin
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:45 pm
Answers: 0
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 49 times

Auditing Network works

Post by gregmcc »

This is posted on be-half of someone,
---------------------------
Network company engages a contractor who does service pillar installs.
As part of the QA process, the contractors engage one of their staff to visit completed jobs and do a QA audit, mostly things like pillar level, at the right height, at the right location, re-reinstatement completed (foot paths, berms etc), also the QA person is required to open up the pillar and visually check every thing is intact and in it's correct place. Opening up the service pillar exposes primary insulation, service fuses and depending on the type of pillar readily accessible live conductors.

Network company requires that the person be "competent", there is no doubt that the person is competent, but is an ex line worker but now employed to QA check work, he does not have a current practicing license.

Although not common it has been known for the live wires to the fuse holder to become dislodged due to poor installation and when the pillar lid is removed for the QA check there is suddenly a live wire end right in your face.

Does this person need to be registered as an electrical worker and have a current practicing license?, is opening up the service pillar considered prescribed electrical work?

It's obvious that checking the external of the pillar is not prescribed electrical work, but the question as soon as the lid is opened does that become prescribed electrical work
-----------------------
AlecK
Posts: 912
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2020 11:24 am
Answers: 5
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 351 times

Re: Auditing Network works

Post by AlecK »

A PL (or other authorisation) is required , by the Act, for PEW (unless an Exemption applies).
Also required, by ESRs, for some non-PEW; like issuing WoEF and some types of periodic assessment.

PEW as defined in Schedule 1 basically includes installation, connection, or maintenance of fittings / conductors in works or installations.
Opening a cover isn't connection.
EWRB would likely regard it as maintenance - similar to their (incorrect) finding that issuing a WoEF is maintenance.
At first glance it doesn't seem like installation either;
however making an alteration to an existing installation / works is installation work;
and it can be argued that where the installation has to include a cover, then removing that mandated cover is making an alteration
(even though only temporary).

End-users removing masking panels from swbds just to have a look would not be acceptable.
Taking the cover off a pillar is really no different.
Fundamental safety requires no access by ordinary persons to live parts / basic insulation.
Any change that removes the mandatory protection as originally installed is altering the installation / works.

So I'm inclined to think that authorisation is required; probably by PL because the contractor is unlikely to be operating under an EL.


Judging by report in latest "Electrolink"; Worksafe would probably apply HSWA instead of, or at least ahead of, Electricity Act & Regs.
Decision agreed with Worksafe that even competent electrical workers - deemed so by the relevant statutory body (EWRB) - still need to be following safe work methods issued by their employer.
While some of the statements made in that case seem ridiculous; unless / until that decision is challenged it's now case law that we all must consider.
Even if some of the sillier aspects of that decision do get rolled back;
bottom line is likely to remain that an employer can't rely solely on the "fact" of an employee's deemed competence; even where that employee holds a PL.

Note that ESR 100 requires workers to follow any SWMs, and also to comply with 4836, for all PEW and some non-PEW.
So the idea of all safety responsibility lying with the PL holder can't fly.
The electrical worker may carry sole responsibility for the safety of the work they do; but not for how they go about doing it.

Under HSWA, not only does the assessor's employer have responsibilities, but so does the network; who should therefore be specifying exactly what they regard as "competent".
Post Reply