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

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?

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.

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

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.

Posted By Jim Walker
second sentence - for as, read are.

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!

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.

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!!)

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

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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