Opinion: Responsibility for Training Forklift Operators

By Stuart Flatow

Everyone in our industry who operates a forklift — powered industrial truck, in government parlance — should be extensively trained and evaluated before December 1, under a federal regulation that kicked in earlier this year (See "Forklift Training Rule Goes Into Effect Dec. 1".

Given the magnitude and potential liabilities associated with the new standard, motor carriers should have made some policy and contractual decisions by now. They also need to communicate with shippers and other customers as to who is responsible for training operators of powered industrial trucks (PITs) such as lumpers and truck drivers, who conduct business away from the motor carrier’s own facility.

While some carriers have already established policies that their drivers will not operate PITs at any of their customers’ facilities, for most trucking companies that option is not based on reality. So what is a carrier to do?

Although shippers and consignees may not be responsible for training non-employees, it is their responsibility to make sure that any PIT operation conducted at their facility is in compliance. Thus, the shipper or consignee has an implied obligation to assist the motor carrier in the training of its drivers by furnishing site-specific information. In the absence of this sharing of information, the motor carrier and shipper or consignee would likely be exposed to penalties from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or other legal action following a PIT-related accident. Shippers and consignees may not relieve themselves of any legal responsibility merely by claiming that the PIT operator was not his employee.

Conversely, shippers and consignees are likely to require motor carriers to ensure that their drivers are in compliance with the training standard, if those drivers will be operating PITs on their facility. The issue for motor carriers is how to make sure that their drivers receive the proper training based upon activities over which they may have little control.

In an effort to avoid potential “finger-pointing,” motor carriers should communicate with shippers and consignees via contractual agreement, stating who is responsible for conducting PIT operations, who is responsible for training PIT operators and to what degree specific information must be shared. OSHA training requirements are based on potential and recognized hazards. This includes hands-on training based on different types of PITs and working environments. As such, if the truck driver is expected to operate a PIT at a shipper or consignee’s facility, the motor carrier needs to know the type of PIT the truck driver may operate, as well as any special conditions that may exist at any given its facility that may warrant additional site-specific training.

To illustrate, let’s say that the carrier has trained its drivers to operate a low-lift, sit-down rider in a non-hazardous environment and on flat, smooth surfaces. However, that same driver is expected to operate a stand-up, high-lift rider a work site that exposes the driver to hazardous environments, ramps, and non-smooth surfaces. As mentioned, the motor carrier has the responsibility to train its driver to operate a PIT while the shipper or consignee is responsible for safeguarding its employees by making sure that the motor carrier’s driver is PIT trained. As unfeasible as this may sound, there may be no choice but for the shipper or consignee to provide whatever site-specific training and evaluation is required to the motor carrier’s driver. That responsibility should be spelled out and agreed to by contract.

There is no doubt that workplace safety is of paramount concern to the trucking industry. Accidents involving PIT operations can have devastating consequences. That’s probably the main reason why the vast majority of trucking companies invest an enormous amount of resources in PIT training and loading and unloading operations and policies. As Toby Ross, safety manager for ABF Freight System puts it, “Employee training is the key element to our successful safety program.” Toby should know, since ABF has been the recipient of many safety awards, including the ATA Safety Management Council’s prestigious President’s Award.

There is also no doubt that OSHA’s new training standard provides some complex issues that are difficult to address. However, it is crucial that these issues be addressed in a way that not only reduces the potential for serious injury but legal liability as well. To manage these potential risks, it will likely be necessary for management to establish, communicate and apply written policies and contracts that insure proper training and accountability. There is no doubt that this issue will be the subject of OSHA enforcement and other legal actions down the road. Don’t become the first test case.