Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Brown
I have a deaf worker who wants to progress to driving a forklift truck. He is a good worker and his disability doesn't affect his work in general, however if I say NO having assessed the risk, am I discriminating against him.
One of my safety videos "Lift Truck & Warehouse Safety - the facts" quotes drivers should have good eyesight and hearing.
Any views will be appreciated.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GSP
He cant hear someone shouting stop.....
He cant hear when he has just accidently reversed into a racking full of acid.....
He cant hear the person screaming that he has just crushed under his wheels....
so he shouldnt be driving a forklift in a workplace
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
There was a thread about this some time ago, and I think the general consensus is that there are things you can do to make it possible, do a forum search,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
It is one area where you can discriminate as it is in the interests of everyones safety not just his own.
This has already been decided in case law but cant remember which, any ideas anyone?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Hi Jim, people with a hearing impairment or that are totally deaf drive other vehicles e.g. cars... my point being, if they exercise due diligence and take care in the car, there is no reasons why they wouldn't do this driving a FLT (this rule of course applies to anyone driving a car or FLT).
Dave, I know what you mean when you use the word discriminate, but a good assessment of the situation that identifies he isn't suitable to operate a FLT isn't discrimination, it's realisation.
Another question: Would every FLT driver (that doesn't have an audio impairment) be able to hear another person shouting "Stop?" taking into account that some industries are noisier than others.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council...
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
Yes this has been discussed before. I agree with sarecen and John. We have FLT operators who drive diesel trucks with enclosed cabs in mill bays that pulverise coal, very noisy. You cannot hear a thing. Would make no difference if you were deaf or not. Control measures in place reflect this, lights on trucks, wing mirrors, beacons, segregation, move at tick over,other staff aware of FLT, etc.
I would have no problems employing him.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
It is a very good and interesting question, even though a similar one was raised recently.
I agree with the previous posting in that you cannot discriminate against someone as per DDA, if safety is in their interest or others. On the face of it good hearing for those operating a FLT would appear to be a sensible precuation. Until, that is, you consider that in some workplaces FLT operators may be required to wear ear defenders. A paradox?
I expect someone will say 'do a risk assessment.' What would we do without the good ol' RA...
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark limon
I have personally seen near misses,where the only reason they were not hit is that the person about to be hit yelled loudly.I work in a hearing protection area.
No opinion,just an observation.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Hi Jim... and all, there is ear protection on the market (costs about £130.00 per pair) that filters out unwanted noise i.e. clanging and banging, and allows in permitted noise i.e. fire alarms. I imagine some whizzkid could make some that only allowed in the human voice? I don't know how they work but I wish I had the skills to have thought of the concept! I'd be sipping brown ale on t'Bondi Beach...
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lewes
Like others have said its a very good question.
Have you spoken to the person in question or have you evaluated their driving at any point??
I have a couple of friends who are deaf, one born and one through industrial injury. They both tend to use other senses when driving so why not when using a forklift.
Vibration/momentum of the vehicle and good vision always plays a part.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Some of the postings here are exactly what I believe discrimination laws ought to be preventing.
People from a point of crass ignorance as discriminating against someone - be it disability, race gender etc.
Deaf people are perfectly capable of driving FLTs and any other equipment. I've produced several job specific RAs for people who wanted to employ deaf FLT drivers. All have been subsequently happy with the persons attitude and ability. No incidents have occurred
Leave your bigoted opinions in the pub
Do the homework
Talk to the person
Do a decent RA
PS. I'm a deaf H&S manager in a high risk industry - should I be sat at home on benefits at the taxpayers expense - discuss.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
second sentence - for as, read are.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Spot on Jim.
On similar trail.
Wasn't there a recent TV news article where a severely visually impaired person was actually driving a car? There were technological aids, but then thats progress.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I disagree and the courts 'have' ruled on this, however, and its a big however, you have to take every case on its individual merits and practically this will be down to the RA process taking into account the local circumstances.
It may be quite acceptable to employ a deaf FLT driver and in other situations it may not.
From some one who is registered disabled I do have insight personally.
