Posted By Geoff Poole
I was recently asked for my opinion regarding an employee who refused to undertake a training course in resuscitation techniques (CPR).

Is it reasonable to refuse this training? and
Can the employer insist that the training is undertaken?

The employee states that he will not undertake this training because he does not want to be in a position where he is required to give resuscitation to anyone.
As a brief background, this person is employed as a fitter in the maintenance department of a large hospital. As such, he (along with his colleagues), can be exposed to a wide range of hazards including confined space entry, live electrical work.

Although in some ways I find it difficult to fully justify this training in terms of a control measure as part of a risk assessment [the need for resuscitation would be an emergency response to failure of control measures], my thoughts on this are as follows:
1. The Confined Spaces Regs 1997 places a requirement to have in place appropriate emergency arrangements before confined space entry. This may include the provision of resuscitation equipment and suitable training if the specific risks present indicate they may be required.
Where the employee chooses not to administer CPR in an emergency situation would be a matter for him to decide at the time. However, at least the employer will have discharged his duty under the regulations.

2. HASAWA 1974, section 7 imposes an employee duty to co-operate with the employer, so far as is necessary, to enable him to carry out his duties.

3. The instruction to attend the training was a reasonable request by an employer. Training was to be conducted during working time.

I just wondered if anyone has had any experience of cases like this and what other viewpoints are.

Geoff Poole

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Rather than look at the issue mainly in relation to 'refusal' of an individual employee to 'co-operate', it may be more fruitful to consider the safety culture the employer is creating.

In this light, relevant questions then include:
1. Looking at the person specification for the engineer's role, what traits did it specify that indicate whether the person appointed would be inclined to provide support for other employees in an emergency?
2. Assuming that you have identified specific traits to assess at the selection and/or promotion stage of assessment, what exercises and other tools of assessment does the employer use to validly measure these traits? Does the employer use scenarios of incidents such as the one you described to evaluate the traits associated with readily helping in an emergency? If it does, were they used with this employee? If it doesn't, why not?

Influencing the criteria for selection and contributing to the design of valid tools for selection are processes that safety professionals could often use much more incisively to leverage cultural changes.

Posted By Pat Burns MIOSH, RSP - SpDipEM - MIQA
Have you reviewed this persons job description and terms and conditions and if so what did you find with regards to this matter. If it is not an implied condition of contract for employment then I think you will find it difficult to enforce this. I personnaly don't think it falls within the meaning of section 7 for the specific role you wish this employee to undertake. There is also a chance that there is an underlying reason for the employee not wishing to do it that they perhaps do not wish to talk about.

Posted By Clairey O
if an employee does not want to undertake first aid/cpr training then the first option is to find out why, as said by other colleagues.

As a trainer i am often horrfied to find that people are sent to learn first aid/cpr against their will or face disciplinary actions, then creates a huge negitve barrier for the student to want to learn.

People who are first aiders normally are compassionate and caring, and want to help others in times of need, some folks just don't want to be that person for their own resasons - some of them often relate to personal experiences.

I'm a great advocate that as many people as possible should learn cpr, but some people will never want to take that step, which is a shame a many more lives could be saved each year.

Posted By MarkSMark
This man is obviously selfish and I would question why you have him working for you.

Do you really want an employee who opts to be in a position of ignorance rather than a position where he can make an informed judgement of whether to help someone or not?

Also how would he feel if someone in his family needed first aid help and he has refused the training?

Once one of our workers refused first aid training and they were never promoted because they were not willing to learn. They have recently been dismissed for not wearing their ear defenders.

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I think I would be more comfortable with a First Aider who wanted to do it than one required to do so as a condition of employment. Not everyone can do it and some have positively phobic reactions to the task. Are we to discriminate in employment because of a particular mental inability, this must be very close to breach of DDA.

Bob

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Hey, careful, Bob!!!!!!!

The relevant law in this instance is simply the Employment Rights Act which applies to fully fit people, without (or with) any disability recognised by a GMC-registered doctor or chartered psychologist.

DDA applies to situations where someone has a disability, physical or psychological. To associate a reasonable refusal as indicated by the question, with a 'phobia' or other 'mental inability' is a big leap which requires detailed evidence rather than supposition.

In my experience, where an employee is pressurised by management to carry out work beyond his/her remit and capability, the outcome is liable to be stress, and in the specific case of the question, possible post-traumatic stress, but hardly a 'phobia'.

While your readiness to strewtch across the HR/OSH divide shows admirable imagination, wisest to temper it with understanding of relevant law and psychology.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Bob

You wrote: 'I merely pointed out in the end that we can cross lines without adequate information.'

Adequate information is necessarily relevant.

You refer to misleading and irrelevant information in the particular instance.

The relevant 'adequate information' concerns employment rights and the ERA: there's no basis for inferring that the DDA is adequate or inadequate: it's simply irrelevant.

Posted By JWG
I can't see any legal requirements to undertake the resus training. However, the Resusitation Council (www.resus.org.uk) has produced guidance for the NHS which recommends that all NHS staff should recieve resus training. If the trust has set resus training as a manadatory requirement and is written into a policy then surely they must comply. It's probably more for the HR bods to enforce rather than safety.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
I wondered if anyone would raise the issue of religion? Anyway, whatever this employee's objection for not accepting training I don't believe it is inforceable, nor should it be followed by any punitive measures. You can't win them all, and personally I would let this one go, otherwise 'can of worms' springs to mind.

Ray

Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
I think we all may be missing the point here: Guidance note 3(2) of the 1st aid regs.
When selecting 1st aiders:
It is essential that people who are reliable and likely to remain calm in an emergency are selected. In addition, a first aider should have the aptitude and ability to cope with an intense course of study and be able to use the knowledge and skills learnt during the course. The duties can be physically demanding and first-aiders should be free of any condition which would affect their capability.
This could mean mental condition or aversion.
Besides, The Human Rights Act states:
ARTICLE 9
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom.

I strongly believe that forcing a person to undertake any form of first aid training is ethically and morally wrong, and would not lead to a competent or willing first aider.

And to end it all - did you not state he is a maintenance fitter?

Posted By John Lewis
Following Johns' and others postings last night I would agree that a volunteer is far better than a pressed man who will probably/possibly not do any resus' anyway if it comes to the crunch.

I did my certificate with ParaMedics about 10 years ago and, no disrespect to Red Cross, St Johns and the others who do training, they were adamant that if the patient recovers then most times they did not need your intervention. This was drummed into all of us on the course so that we would know what to expect. At no time did they say that we should not try resuscitation. This made a big impression on me because I had always done First Aid since I was a Cub Scout and the impression was always that the patient would gratefully spring to his feet and thank you from the bottom of his heart.

Regards
John