Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By warderic
I would like to put forward the following hypothesis for your comments please: In order to reduce incident statistics a company decides that any manual handling incident, not involving a visual physical injury i.e. a pulled muscle as opposed to a cut, and not witnessed will not be recorded in the accident book. Furthermore the incident will not be reported as a RIDDOR should the person concerned have 3 or more days off work. I have my own opinion on this but I would be interested to here yours. Many thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Why not go a stage further and throw the book away. That way, no recorded incidents. Presumably larger bonuses for all who are being judged on recorded incidents.
Of course, RIDDOR and the relevant Social Security legislation will be breached. No chance of learning any lessons from experience, no management tools, nobody cares.
"Ostrich syndrome"
Just remind me: we are in the 21st Century aren't we, not the 18th?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DP
Wadreric - I suggest your company is heading for a fall mate! Based on what you are telling us.
For more detailed advise from colleagues on this forum - why on earth have they taken such actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jon H
Hi, in my opinion the company in question is failing to comply with the basic requirements of RIDDOR - that is to report any work related incident in which a worker is unable to work in their full capacity for three days or more.
I would question why the organisation is looking to reduce incident rates through deliberate under-reporting. Should they not be looking to reduce incident rates by improving the safety standards through the principles of control within the manual handling operations regulations such as eliminate, reduce, assess and control. Are staff being adequately trained and supervised? Are mechanical aids being utilised wherever possible?
What wider reason is there for the company to be reducing rates? Are there unrealistic target rates being set at a higher level - ie corporate board/group level that is causing management to fear reporting the true incidence rate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
I tried to make it clear in my posting that this is not a real situation but a hypothesis. Please don't direct your comments directly at me or my company but relate them to the supposition put forward. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
warderic,
This suggests that your company/employees ARE having incidents/accidents like back sprain, bumps on the head, dropping things on their toes ?????
So if an employee gets repeated strains at work, and next Monday can't get out of bed for the pain, is your company not wanting the responsibilty for the injury? not wanting to pay a sick man his wages?
That's not right now is it?
Deal with the causes of the strains and bumps, get better equipment, have a healthy workforce and no-one will be off with a bad back.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
warderic,
Even if this is YOUR 'pretend situation' you shouldn't be suprised that people aim their comments AT you for even thinking up such a scenario ;o)
Basically if that situation were to arise, and someone who was employed to do manual handling went to his doctor with a bad back, the doctor found severe injury, and the doctor was confident in blaming work because the employee had no other strenuous activities, and it was proved, then your pretend company would be prosecuted.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
John, I will repeat; this is not my company but a supposition which I have brought up for discussion. It is not a real situation but a possible situation for some, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
There is no smoke without fire Wardenic - who thought out this scenario?
Why ask the question if there are no thoughts about implementing it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Warderic,
You tend to get sand in most orifices when your head is buried in it!!
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Obviously John you are one of those people who has no thought of your own and never asks a question and always jumps to the wrong conclusion. Have you ever done any research John, research is full of suppose questions.
In answer to my other friend in the debate; Yes sometimes there is smoke without fire its called having an imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Warderic, you have put the point up for discussion. Don't get a hissy fit if you don't like the way some of the responses are phrased. The thoughts expressed are just as valid as your original post.
I imagined that you or your employer are considering this as an option to reduce incident numbers. If however this is pure blue sky thinking then remember many subscribers on this forum are in the middle of a very wet and cloudy Summer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By DP
I sensed this was not all it seemed hence the request for more detail. If an employer was daft enough to sanction such a thing then he'd get all he deserved and there would be plenty of it!!
It would be the completely wrong approach to safety management (we all know the regs). I don't think it would be that hard to persuade the employer the error of his ways, so I don't think it that a tough one to get over in any debate. Come on then Warderic give us a tougher one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By IOSH Moderator
Whoa !! Moderator alert!
Warderic posed a hypothetical question, and made that point very clear.
Please be careful in replying to the hypothetical question and make it clear that you have read it.
It is not reasonable to surmise that there is fire, or even smoke.