The post was about 'when is it acceptable' to do this and you definately can, as the courts have agreed, but you had better have a watertight argument!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
1 Coxall v Goodyear Great Britain Ltd
This case relates to a ruling that states where an employee ran a risk of physical danger by continuing in his employment the employer owed the employee a duty to dismiss him in order to protect him against that danger.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the employers (Goodyear Great Britain Ltd), from an award of damages of £7,500 plus interest and costs to the employee, John Coxall, for occupational asthma suffered through working as a paint and line operator in the employers’ tyre factory in Wolverhampton. The employers were aware that the employee suffered from a mild constitutional predisposition to asthma.
The employers’ claimed that the judge was bound to hold that employers were not under a duty to dismiss an employee from work which could ordinarily be undertaken safely, merely because of some particular susceptibility on the employee’s part exposing him to risk of harm if he continued in that work. Rather, it was for the employee to decide whether to take the risk or not.
However, the Court of Appeal held that cases could arise when, despite the employee’s desire to remain at work notwithstanding his recognition of the risk he ran, the employer would nevertheless be under a duty in law to dismiss him for his own good in order to protect him against physical danger. That duty arose in this case.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob T
Dave,
That case talks about a risk to that individual not the risk towards others.
There are cases where you are quite able to discriminate e.g. women of child bearing age are not allowed to work with carbon tetrchloride, you can't have a blind construction H&S advisor etc.
Just a personal view and from nothing other than an opinion - I would say that you can't allow a 100% deaf person to drive a forklift in the vicinity of others. Forget political correctness when it comes to real life hazards.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer
Got to agree with Jim Walker's comments
Having regularly raised, and commented on similar issues here on the forum, it still amazes me that some people still demostrate crass ignorance (albiet to varying degrees)
Like Jim, I am also "hearing impaired" (result of a childhood illness), hence this subject, to me is one which I (and others) vigorously want to highlight and change perceptions, especially in H&S.
Why cant a deaf (or hearing impaired) person drive a FLT? Who says? What can they not do that a hearing person can (apart from the obvious)?
At the end of the day, do the RA, conduct the assessment of driving skills (via a trained instructor, not a H&S advisor/manager/officer), and only then, at this point determine whether the employee is capable of driving a FLT safely.
Over the years, I have been lucky to be involved with a number of deaf FLT drivers, and believe you me, their standard of driving was far far better than some of the idiots who actually hold FLT licences these days!
And, yes I held a FLT licence many years ago (not much call for me to have one now), no accidents or near misses at all.
Where we lose a sense, we make up in other areas (such as intellegence!)
Rant over, roll on friday!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By holmezy
for me, it depends on the situation and surroundings. If a deaf....sorry, hearing impaired (HI)person is competent to drive the flt then great. If the environment is that of a noise protection area or similar, eg extreme noise levels then in effect, everyone in that area is hearing impaired wether it be by PPE or nature. Ando so other controls need to be increased, ie segregation, lights, speed limits etc.
If the environment is a quiet one, with lots of people milling about ie assembly or packing area, then the HI person is still competent to drive the flt, but are you increasing the risk to others by introducing him to the area. If so, the greater controls are required, probably at an increased cost and management level. That is probably where the decision is to be made. Do we spend extra cash making the area safe for all?
In comparison with blind....sorry Visually impaired persons, they are probably OK to drive at excess speeds in a controlled environment, under supervision, with guidance etc, but would you be happy with a VI person navigating their way around Trafalgar Square at rush hour?
Oh.....and my understanding is that there is no such thing as a flt license, only a certificate.
But hey, what do I know?
Holmezy (definately visually impaired, selectively hearing impaired depending on who is talking and the subject matter......we all have a cross to bear!!)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Lawrence
I agree with Sacracen and Jim's points.
Working on any types of task, there are many factors to take into account and from this thread, shows much ignorance of capabilities, which is the main issue here.
Deafness / hard of hearing has it disabilities, but not necessarily a handicap. What is a 'normal person'? A 'normal person' may have more handicaps, however it not percieved this way.
