Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By John Almond
A young woman at my place of work is 5 months pregnant, and she is finding it difficult to do her normal job, she approached management who suggested that she should just sweep up. She did try this job but found that when she had been stood for any length of time her legs and back hurt, so she asked if there was any other job she could do and was told there was nothing else in the factory for her and should go on the sick. I must add here that a risk assessment has not been done for her. She is also an asthma sufferer and the shop floor where she works is quite dusty (we make kitchens and there is a lot of MDF dust lying around).
What should she do next? She has been told that she should be put onto maternity suspension by her shop steward so she will not loose any money, is this correct?
Thanks in advance for any help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By paul harley
Hi John
Yes the union official is correct. The lady in question is not ill so why should she sign on the sick ?
I would suggest that a risk assessment is carried out ASAP. I find it hard to believe that sweeping up MDF dust was minimising the risk to the unborn child or expectant mother!
Regards
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Thanks Paul
I forgot to say that I am the shop steward and I am quite new to this. Would I be correct in saying that I should put in a grievance on behalf of the young woman? and if so how would I word it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Lee
It is an absolute duty under the Management Regulations 3(1) to carry out a risk assessment and furthermore Regulation 16 requires risk assessmnet for new and expectant mothers.
If any suitable alternative work cannot be found then the lady must be suspended from work on full pay.
I suggest you inform the employer asap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Oh , and just to let you know. The person that will be doing the assessment will be the HR and she is almost 8 months pregnant herself!!
And just one more thing, is there any where on the net where I can find information regarding advice on how to write letters to management.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser John, As has been mentioned, any risk assessment should take account of more vulnerable staff such as young persons and expectant mothers - these are specifically mentioned in the current version of the Regs, so a failure to apply it is contrary to law. If your employer disputes this then you will find the regs (free on HMSO) at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1999/19993242.htm#3Reg 16 is the relevant one to quote. The HSE guidance on RAs can be found on: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/raindex.htmIf you have not yet done the TUC training course, then perhaps that would be reasonable route for you to follow up - see your Union or for general advice, go to the TUC website: http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/index.cfmBy the way, I have been subscribing to the TUC free -zines "Risks" and "Hazards" and although I am not in a Union or in a unionised workplace, the issues raised keep me up to date with current events - I would recommend it, especially to Union members. After all, better informed is supposedly better prepared! On the specific issue you have raised, check out: http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/maternity.htmThis is the Govt (DTI) site on maternity rights. Pay particualr attention to booklet PL705 - "SUSPENSION FROM WORK ON MEDICAL OR MATERNITY GROUNDS UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS" - this might be a good place to start your claim. A definite grievance without question. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave Hi John, We meet again - same topic different chat room. Sean is quite right about the value of TUC training (although I know that your union often prefers to use its own training centre). The courses include advice on letter writing and communicating with management etc. If you can't get to a nearby TU Education centre the courses are also available on line.You can register at: http://www.learningservi...tional/onlineed_form.cfmThat of course doesn't solve your immediate problem as you need to deal with the issue in the short term. I usually try to be fairly polite initially working on the assumption that the employer does not know that they are in breach and use phrases like "as a good employer I am sure that you would wish to....whatever". (I occasionally get accused of being a sarcastic little b*!ch but that can't be helped). The important thing from a TU point of view is to make sure that you keep copies of all correspondence in case things get nasty further down the line. If you don't get a response fairly quickly then you do need to move into the grievance procedure. In the longer term you probably need to look at your workplace policies and procedures to make sure they have been brought up to date to take into account the 1999 changes to the Management Regs. Does your local GMB Branch have a H&S Officer or Convenor who could help you out or possibly a Women's Officer or Eqalities Officer? Best of luck with this one. Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Hope you don't mind me butting in but there is an other issue as well to this.
You said there is a lot of MDF dust lying around. Which begs the question why?
I have two clients who work with MDF in furniture making and we do not have a problem with dust - unless a fault occurs with the LEV which ca happen occasionally.