Jane Blunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JohnW
I fully agree with warderic this is an excellent hypothesis and one that could be a possibility in some companies. I fully agree with him that the answers need to be directed at the question and not the person. Some of you out there do go over the top and get personal. Lets calm it down and think about the question and not whats behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
warderic,
Clearly YOUR research faculties are much wanting.
Rather than post on a public messageboard which can't guarantee all-valid responses, you should have first consulted the available legislation, and HSE literature on, say, musculo-skeletal disorders, and the case histories published there on prosecutions arising for MSDs, and your pretend company director would see the risks he is taking.
Next time when you think of something you can't be bothered to research, try Facebook :o|
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jo Malpass
Hmm.. I was once had a Manager who actually had those views. Needless to say every depot she worked in had a number of serious incidents not reported either internally or to the HSE but she was always one step ahead and had moved on before the proverbial hit the fan.
Very messy for those of us trying to gather evidence for claims... no longer works for the business, suffering work related ill-health.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Thanks to everyone for their comments. Health and safety is about looking at things in detail, considering the options and not jumping to conclusions. Being a health and safety professional is about understanding people and the possible situations they can encounter. This question was asked because I came into contact with someone who actually carried out these procedures. As a professional I gave my opinion without insult or assumption. Posting this question on the forum compounded my theory that out there are lots of good sensible thinking health and safety people. Unfortunately there are also a number of others who jump to conclusions, don't listen to what is being said or asked and come in like a bull in a china shop. I was asked by one respondent as to why I have these thoughts. Well, I have these thoughts because I like to question myself and others, I like to pose myself situations; surly this is the basis of good risk assessment. How can we risk assess without asking hypothetical questions and using our imaginations. We need to do this because risk is something in the future and as we all know the future doesn't exist. Thanks again a very interesting debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
warderic,
>>This question was asked because I came into contact with someone who actually carried out these procedures.
It would have helped some of us if you'd said so, in that manner, to begin with. We know that there are companies/directors who proceed in that manner.
Anyway, glad you have learned something, but please, if you are an H&S professional, or even if you're not, don't go into a strop every time someone doesn't understand you. You have to be patient with people whether they are directors, cleaners or H&S professionals ;o)
I do, though, look forward to your next question.
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kevin Brown
1. The DO in RIDDOR stands for Dangerous Occurrence.
2. You don't need to draw a line in the sand, it's already there at 3 days.
3.Redefining an injury as requiring broken skin or a penetrating wound is certainly novel, but hardly sustainable. Nevertheless, I shall put the proposition to the young rugby players I coach.
4.Hypothetically, why do we even need to discuss this? Rules is rules, nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brett Day
It's always interesting to get other peoples opinions and also it would have been interesting to see how others would suggest dealing with this situation rather than making comments about the OP and his employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Any company adopting this policy would be deliberately breaking the law, the inference I got was knowingly! In this situation it would be document your concerns to the senior management/Board and look for alternative employment, in the meantime ensure you carry our your duties within the law whether this is done openly, which would probably lead to confrontation, or anonymously would be a decision for the individual in the specific circumstances and there is not enough time on a Friday to ponder all the scenarios.
Lager today before the sunny weather ends tomorrow
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
You have used the term "Incident Book Entries"!
Legally, Employers have a duty to report under RIDDOR --and they need not keep a formal book to satisfy the requirements under RIDDOR, although it is good practiice to use the B510 "Accident Book" to track the RIDDOR accidents. The B 510 Accident Book does not facilitate recording of RIDDOR Dangerous Occurences!
The B510 Accident Book is a requirement of Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1979 as amended, and an employer CANNOT restict an entry by an employee. That will be construed as breach of the regulations. Not only that, but any decent advice from a trade Union or Citizens Advice Buruea will inform the employee to make a direct report to "Social Security". The B510 Accident Book must be made available. However, the employer has the right to make an entry that can counter the entry based on the investigation findings etc.
I presume that there may be abuse of the reporting system, with a proportion of employees claiming injury when nothing has occured, but this is not the way to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Why have so many posters jumped straight to the assumption that the scenario suggests that work related incidents are being withheld. Exactly where in the original post does it say that?
