Multi-site inspection action register for New Zealand workplaces

A head office team can see dozens of inspection findings across branches, depots or worksites. A single red-amber-green dashboard is attractive, but it can hide what matters: which hazard affects which site, who controls it now, what permanent work is due, and what evidence will prove the action was effective. A multi-site action register needs a common structure without flattening different local risks into one generic task.

This guide is for New Zealand organisations managing workplace inspection actions across several sites. It is not a checklist of everything an inspector might examine or a claim that every workplace must keep one particular register. Under New Zealand's Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) must manage work risks so far as reasonably practicable. WorkSafe's general risk and workplace management guidance provides the regulatory context; the register is an operational way to make decisions and follow them through.

Identify the site and inspection source

Each record should identify the exact site, area, inspection date, inspector or team, type of inspection and source document. A “guarding issue” could be a missing guard on a named machine at one depot or a policy issue across all depots. Those require different owners and responses. Link to photographs or measurements where they help, but avoid storing sensitive personal information without a clear need.

Record the finding in plain language: what was observed, what could happen, who might be exposed and what control already exists. Separate the inspector's observation from the manager's later interpretation. That lets a reviewer understand whether a risk was underestimated or whether new evidence changed the decision.

Apply an interim control before waiting for a repair

If the finding presents an immediate risk, the site must decide what to do now. A register can show that the affected equipment was isolated, an area was closed or a temporary route was established while a permanent measure was planned. The temporary control needs an owner and review date. A central team should be able to see open urgent risks without assuming a spreadsheet entry itself makes the site safe.

WorkSafe's guidance on PCBUs working together is relevant where a landlord, host business or contractor shares the workplace. Duties can overlap, and businesses must consult, cooperate and coordinate so far as reasonably practicable. The register should say which business controls each part of the corrective work rather than assigning everything to “the contractor”.

Convert the finding into a verifiable action

For each outcome, record a named owner, target date, required work and evidence of completion. A complex finding may need more than one action: order a replacement guard, install it, check it under operation and brief users. The purchase order is evidence that procurement began, not that the guard works. An action should close only when a responsible person has reviewed the relevant evidence and any remaining risk.

Use risk and exposure to prioritise; avoid assigning the same arbitrary deadline to every finding. If the target slips, preserve the previous date and explain the reason, revised target and interim control. A good dashboard shows overdue high-risk work as well as completion percentages. A completion percentage alone can be improved by closing easy housekeeping tasks while serious hazards remain.

Link repeated findings without losing local accountability

Several sites may report the same type of issue. Group them to investigate whether a shared purchasing standard, training gap or maintenance process is failing. Keep each local action distinct until it is actually verified at that site. A central fix to a template does not prove every branch has corrected the physical hazard. Conversely, a local repair should not conceal a wider pattern.

Useful fields include site, finding category, asset or area, risk description, interim control, task owner, corporate sponsor, contractor where relevant, due date, evidence, verifier and closure decision. For recurring inspections, record whether the next check found the control in place. A reopened action is evidence of learning, not a reason to erase the first closure record.

Make the register useful to workers

People at the site need to know which risks are still open and what controls apply. Share relevant action status with supervisors and workers in a form they can use. A central manager might need a portfolio view, while a shift supervisor needs the exact out-of-service machine and temporary route. Avoid making a worker search a national dashboard to find the control for the room they are in.

If an inspection uncovers a hazard outside the checklist, record it anyway and arrange a suitable response. The inspection tool is a prompt for observation; it is not a complete definition of possible risk. Where an incident or worker report identifies a related problem, link it to the action record so the organisation can see the full history.

Example: a recurring dock defect

Three depots report damaged loading-dock edge protection. Each depot records its specific location and interim control. The central facilities team investigates whether a shared installation design is failing. One contractor is appointed to repair the sites, but each depot retains a separate verification task because the work is completed on different dates. The register shows two sites closed with photographs and supervisor checks, while the third remains restricted. A corporate “project complete” status would have hidden that third risk.

Evaluate the workflow, not only the dashboard

Test whether a record system can distinguish site-level tasks from a portfolio-level cause, keep interim controls visible, preserve changed dates and link evidence to the closure decision. Ask what happens when a contractor's work is rejected or an action must be reopened. These questions matter more than a colourful risk score.

The mapped Complys New Zealand safety-management page is the commercial context for evaluating broader inspection and action records. This page does not imply that Complys inspects workplaces, guarantees risk removal or certifies compliance.