Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 28 February 2005 11:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods Have there been any amendments to RIDDOR? We have a Union Safety rep who says that if any employee has to go to hospital for treatment then it is RIDDOR reportable. I understand that it is reportable if they are admitted for more than 24 hours. The 24 hour rule does not apply to non-employees, where any accident requiring hospital treatment being reportable. Thanks in advance Bob
Admin  
#2 Posted : 28 February 2005 11:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Mains Robert, as far as I am aware there have been no amendments (this was confirmed last week during discussions with a HSE inspector). It could certainly do with a review and update though, as it was 1995.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 28 February 2005 12:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Heather Aston Bob You are correct. Your TU Rep is wrong. No there have been no recent amendments to RIDDOR. It continues to raise questions every week in this forum - perhaps HSE should take note that even the professionals don't always understand the requirements. Heather
Admin  
#4 Posted : 28 February 2005 12:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson We also keep hearing about union reps who don't know what they're talking about. Who really wants to give these people the ability to issue improvement notices? The mind boggles...
Admin  
#5 Posted : 28 February 2005 12:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Donaldson In answer to Neil’s comment I personally believe that most TU reps mean well and that problems can arise from the précis of legislation which they are often given by their headquarters. I have had several instances in which the legislation has been misquoted but I am in the fortunate position of one of the TU reps being a law lecturer, who has helped me out by explaining the law to reps from other TUs. Having it explained to them by another TU rep often comes better than from myself.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 28 February 2005 13:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert S Woods Thanks for the help. Having been a TU rep myself I would always ask TU tutors if what they were saying was the their own interpretation, the Unions position or the legal position on an issue. As most union reps will know, where a company does not have a decent H&S manager, you can get away with making the law up to suit the situation. This fact is sometimes exploited by TU Tutors feeding reps misinformation to further their own agendas.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 28 February 2005 13:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Peter Longworth "Who really wants to give these people the ability to issue improvement notices?" These people as you call them would be issuing improvement notices as far as I am aware if they could demonstrate a breach of regulation. Maybe there is a correllation between bolshy safety reps and pompous safety advisors. What do you think?
Admin  
#8 Posted : 28 February 2005 15:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Terry Smyth Good comments Peter and Robert Often commited safety reps know a lot more than an arrogant safety manager or advisor. They are generally the people that are working in the front line and can contribute greatly to a good health and safety culture within the workplace. TU education is a great foundation for prospective health and safety professionals, which members have found to be beneficial, leading to Tech SP status on successful completion of the TU certificate in Occupational Safety and Health, all free of charge to members!!!!!!!!!!!!! Any TU safety Reps out there, make good use of this facility! You are paying for it! Regards Terry
Admin  
#9 Posted : 28 February 2005 15:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Terry Smyth Sorry I meant John and Robert
Admin  
#10 Posted : 28 February 2005 15:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jeff Watt I did my TUC part one course the same year as my Nebosh cert. TUC lecturer taught me next to zero practical safety but plenty about negotiation. My Nebosh lecturer was the college TU rep and taught me practical stuff I still use. Two committed trade unionists with two different approaches to teaching safety and two different target audiences I was a full time union rep for a year and have a lot of time for trade unions and how they seek to protect people. As a manger now, I come to H&S committees as an honest broker with fairness and employee protection in mind because of my present management responsibilities and my socialist past. I usually leave our H&S committees wondering how to join the Conservative party and will they take Visa payments to join, right now, over the phone. The moral? There are good and bad managers and safety reps. I am possibly both of them but I don't think so.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 28 February 2005 19:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Laurie So far as I am concerned, any properly accredited TU Rep is the only other person in the organisation who has any formal H&S training and as such is another valuable pair of eyes and ears Laurie
Admin  
#12 Posted : 01 March 2005 09:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Neil Pearson My apologies, that was a bit pompous wasn't it? I didn't intend to make a sweeping statement about all union reps. It's definitely not just union reps who get things worng sometimes. But SOME of us, reps or advisors, have a tendency to spout "legal requirements" without having any idea what we're talking about. And we have heard a few of those cases recently relating to reps. I just worry about increased arguments and disruption based on a few bad apples who just cause trouble.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 02 March 2005 12:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Beadle Could this be simply that the regulations have been miss-interpreted with regard to members of the public rather than an employee Reg 3 (C) requires a report to be issued to the HSE for a person not at work who is injured and sent to hospital e.g. customer injured whilst in a shop.
Admin  
#14 Posted : 05 March 2005 16:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Gary Millen Bob, It is possible that the Rep is getting confused with OSHA reporting standards where any medical aid (subject to set criteria) is reportable. I am an advocate for having safety representatives in the workplace, having been one myself, in a previous life and seeing the value of having another set of eyes and ears on the ground, so to speak. I am, however, concerned that the local college that the Reps attend for their Union courses employs a tutor affectionately known by the Reps as Red Penny due to her obvious and well voiced "capitalist employer" views.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 05 March 2005 23:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ken Taylor I hear that it has been decided after consultation that there is no need to update RIDDOR. However, the HSE (and others reading this Forum) must by now have a considerable list of RIDDOR-related items that need clarification. Perhaps a revision of HSE guidance on this is now needed?
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.