It says "manual handling incident". Those who have replied with all the venom of the keeper of legal morals may want to reflect that this incident may well not be work related, merely a report or claim that may or may not be substantiated. Again the scenario outlines that there are no witnesses.
To then leap from that to saying that companies will be prosecuted and to do so on the basis of no facts at all seems to me to be a poor analysis on which to grant any credence to the advice.
Of course any event reported as an incident should be recorded in a suitable manner and the good old accident book has many virtues. If an investigation determines it is a work related event, then all the comments made are valid, but what if not? Are we suggesting that just because someone has 3 days off work that we must report it under RIDDOR? And if we fail to do so we will be prosecuted?
So, I could read the scenario as outlining a control mechanism to avoid unnecessary reporting and burdening of RIDDOR records with unsubstantiated events that are not relevant. It may have risks but doesn't everything. If it was a straightforward attempt to merely ignore accident reporting with evidence that employees were being prevented from reporting such events, then the legal situation is clear, and I am sure that warderic knows that. I don't think that was the point of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Thanks for that Peter48. I thought this thread was finished. This is the first comment I have had where the commenter has actually read my posting and its content correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
Waredic,
I did start my contribution with an observation that you have referred to Incident Book Entries. If it is clear that either the incident/accident is not work related, then entries should not be made.
If you so called incident book doubles up as the B510 Accident Book, you cannot prevent an employee from making an entry, even if you suspect its validity regarding work-relatedness, but you can put your version,in the book i.e. no witnesses etc based on investigation.
Lastly, for RIDDOR reporting, the criteria are clear--but reporting under RIDDOr does not require either the so called "incident book" or the B510 Accident Book. It only requires reporting by various means advertised and copies of the F 2508 held.
Last, but not least, whether there is an injury or not in absence of visual evidence such as cuts, swelling etc, only a medical professional can give expert opinion.
We all have to make deision regarding the "workrelatedness" of accidents/incidents. Lack of witness or lack of visual signs of injury need not always mean it is not workrelated or vice versa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
Hi Warderic - I was the one that mentioned the smoke and fire.
The reason?? Too many times I have heard and seen this type of thing happen - to protect bonus, to win tenders, to suit management whims.
In my early years at the "coal face" I was a victim of an accident which I only found out later, that the same thing had already happened twice already that month but was deemed "no need to record or report".
I have also witnessed fatalities in my last industry - some pre 1974 and seen the way that management responded. I was not in a position to do anything about it then, but a serious accident as recently as 2000 showed a callous management cover up.
The victim of this gross mismanagement -and yes I was a minor part of the management team at the time - asked me why I was not being called at the Court of Session to hear the case as I was the senior manager on shift who attended the scene, made him comfortable, comforted the troops, and carried out the initial investigation.
The reason I was not called? My actions and follow up after the accident left the company wide open - guilty as sin. A massive change in procedures and management ability was then implemented because they could not fault my findings. But why should someone lose a leg to get this done?
My sincere apologies to anyone who may have been troubled by my response.
I congratulate you for setting a question that got my dander up - and I maybe reacted a bit hasty. But would I react the same again? Probably!!
Or was your question set out to do that?
Or is it time for me to walk away and get a life.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Dave, no need to apologise or get a new life. Some of us have seen terrible things in our work life. I was on oil rigs in the 70's and witness unnecessary accident almost daily, hofuly things are different now. I was also a firefighter and once held the hand of a man, who was buried in tones of clay, while he died. This accident could have been avoided. I posted my question to see the reaction of others, the people who can make a difference to safety. Although some of the replies did get a bit personal at times, I was reassure that most health and safety people are doing the right thing. Thanks for your reply and keep voicing your opinion; It does make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer
Warderic,
The problem with this hypothetical scenario is not whether to or not make the entry into the accident book.
The key issues here are the company has decided to reduce its incident rates and thereby showing improvements in KPIs which would be a false indication of the statistics. This is unfortunately a situation that happens many times in the real world and goes on until we read the results of these falsehoods in the media and usually at the expense of some poor employee being injured or worse.
The main problem for this is mainly due to a lack of understanding/training of managers in their H&S responsibilities. Many companies train their managers in all other aspects of management but how many spend more than a couple of hours if any on H&S training ?.
