Posted By holmezy
Mike,

unless, in some way, your driver was employed in the delivery of bees, or collection of honeycombe then it aint reportable in my book.

Not related to work.

Holmezy

Posted By holmezy
Arran,

so based on your logic,

if you were at work in an office, and a bee flew in through the window, and then stung you, which you subsequently had a reaction, and then went to hospital, you would report it?

I assume that you do not work with bees?

I certainly wouldn't report. What would be the point?

Holmezy

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
It is an accident which occurred at work resulting in an acute illness requiring medical treatment arising from a substance through the skin. RIDDOR is not always as straight forward as you would expect.

Have a look at http://www.ihsti.com/tem...9-CIS888614800252385.pdf

If there is any doubt the RIDDOR reporting facility will soon be able to advise if it is reportable or not.

Posted By Brian Hagyard
Mike

I would put it in the accident book - after all it was an accident (unless you intended the bee to sting him). However I agree its not notifiable under RIDDOR unless there was some other reason for the bee being there (can I say that?)such as the reasons already given - or a swarm of bees in the truck that had been reported but not actioned. Lone bee fly in through open window of a truck on road and stings someone - definitely not RIDDOR.

Brian

Posted By Heather Collins
Arran - you're not seriously suggesting this was a reportable major injury are you? (The section you have quoted is one of the major injury definitions)

I would put this in the accident book but would not report it. Not "arising out of or in connection with work" from the facts given here.

Now if the guy was employed as a bee-keeper that would be different.

Posted By graeme12345
You have got to be careful, the guy might take you to task for,
1. Buying the vehicle (i assume it does not have air conditioning fitted)not suitable under puwer
2. The company should have could foreseen that in summer time it is hot (so you should have purchased a vehicle with air conditioning)and an employee would open the window
3. the risk assessment was not adequate, because it did not assess a bee might fly in the open window (which is foreseeable)in hot weather.
3. Did you inform the employee at induction about vehicle use (in hot weather)

Posted By Pete48
Oh, what a wonderful thing to be,
A healthy grown up busy busy bee;
Whiling away all the passing hours
Stinging all the drivers in their company cars.
I'd like to be a busy little bee,
Being as busy as a bee can be.
Flying round the roads, brightest ever seen
RIDDOR needs my stinging for a counting bean.
Busy bee, busy bee.
(with apologies to one A.Askey Esq)
I am shocked that no-one has asked after the current state of health of the innocent bee. Bees are after all the hardest workers we know. So it might not be "at work" for the driver but it is for the bee:)

To answer the question, not reportable in my view. I wouldn't put it in the accident book either. I would record it on the personal file and make sure that adequate follow up is done with the employee re any possible allergies highlighted as a result of this incident.

Posted By justin ryan
hi mike colborne
put it in the accident book
from
justin ryan

Posted By MT
Oh dear, we seem to have got into yet another debate about RIDDOR, and Mike only asked if he should put it in his accident book!

Yes Mike, I'd say write it in your accident book, and after that - do nothing.

Posted By holmezy

To All,

This is the first post for a long time that I've enjoyed so much that I've rushed into work in order to check its progress!!

I'm still adamant that its not reportable.

Pete48: noted that bees are ususally at work, and don't bees die when they have expended their one and only sting? Surely we are looking at a fatal here? If it was a honey bee then chances are it was working for the Queen, so she has a duty to report, plus she'll have a lot of explaining to do re guards, danderous substamces etc etc and lack of controls. Was the bee trained to use his sting? If it was a bumble bee, then it was probably self employed, so there may be Mrs Bumble sitting at home anxiously looking at the clock thinking that Mr Bumble is late home today. Our thoughts should go out to her!

Barry on the other hand was advised to check whether the wasp (similar to a bee but much nastier) was just passing by and attacked an innocent person (non reportable), or was it from the nest and acting in self defence (reportable). Surely, in modern society, this is wrong. If we were walking down the street and were subjected to an un-provoked attack from a stranger, surely this is a crime and should be reported? Whereas, we are happily sitting in our living room when someone breaks in, surely we are allowed to reasonably repel him without fear of being reported? If an Englishmans home is his castle then surely a wasps home is his nest,,,,,unless he rents? He may be an unpaid worker which is a whole new problem!

