Maureen,
I can think of a few scenarios where I'd think you
wouldn't want it to prevent them. Let's take two users as examples, Fred and Barney. Fred is trained on some piece of equipment/has the qualification, Barney does not.
- Fred and Barney work together on a job. Fred, being more skilled, does the work while Barney does the "paperwork." With the setup you're asking for, Barney cannot Complete the work order because he doesn't have the qualification. He also cannot enter Labor Transactions for himself or for Fred.
- Barney was assigned this Work Order, and Fred is specifically going with him as an IRL use-case to verify that Barney can safely operate the equipment. Fred is acting as his trainer, and, assuming Barney demonstrates proficiency, will grant Barney the Qualification. . .or at least tell someone at the home office that Barney has passed the test and should be granted access to the equipment in the future. Barney cannot Complete the work order or enter Labor Transactions until someone in the home office associates Barney's laborcode with the appropriate qualification.
- Barney goes and does the job anyways. He then tries to Complete the Work Order, but he's been restricted. Then there's a "discussion" that follows about how he shouldn't have done that and Barney looks at you and says, "Well, it's done, so. . .how about getting that Work Order completed?"
The way we handle this kind of thing -- which may not work for your environment or use-case -- is that we have the keys to the equipment loaned out from the office, and an Automation Script that checks to make sure the person borrowing the key has the Qualification. Following the example above, Barney can't check out the key to the equipment; Fred has to.
Nonetheless, I recommend that you put your efforts into preventing the unqualified laborer from being assigned the work in the first place. If it gets to him and he does the job. . .he needs a place to record his time and he needs to get it off his to-do list.