Regards
Ted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ezee
Is there any pros using this site that live in real world.............. the initial response to this post is typical of what annoys me about this site. does anyone actually give any useful advise these days....... help not hinder comes to mind.
these forums are about giving help and possible answers to peoples questions..... not making assumptions about who and what.......... if you have pro knowledge just answer the questions................. or please someone explain what?, other than that do you contribute to the forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By D H
Hi Ezee
"Is there any pros using this site that live in real world.............. the initial response to this post is typical of what annoys me about this site. does anyone actually give any useful advise these days....... help not hinder comes to mind.
these forums are about giving help and possible answers to peoples questions..... not making assumptions about who and what.......... if you have pro knowledge just answer the questions................. or please someone explain what?, other than that do you contribute to the forum?"
Hope you feel better for your rant,
But why did you respond? Were you positive in your comments??
Do you not use a checker as your use of grammar is diabolical???
This is a serious question and I thank you for coming down from your Golden tower to contribute.
However, I will close now to save me saying something the moderators may take action on.
Best regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
ezee,
The problem on this public part of the forum is that it gets a few wind-up merchants, coming on for a laugh. Out of the blue warderic came in with his hypothetical scenario which some saw as a ridiculous proposition and responded in a less than postive manner - unfortuneately eric included me in that lot! :o)
Once it sinks in, warderic's scenario is not all that unlikely and describes a situation that almost certainly prevails in some less than honest businesses. We all accept that now.
Think of another one. A small business buys a lot of old equipment, all need guards and e-stops. A year later the boss has only put guards on those that have caused accidents..... some members here might think that's a wind-up, but it's not, I've seen it :o|
John W
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Its amazing to see so many sad souls just like me on a Sunday still discussing a hypothetical question I put on this thread last week. However, its good to see that others like me do think about these things even at weekends. So far I have been personally insulted; although not too badly, agreed with, received apologies, accused and had the backing of the adjudicators. Cant wait till Monday when everyone switches on. By the way John, would like to have seen what the adjudicators took off the thread. Keep it coming everyone I'm sure there are lots more opinions out there good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John A Wright
Hi eric,
I keep getting notification on my e-mail program that someone has replied, and couldn't resist checking yesterday. I can't remember exactly what I said on the removed thread, but I was replying to your 'insult' about my research capabilities and I was throwing that back at you (for coming on this forum instead of researching) and the mods thought it argumentative ;o)
John
(Apologies to John W; I really must stop signing John W because there is another John W on here)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Wendi Gibson
No unfortunately it is not so far from the truth. Even in these days - a company celebrated 2 years without a RIDDOR/lost time accident. However during this glorious time, there was at least one person who was injured during an industrial accident; went to hospital and the next day was back at work, after some "encouragement", sitting at a desk job where he could do some work without aggrevating his injury. Consequently there was no 3-day reportable incident/injury. Although the need for a hospital visit makes me inclined to think it should have been reported whether he was away from work or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
Wendi, you will find that if an incident/accident results in an employee having to do a different job for over 3 days it is a RIDDOR.
John W, I didn't insult you I just gave tit for tat if that's the right expression. I'm sure your research skills are fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Wendi Gibson
Agreed, my point was only to support the fact that "massaging" of accident/incident figures does go on. The organisation in question wasn't a small business, but a national company with a number of awards for safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
I think "massaging" is a bit mild.
Conspiracy seems a better description.
The HSE seems to think that about 70% of riddor[able] accidents are not reported.
Given that their figures are usually about 100% out, in their favour, it may be that as many as 90% of accidents/injuries are not reported.
Since the riddor scheme seems to be a useless load of rubbish, I suggest it is scrapped totally. Then the department that oversees it can be [also] scrapped, and we [taxpayer] would save a bundle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By warderic
John R scraping RIDDOR to give the tax payer a rebate seems a little drastic. I'm surprised nobody has commented on that. What would you suggest replacing it with. I was once shot down for suggesting that instead of organisations being recognised for reducing RIDDOR incident i.e. by BSC etc. Organisations who increase their RIDDOR should be recognised instead. The theory being that there would be more reporting and more accurate annual figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.