It should be possible nowadays without going to huge expense to put in suitable LEV and to eliminate that particular problem.
I know this doesn't help with your immediate case but it is something that should be looked at.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Many thanks to all who responded, I have a meeting tomorrow with HR and I have printed out your replies just in case.
Again many thanks.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Morning all.
Update of events are as follows. The young lady and I had a meting with HR and the production manager, the first Q was from the PR manager and was “well Suzanne what is wrong with the job we have asked you to do?” her reply was she felt that it would cause her discomfort simply because she would be standing for long periods of time and the fact that the dust being generated would create a risk not only to herself but to her unborn child.
I then added that a risk assessment had not been done and quoted the relevant information I have received from this forum. After a bit of uming and I’ing from the HR and Manager they was still insistent that Suzanne was saying she would not do the job because of medical reasons and should go on the sick. This is where I quoted to them that Suzanne felt that her health and safety was at risk and further more a risk assessment had not been done ( that’s twice regarding R.A.). Again after a bit of chit chat they agreed to try to find her a job and they would involve an outside risk assessor ASAP.
They also agreed to suspend her on medical grounds until a position can be found (are they within there rights to do that?) with full pay and agreed to pay her for Mon and Tuesday of this week. So to sum it up they seem to be creating a position for her rather than to find her a position.
We wait in anticipation
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
I think that you have had quite a good result there. However, when the risk assessor comes in I should ask him to have a look at the dust situation certainly because asthmatic or not I don't think it can be a good idea having quantities of MDF dust which is swept up with a broom - do you have special extraction for this? At the very least this should be vacuumed up so that you are not creating airborne particles.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
It might be also useful to look at DDA - this covers temporary disabilty, which I seem to remember includes such as pregnancy. Check with your full time official it would cause some feathers to fluff. The general risk assessment regs also includes refer to the temporary disability as others noted.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Whilst not wanting to be overly politically correct I don't think many women would regard pregnancy as a disability unless of course you are regarding it as an injury caused by men!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Serena Merry
Just picked up this thread, maybe a little late, but the HSE have recently published HSG122 "New and expectant mothers at work - A guide for employers" which covers all aspects. Obviously it covers the MHSW regs and the requirement to risk assess but it states clearly
"If you cannot avoid a risk by other means, you are specifically required to make changes to the working conditions or hours of a new or expectant mother, offer her suitable alternative work, or if that is not possible suspend her for as long as necessary to protect her health and safety and that of the baby".
It also gives you guidance on the type of risk assessment to carry out and the factors to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Further to my response to Bob's DDA idea. The Guidance to the DDA defines long term (one of the elements in defining disability) as:
. The Act states that, for the purpose of deciding whether a person is disabled, a long-term effect of an impairment is one:
· which has lasted at least twelve months; or
· where the total period for which it lasts, from the time of the first onset, is likely to be at least twelve months; or
· which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected (Sch1, Para 2).
Unless my understanding of human biology is way off the mark that would rule out pregnancy!
Gilly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran Dowling
Sorry to come in to this late, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that failure to carry out a risk assessment in respect of new and expectant mothers is direct sex discrimination(see EAT decision in Hardman v Mallon).
My employer, rather than go to a tribunal, has offered to settle a similar case in which they failed to carry out an assessment on a pregnant worker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
John I have to ask this out of interest.
HAS ANYONE WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT SIDE OF YOUR COMPANY HAD ANY HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING?. (not sarcasm just concern)
I only ask this because with you stating you are union safety rep and company has a HR department and the fact it can spend 1.5 million on extraction sound to me that your company is of a fair size. (could be wrong)
I dont know your company or how many are employed their. But to me it sounds like your on your own here in a dispute with management. Surely by now I was expecting you to have posted a resolved note today as I was half expecting this to get to a safety managers or manager with safety training ears and HR then understanding the situation.
