Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Nicky
Whilst on a Fire brigade run course, the Fire Wardens were told that by virtue of them attending the course in place of the employer and by their name appearing on the certificate they take the responsibility if the occasion arose where someone was injured or took action against the company.
Now, they no longer want this responsibility and I cannot blame them - surely the employer still has the responsibility? Can anyone clarify this for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Scott
Nicky, If the course is/was sponsored by the Company, and the Fire Wardens acted in accordance with that training and in a reasonable manner expected, then the Company would be held liable for any civil litigation under the terms of Vicarious Liability.
I believe this to be totally irresponsible of the trainer to suggest this scenario. If I was you, I would look elsewhere for the training in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I fully agree with David. The legal duties of the employees in question will be the same for any work they undertake in matters of fire safety as for any other aspects of their work activities and this will not remove or replace the duties of the employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By shaun mckeever
David and Ken are right, but what I can never understand is why anyone would want to use a fire brigade to provide their training. The costs of the training provided by a fire brigade far exceed those provided by independent consultants who in the majority of cases are ex-firefighters but are generally far more qualified i.e. members of a professional institution like IOSH or the IFE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
This sort of comment is all too common on courses of this nature. I have come across it on both Fire Marshall courses and first aid courses. Once the trainers step outside their specialism into areas of law they seem to make misleading comments which cause serious concern/anxiety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Newall
I agree with all the previous comments. In the event of a fire the wardens owe a duty of care to the occupants of the building. Failure in that duty could amount to negligence in which case the employer can be liable because of vicarious liability. Fire safety training cannot result in changes to the legal aspects that the fire brigade trainer has claimed. The legal aspects pre and post-training remain unchanged. This issue has been raised on this forum before in relation to first aid training.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
It all rings a bell - two recent cases:
1) A client did some first aid training with a well known first aid organisation.
The employees came back saying the trainer had said it was OK to stock headache pills, freezer sprays and other off the shelf medical product etc in the first aid room, as long as they weren't issued by the first aider (they do not have a nurse or doctor in attendance)so it was OK to help themselves!
2) A well known safety organisation carried out some manual handling training at £800 a day for another client.
Following the training the operatives refused to carry out any manual handling because they 'would be liable' if anything went wrong. We had to re-run the courses with special emphasis on employer and employees liabilities.
In the former case I contacted the organisation and was emphatically told that none of the trainers would give that advice - yet they all came back with the same story.
In the latter case the safety organisation
admitted the trainer had been complained about before.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Newall
When a purchaser of training incurs additional costs caused by an act or omission by the provider of training then in my view there is a case for the purchaser requesting a refund from the provider equivalent to the additional costs. (In the USA they just sue). Presumably fire warden training is purchased on the understanding that post-training they will be proficient in that role, and NOT on the understanding that they will refuse to undertake this role on return to work. If all the fire wardens have refused this role then shouldn't the whole amount of the training course fee, plus an amount to cover their absence from work, plus any additional management costs, be refunded?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nicky
Thank you for your responses, we are going to run a workshop that emphasises employees and employers duties, so Eddies comment has given "food for thought".
As usual high calibre comments, thank you again.
Nicky
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.