Trained. Not competent. Now what?
Training is not the same as competency—and that gap is where incidents start.
In this short, John from Calgary Safety Consultants breaks down what “competent” means in practice and what leaders must be able to prove.
In this video you’ll learn:
- Why training records and certificates do not prove safe performance
- The legal concept of competency: qualified, trained, and experienced—able to work safely with minimal supervision
- A fast, practical competency check you can use today: observe the task, ask two hazard-and-control questions, and document your sign-off
- When to re-verify competency (changes in work, equipment, materials, site conditions, or risk)
Two quick questions to verify competency:
What are the top hazards on this task today?
What controls are you using to prevent them—step by step?
Need help building a defensible competency verification process, supervisor checks, and documentation?
Visit https://calgarysafetyconsultants.ca
FAQs on What Happens When Corrective Actions Are Never Properly Closed?
What happens when corrective actions are never properly closed?
Hazards may remain uncontrolled, deficiencies may recur, and responsibility for follow-up can become unclear. The employer may also have difficulty demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken after a hazard, incident, inspection finding, or worker concern was identified.
When should a safety corrective action be considered closed?
A corrective action should generally be closed only after the required work has been completed and someone has verified that the control addresses the original issue. The closure record should identify what was done, who verified it, when it was completed, and what supporting evidence is available.
What records should employers keep for corrective action verification?
Records may include photographs, maintenance documents, revised procedures, hazard assessments, training records, competency checks, inspection reports, meeting minutes, and supervisor observations. The type of evidence should match the nature of the corrective action and the hazard being controlled.
Who is responsible for corrective action tracking in the workplace?
Management should establish the process and provide the required authority and resources. Supervisors often coordinate workplace implementation, while workers should report concerns and provide practical input. A safety professional may administer the tracking system, but operational managers should remain accountable for actions within their areas.
How should employers manage overdue corrective actions?
Employers should review overdue corrective actions based on risk, determine why they weren’t completed, and assign revised responsibilities or resources where necessary. Interim controls may be required when a permanent solution cannot be implemented immediately, depending on the hazard and workplace circumstances.
Are corrective action requirements the same in Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan?
No. General OH&S principles are similar, but specific legal duties, reporting processes, investigation requirements, documentation expectations, and terminology vary between provinces. Employers should review the current legislation and guidance that apply to their province, industry, workplace, and circumstances.
How do corrective actions affect COR or SECOR performance?
COR or SECOR reviews may examine whether audit findings, inspection deficiencies, incident recommendations, and improvement plans are tracked and implemented. Recording an action isn’t always enough; employers may need evidence showing that the action was completed, communicated, and verified as part of the safety management system.