But external risk assessment for pregnant woman in mdf environment Hmmmm.
I would understand if it was for whole department and extensive sampling was required.
Maybe Im misunderstanding the situation so Im not going to comment any further as Im sure more experienced folk will be happy to help you.
Good luck with result
Regards Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Gilly Margrave
Hardman v Mallon (t/a Orchard Lodge Nursing Home), All ER (D) 439, June 2002
- Hardman's job involved heavy lifting, but Mallon did not undertake a risk assessment as required under Health & Safety Regulations when Hardman announced her pregnancy. She brought a tribunal claim, arguing that failure to undertake a risk assessment constituted sex discrimination under section 1 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
- The tribunal found there had been no discrimination because Mallon had not treated Hardman any differently to a man, or a woman who was not pregnant. The tribunal held that section 1 was incapable of being interpreted to widen the definition of discrimination to encompass an employer's failure to treat a woman more favourably than a man. Hardman appealed on the grounds that the tribunal had interpreted the SDA too narrowly.
- The appeal was allowed. A woman's biological condition during and after pregnancy had to be protected. One way was by carrying out a risk assessment. Failure to do so impacted disparately on pregnant workers and amounted to discrimination. The tribunal's failure to construe the SDA in this way meant it failed to give effect to Council Directive 92/85, whose purpose was to introduce measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety at work of pregnant workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Dear Jason
In response to your Q “HAS ANYONE WITHIN THE MANAGEMENT SIDE OF YOUR COMPANY HAD ANY HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING?” I am beginning to think not, Reason, the company had to get a risk assessor from Stoke and the outcome was the young lady was given a job in the admin office (which did not exist earlier in the week).
And yes, the company is quite big if you consider over 1600 people worked here 12 months ago but that has now changed and around 650 are now employed.
Regarding the HR, I now think that they knew they had dropped a B*****K and they have resolved the situation (but with egg on their faces)
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
Well at least she is away from that dust.
You usually find that the maintenance dep may be responsible for the safety of the machines with regards to extraction etc. However in my experience they can also be responsible for the breakdowns. This is where the fun starts.
Sometimes their very helpfull and sometimes you can spot the blag a mile off. Im only speaking of my own experience when a hydrolic pipe burst and blew a machine cover in the air nearly taking my head off.
When I confronted the management they were already told by the maintenance dep I was working too fast for the machine Hmmmm. Later I found out it never had the right fitting on. Quick fix
John I hope you and your employer resolve thess issues wothout any trouble.
Now heres a question for the more experianced safety guys.
SHOULD A COMPANY EMPLOYING 650+ EMPLOYEES HAVE SOMEONE WHO AT LEAST KNOWS THE BASIC LAWS E.G. THE SIX PACK, OR DO YOU THINK PRODUCTION MANAGERS AND MAINTENENCE DEPARTMENTS HAVE THE NESSESSARY EXPERIENCE AND OTHER QUALITIES TO CARRY ON, AND ONLY CALL SOMEONE IN WHEN THEY DONT KNOW THE ANSWER? OR AS JOHN PUTS IT, THEY GET EGG ON THEIR FACES.
I know what I think
Regards Jason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J Bristow
Dear John
Sorry to start this response so formally, please be assured I am not ditching you for a young wealthy American solder !!!!!!!!!!!.
Not only should you be concerned with new and expectant mothers, you also have to consider nursing mums (those that are breastfeeding) when they return to work in your risk assessments.
Don’t forget that breach of MHSW regulations with regards to the above can confer grounds for civil action by the “injured party”.
Last but not least – MDF is the next Asbestos occupational health problem for the future!
Hope this helps
Regards
David B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Almond
Point taken David
Yes , I have often thought that over the last thirteen years working in this industry that MDF is the next Asbestos related illness, maybe I should be recording the information and taking photos (Polaroid ) of the evidence NOW, for future reference.
Don’t worry! I will be keeping a close eye on the future regarding Suzanne,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.