Posted By rjhills
1. You train him/her up.
2. He/she drives truck.
3. Doesn`t hear approaching anything.
4. Runs into/over it/he/she.
5. What do you do then????

Posted By steven bentham
Give the chap a chance. He probably drives a car with no problems, walks across roads with no problems, rides a bike with no problems. He has probably been the target of jokes, comments and discrimination all the time he has been deaf.

Make sure he is fully trained and discuss fully with his superviser. You do have an additional duty of care for him but there is no reason why you can't talk this through with him and find a good solution.

Or, you could get rid of all employees who are deaf, partially sighted, have learning difficulties, have any form of mental illness, are very young, very old etc.

Posted By John Donaldson
I would have no problem with this individual driving a FLT, after appropriate training.

People who are both deaf and dumb are permitted to hold full driving licences.

Also if you do exclude him you could be liable under the disability rights legislation.

Posted By Alexander Falconer
You want to watch with the your defination of the disabled flt driver - the politically correct name is hearing impaired.

Also given the replies read so far, there is still so much ignorance out there!

Would all you readers of this thread please remember that a hearing impairment can be one of 4 grades of secerity from slight loss, moderate loss, severe loss and profound loss. There is a 5th grade for tinnitus sufferers. Also there are some hearing impaired people who do not use sign language, but lip read.

Going back to the thread in question, anyone who bars a hearing impaired employee from training as a flt driver can be subjected to an employment tribunal through the DDA.

As the HSE manager for my company, we have 3 drivers who have hearing impairments, one of modarate loss the others severe, and are amongst the best drivers on our site. These employees faithfully follow the rules to the book, have no accidents and despite their handicap, make up for their losses with enhancement of their other senses (ie eyesight, or awareness of what is going on, plus steely determination!)

I say go for it, but make sure you give the right support during the training stages.

Wonder how I know so much!

Yep I am also one of the "hearing impaired" who was determined to prove everyone wrong, and has done - very successfully (and am a big supporter of giving the disabled a equal chance).

Posted By Kevin O'Brien
Thanks everyone for mostly supportive advice,which is pleasing.We have a 180k sq.ft warehouse in which he would be operating if the RA and test were passed. Previous advice was gained from the ACOPS and our company OH.
I'll use the advice on this site to try to gain at least an FLT test from a suitably qualified examiner,but really feel obliged to at least give him the opportunity to see how practical it is from both sides. Many thanks.

Posted By Kevin O'Brien
The continuing saga...I met with the gentleman on friday afternoon and as a halfway agreement, we are going to risk assess our outside counter-balance to see if it is an option, as the area is protected and the c/b is the only machinery is the area. Nice compromise me thinks if the RA proves agreeable,which I believe it will.

Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
Please remember the DDA requires you to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. It is the employers responsibility to make the job fit the person these days.
I appreciate that a risk assessment would suggest an increased risk, however the reasonable adjustment would have to lower this risk using some form of control measure to the same risk as an able bodied driver and the control measure cannot be 'don't let him drivve the FLT'. If you limit his driving to a certain type of truck or area, this could be seen as discrimination.
It's a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place however the final thing to remember is that the DDA is an ACT and therefore over rules a Regulation.

Posted By Geoff Burt
final thing to remember is that the DDA is an ACT and therefore over rules a Regulation.

I'm intrigued, I haven't heard that before.

Posted By James M
Alexander,
The word 'deaf' as posted by Kevin is listed in the Oxford English dictionary as wholly or partly unable to hear. For the majority of people in this world it would be reasonable to describe a person using this word. Therefore can I request that you either: assist in answering the post or refrain from posting your political messages on this forum.

Thank you.

Jim

Posted By David J Bristow
Alexander

Your right about there still been an amount of ignorance out there!

Thought the word “handicap” (horrible word) went out years ago and today is not referred to with regards to people having a disability - not PC and all that!

Regards



David B

Posted By duncan abbott
This is one type of workplace accommodation for a hearing impaired worker.

Paul who suffers from a severe hearing impairment was taken on as a material handler by his employer. Not realising the limitation of his hearing, the employer was concerned about his safety when working around or operating forklift trucks and other
heavy equipment.

A number of solutions were implemented. A path of travel for forklifts, vehicles and
heavy equipment was created using tape and paint. All drivers were told that they must
stop at intersections. Flashing lights and mirrors were installed on the forklift, plus
mirrors were placed around the work environment. When not opearating the foreklift Paul was asked to wear a vest to alert others to his hearing loss and he was given a vibrating pager that could be activated by another one-touch pager installed on the forklift. This way Paul could be alerted to the danger. A CCTV camera was installed on the forklift to enhance the workers’ ability to visually assess the environment.

A point here is that it is essential that management and supervisors participate in this type of workplace adaptation in order to enforce rules, in particular for stopping at intersections and for ensuring
the worker wears a vest and carries a pager.
If accidents are to be avoided and
adaptations are to succeed, then clear communication is required. This case demonstrates that health and safety concerns can be overcome when employing disabled workers.

Having undertaken over 2500 workplace assessments for disabled workers in all types of environment - I have failed to accommodate only 3 workers. Remember reasonable adjustments will only work if you are prepared to invest time and effort in implementing them and when not obvious seek professional help

Posted By Rob T
Sorry MMoran but you've completely missed the point. Our job in safety is to protect all members of staff - this doesn't mean that we allow a risk for disabled people that we wouldn't allow for someone fully abled. I don't discriminate because someone is disabled but I do ensure that a risk assessment is carried out for whoever is doing a hazardous task (of which FLT driving is - look at the accident stats in this area). If this means that someone in certain circumstances who is totally deaf cannot drive a FLT then so be it - no discrimination - just facts. There may well be circumstances where that individual could drive a FLT but in most cases I would think not.

Don't start getting the idea that someone who is disabled has more rights - they have EQUAL rights!! And more importantly - health and safety rules and regulations will over ride the DDA where necessary.

Posted By MMoran
Rob

I have not missed any point and I am not saying that they have more rights than us and I am not saying that we allow a risk for disabled people that we wouldn't allow for non disabled people. I know that we should look at all aspects but there have been responses here that have gone to the end point without even looking at all facts.

As competent H&S profesionals we should not allow any personal preconceptions or bias guide how we look at the situation (I'm not saying that you are in your response). That is my point and I think you missed it.

However there is no point getting into a slanging match as this takes us away from the main topic and issue.

If someone disabled or not can show that they can do the task and the risk assessment has been done indicating that there is no greater risk or that the risk is indeed manageable, then they should be allowed to do the task. If following a risk assessment the risk is too great and it cannot be mitigated an employee, disabled or not, should not be allowed to perform the task. This is of course not talking about situations where there is an inherent risk in a job that will never be totally taken away e.g. nuclear reactor entry by metallurgists where the risk even after systems and procedures being put on place will still be very high even with PPE.

Posted By Kevin Forbes
I know this is an old thread but came across it and remembered what my instructor used to say.

People are not disabled they are DIFabled