This week’s Question of the Week may stir a bit of conversation. It is about officially certifying that a person is qualified.

NFPA 70E defines a Qualified Person is one who must demonstrate the skills and knowledge related to the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations and has received safety training to identify the hazards and reduce the associated risk. 110.2(A)(1) provides even more details.

Many have asked is there an “official� certification that states specifically that a person is qualified. Most agree that this could open a liability issue if someone is injured (or worse) - falling back to who qualified the person.

There are certificates of completion regarding training but that in itself is only part of the requirement and does not qualify a person or officially certify that a person is qualified.

It appears many use a format of “checking boxes� i.e. verify the person is trained, demonstrated various skills etc. stopping just short of officially declaring or certifying that someone is qualified. With that long lead in, here is this week’s question:

Do you, consultants, clients officially certify that a worker is qualified, or just check boxes or something else.

Officially Certify
Check Boxes
Neither
Something Else
Doesn't Apply

There are huge problems with the whole concept. To begin with consider how it's worded and what should be expected. 70E as ell as OSHA is pretty clear that SOME electrical training is necessary for all workers regardless of whether or not they will be considered "qualified". The training involves recognizing when a hazard exists and what to do (avoidance). This should be the default for everyone and is "unqualified" training.

Beyond this basic training others may be considered trained and therefore qualified to perform specific work methods which probably includes a voltage component to it, and may even include either specific equipment or equipment types. I think it should be very obvious that workers that may be considered qualified to perform one particular set of work methods may also be unqualified to perform another set of work. For example a lot of electricians that I work with are scared silly of working around "high" voltage (meaning 480 V) and I can't tell you how many times I've had to troubleshoot and repair what amounts to workmanship issues and lack of training with medium voltage equipment, even to the point of repairing what amounts to manufacturing defects. But I'll be right up front in saying that I know little about the world of 69 kV and above but I do know that some of those guys are trained in bare-hands, live-line and others are not, and those are very different crews in terms of their techniques and equipment.

To me the key word is demonstrates a SKILL. Skills and knowledge are two different things. There is definitely some technique involved in some work methods and that has to be taken into consideration. You can't just read a book or sit through a class and take a test, but how one demonstrates the skill is another matter, whether it requires on-the-job practice (apprentice) or "laboratory" practice and instruction such as attending one of the lineman or construction electrician schools. Skills are developed by repetitively performing the activity.

The problem is when we get into "train the trainer"...how does the trainer/inspector recognize when someone demonstrates mastery of a skill. It's a hard question to answer. If you rely on mentoring I'm sure we've all seen "whisper down the lane" where an individual takes short cuts or otherwise picks up bad habits then passes it onto the next guy and of course if that is the same individual "certifying" we have a problem. But because we are such a litigious society it is unlikely that we're going to start having third party inspections and certifications any time soon. There is a huge difference between say an ISO 9000 auditor where they simply look at stacks of documents and verify that the correct things are written on them and someone that has to make a human judgement about another person's skills.

But I'd also say that solving or at least going in that general direction is a key solution to a lot of problems facing society today. We have lots of people who are clearly not qualified to do what they are doing, yet they are doing it, even if it's wrong. And we don't have a way to recognize it especially objectively, and so it becomes a huge issue. We can pretty easily test knowledge with normed tests and many such maintenance tests exist, but there is no sure fire way to test "skill". Which also causes problems....how can OSHA actually hold an employer liable for something that is obvious in hindsight but impossible to measure before an incident occurs? And even if it is possible to do this, how do we do it without incurring law suits over the "rating system"?

My thought goes back to what I personally do. I'm a field service engineer. I walk into a customer's site as the subject matter expert. In a lot of ways its a total confidence game. Even if I have no idea how to do or fix something I have to act like I know what I'm doing. Doctors actually do this all the time and they take classes on doing this kind of thing...acting like they know what they are doing even when they don't. So how is a customer supposed to know the difference?

Hi Jim,
This is a good question and I hope it prompts some discussion because I think there is some misconceptions about what qualified verses not qualified means.

Once in a while I'm asked to teach a class on arc flash and shock hazards. My class is pretty basic in that I really talk about "how do I" and not so much about arc flash theories. I'm often asked by the employer if the class will qualify his people? I explain it's not me that qualifies his people, that it's the employer. I say that every facility is unique. That each has its own unique challenges, and that's one of the reasons OSHA says it's the employer who must determine if a person is qualified or not. Then I'll give two examples of companies that are both manufacturers but have their own unique challenges. First a company that does aluminum extrusion. The second is a company that makes paper products. They are alike in that they are both manufacturers, but they are different because each has its own processes and machinery to be maintained by their workers. That being qualified to work at the paper plant does not necessarily mean you're qualified in the aluminum extrusion company. Each has special machinery and processes used to produce their product and each has its own safety issues that need to be addressed. Generally, that's when they realize that qualifying someone is much more than attending a class.

In our jurisdiction, "certified" has a very specific meaning. A "certified" worker is one who has met all the requirements of the provincial government trades or employment standards branches for classroom and on the job training under the supervision of other certified persons in that same trade or occupation; AND passed all the exams set by the government; AND has maintained their standing each time their work is inspected by a government certified inspector such that they continue to hold a valid certificate issued by the provincial jurisdiction.

"qualified" in this jurisdiction is determined by the employer and may include as one of the (legal) requirements that the worker also be certified. Typically, qualified also includes requirements that the worker have had recent training on the specific equipment and tasks to be performed and have demonstrated proficiency in performing those tasks. Many employers, particularly industrial ones, require newly hired workers to shadow experienced workers through all of the tasks they are expected to perform, then graduate to performing those tasks under supervision until they demonstrate a "satisfactory" level of proficiency. This usually takes place regardless of the new hire's previous experience because even within the same industry, there is a huge variation in machinery, operating techniques, plant culture and control systems depending on when the plant was built. Across industries the gulf in practical knowledge and skills can be daunting.

For example, a "certified" electrician who has had many years of residential construction experience is unlikely to be "qualified" for an industrial plant maintenance job until they have had training and supervised work experience in that environment.

Great comments! I also had several PMs and emails regarding this subject. It seems most are on the same page regarding the liability issue and if someone does "certify" it is surrounded by all kinds of legal language/disclaimers.