Like saracen said, they have other excellent senses, which we take for granted and generally very vigilant. Although I don't drive a FLT, this must be one of the key factors of control.
Cheers James, Another Deaf Advisor in a COMMUNICATION industry!! (FYI... no chip on my shoulder and I embrace inclusiveness and opportunities for anyone)
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jez Corfield
Surely this all boils down to reasonableness, if someone with a sensory impairment can do a job, with minor adaptions then give it a go.
Some jobs may require very expensive adaptions that are beyond reasonable, access to work might help with these to a point, but if it is too expensive then there is a difficult point where the potential activity cant be done.
In my experience, 99% of adaptations were all about management, job design and perception, all things that cost nothing to change, in most cases its the attitude of employers and society in general that 'disables' potential employees. The 1% that require physical change can be more complex, but the reasonableness test usually works well here.
Jez
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Saracen11
Hi Jim, have you resolved this situation?
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Very very upsetting people! as personally giving someone stick and polite abuse is absolutley not good form.
We are all entitled to our opinins and I have never said here you cannot employ disabled people so you crass, bigoted in the pub do the research people 'READ THE POSTING'.
The RA process is about protecting people, property and the environment and there are certain sections of the working community who cannot do certain things which puts, them others and prperty & the environment at risk,
So I will say again do the RA, make a RA Management decision and get on with it, remember your employers run a business and as long as you have given the the best technical and up to date advice, you have done your bit!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Brown
Thanks to everyone for joining the debate, I didn't realise my question would stimulate so much response, but there again things DDA are very important.
I have an FLT trainer coming on site in a couple of days to train two other people and I intend to including my deaf worker in the group. This will give me the basis for the R/A and given the environment we have I am fairly confident he will get the certificate.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
I'm with Dave,
This should not be about political correctness, but risk assessed control measures.
Reasonable adjustments should be considered. But at the end of the day, you might have to say no. Me, for instance, would not bother looking for a rail track job as my disability (hate that chip on the shoulder word!) would make me unsafe.
Having said that, I can't think of any instance that I've seen FLT operating where Audible warnings are a suitable risk control, therefore ability to hear is superfluous for drivers.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Lawrence
I just simply saddened to see what I thought this profession is about ensuring safety and health SFARP to everyone involved in a workplace.
Our profession is to find effective solutions and the original post was asking for open advice and we're generally known to be a helpful bunch.
I'm not for political correctness, but for real robust and quantifying solutions.
Yes, I agree regardless of gender, disabilities and etc these are factors we have to take into account and if the quantum of risk is disproportionate then we have manage the situation and such persons are not suitable for role.
Risk management is collating the facts using the H&S tools available. Then we have a good chance keeping everyone safe and well.
Sorry if my last posting upset anyone, this was not my intention but to inform and I still only have good admiration for our profession.
James
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Jim
In relation to your question:
'He is a good worker and his disability doesn't affect his work in general, however if I say NO having assessed the risk, am I discriminating against him.'
the straightforward answer is 'Yes'.
The rider is that safety management is a totally justifiable basis for discrimination. So, in fairness to the 'good' employee and all other employees and other relevant persons, your task is to assess all relevant risks and reach a judgment that you can stand by in your specific circumstances, if need be in court.
If you train him to drive and he is then responsible for a serious accident attributed to his hearing impairment, you will then have firm evidence of a shortcoming in your risk assessment.
Yet, professional judgments often involve reaching the most reasonable decision you can in contexts of uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer
I still cannot believe some of the advice given here on this thread.
Whilst we all can be classed as competent H&S practitioners, and have a perfectly good understanding of the RA process, and make some sound H&S management judgements regarding implementation of the appropriate controls.
A pointer, how many of you actually involve the process "experts" (ie the employees themselves), and probably sometimes the manufacturesrs of such equipment, etc, etc, in the RA process? Probably everyone does.
The point I am trying to make here, H&S personnel, conduct the RA, fine, speak with employees (FLT drivers, logistics dept, etc) fine, contact FLT manufacturers, fine, but what about contacting a specialist body?
I am betting that no one does, or has done at all, contact RTITB themselves.
These guys will provide allo the help you require, including advising on the legal implications, right!
Remember, we as H&S practitioners know what our limitations are, and know where to seek outside assistance outwith our own capabilities.
Given whats being said on this thread, methinks people are forgetting this!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Alexander
The principle of consulting specialists is a good one: a risk assessment needs to take account of medical information about the level of hearing impairment of the 'good worker'.
It is however, strange to say the least that you go on to recommend the RTITB as specialists in risks associated with deafness.
On that basis, do you recommend the RNID and Hearing Concern and every other medically-related specialist organisation as specialists in vehicle maintenance and repair?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer
Dont insult my intellegence. The concept as we are tryingt o understand is whether a deaf person is capable of driving a FLT.
Whilst FLT's are dangerous in the wrong hands, RTITB will provide guidance relating to this.
If you took the time to read my earlier post, you would know I am also hearing impaired. I am perfectly well aware of who RNID is and what they do.
RNID cannot, and will not advise whether a deaf person can or cannot have the ability to drive a FLT.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
All,
Please can we tone down the rhetoric, for the sake of reasoned discussion.
I feel several valid points are being explored here and it would be a shame to lock the thread prematurely because AUG 1 had been breached.
Thanks, please continue.
Jonathan Breeze
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kieran J Duignan
Alexander
I apoligise for any offence I may have caused.
That wasn't my intention and I appreciate the points you make.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer
Keiran
Apologies accepted, however in light of what I originally wrote, it is easy to understand how the context was interpreted!
Alex
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mark limon
Any assessment that takes place involving a "differently abled" person is going to both emotive and subjective to some which is natural.
An objective point of view may look discriminating to some yet perfectly logical to others,again natural.
This is a minefield where I havent had to tread yet so I appreciate reading other posters views and experiences on this and similar situations.
I come here to learn,hopefully I will.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Astey
Hello
Can I add my contributions to the debate? Can I first say that I haven't got a hearing impairment and I am not an flt driver.
When I read the original posting my immediate thought was - no of course he can't drive an flt.
Then after thinking about it for a while I began to think - why not?
If you look at the DVLA website for medical requirements for drivers, there are no restrictions on profoundly deaf people dricing cars. To drive an LGV the driver needs to be able to communicate in an emergency, but will not be automatically excluded.
A profoundly deaf flt driver is likely to be more observant than other drivers I would expect.
The argument about hearing someone shout stop (I suppose there is a similar argument about car and LGV drivers being able to hear the vehicle horn) - how often does this really happen? If it happens regularly, then I think the issue of vehicle/pedestrian segregation is a big problem.
Can the people who say that he should not be able to drive, honestly say that they are not simply falling into the trap of being 'risk averse' - its easier to say no, then nothing can go wrong.
Personally, after thinking about it, so long as he passes his test I think it is fine, and indeed he should be encouraged.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Well said Jonathon. A reasoned discussion does not need insulting comments. If you have a different opinion, fine, let's hear it. There are no rights and wrongs in health and safety, provided you can justify what action you have taken!
Next point. There are many interesting debates as this one which emanate around the law and it's practice. Does anyone think there is scope for a h&s practitioners' Case Law compendium, detailing in brief the various cases?
Apologies to Jim for hi-jacking his thread.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Brunskill
How essential is it for the FLT driver to be able to hear? He can drive and see with no problems. Therefore are there issues that can only be addressed through hearing? i.e. hearing warnings or alarms?
If the need for warnings or alarms is essential can an alternative means of communication be established? Visual or vibration.
My car has sensors that sound an alarm and light up when I am too close to an obstruction. My phone works on vibrate when I am in a meeting. H&S is about enabling people to work safely and not putting stops on "because we can".
Establish the real issues, determine the options and make a management decision you feel you can support. Don't prevent this guy from doing a worthwhile job just because you are unsure.
the next thing you will have to do is cancel the Christmas Party!!!!!!
Regards
Tony
|
|
|
|
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.