The investigation obviously centres around whether the wasp was from the nest or a passer by? Where do we start on that one, assuming of course that we identify the correct wasp in the first place.

If I don't read another post today, I'll be happy!


Holmezy

Pedigree was so good last night that its favourite again tonight......anyone join me?

Posted By Fornhelper
I think we're all agreed the bee was at work - what I want to know is, as it was obviously not part of a swarm, did it have a lone working assessment carried out !!

Why not give the HSE a buzz and ask them :-)

FH

Posted By MT
Indeed Mike. I bet you wish people would just let it bee. ;-)

Posted By Zyggy Turek
This may well have been a honey trap & I think that you should comb the area just in case there are any more misbehiving...:-)

Posted By MP Grayson
Nice thread with a few good puns used along the line.

RIDDOR, nah, no way in this case, forget that. Mike you now need to get to the real issue.

You have one foreseeable risk to look at. You have a fellow employee who is allergic to bee stings. So take 15 minutes of your time out with him and his line manager. Get it written down in/on his records and make sure he knows that in the event of another sting, he goes directly to A&E. Reassure him that he is not going to get the heave-ho by recording the allergy. Putting it on his record will stop anyone from accusing him of skiving if he goes to A&E and it will in effect protect him.

This is a minor issue for you but could be a big issue for him. 15 minutes work is all it will take to put this one to bed.

Job done = crack on.

P.S. Do the London Wasps Rugby Club have a B team?

Posted By kanta
It required an overnight stay in hospital,and happened while he was working.Report as RIDDOR

Posted By safety medic
All,

Just to clarify on the poor guy who lies in hospital whislt we all debate where to fill out a report or not, he may not actually be allergic at all.

As the last post identifies, bee stings are toxins. The reaction the worker experienced is a normal reaction to bee sting, albeit a bad one. Reaction will depend on the amount of toxin released. Advising to go immeditale to A&E following another bee sting is incorrect advice, medical in nature and outside of most people scope on this site.

On the matter of RIDDOR - what is eveyone scared of? Report or don't report. Report, fill out form, HSE read form, decide not to pursue, matter closed. Dont report, slim chance of medical/industrial claim, no record of injury. Takes your chances. Reporting is not an admission of liability so answer the question yourself - why not report? If it not required to be reported but you do, no-one is going to come chasing. If you dont report/record up to 3 years later you may just wish you had.

As for the small matter of whether this was at work. If a operative goes to the toilet and traps his finger in the toilet door - is this a work related accident? First aid book? If out on site and wind blows dust into operatives eye, first aid book?

In both cases work was not actually being done, neither are work related but I suspect that most would put it in the book. Why not in this case?

Thanks for the thread, got me through Sunday morning at work!

Posted By Adam Worth
QUOTE: "On the matter of RIDDOR - what is evey one scared of?"

CORPRATE!!! Those numbers on the LTA board I can see out my window mean an awfull lot to some people!

In response to another post above - I have a guy who went home with hay fever! 3 day reportable??? I think not. Biological agent tho?? I think there's got to bee a sensible line drawn.

Posted By Tabs
John, as Adam wrote, some of us have to compile figures for others to view and compare. Needless reporting leads to complications and poor ratings.

It is also just poor practice - if you report a bee sting that does not need reporting under the specifications of the Regulations, why not report cuts and bruises that don't need reporting either?

Posted By Pete48
Why does this sort of over reporting of stuff clearly never intended for inclusions in the collection and collation of national accident and ill health data keep coming up on this site?
Maybe the recent studies by HSE give some clues.
The data available from RIDDOR is used in two key ways
-provides timely information to steer specific enforcement interventions;
-statistical data for targeting and measurement on injuries and ill health;

And yet:-
"Stakeholders have said RIDDOR is complex and confusing. Compliance levels are poor overall and reduce effectiveness in both the above areas. Levels vary widely by sector and size of undertaking. Compliance is generally good among larger firms, but gets much worse with the decreasing size of the firm."
There are concerns that the compliant are disadvantaged by being targeted for enforcement, and potentially excluded from tendering for work by some organisations."
"Formal enforcement driven by investigating RIDDOR reports is skewed, as it targets employers that comply. Others remain largely untargeted, yet it is arguable these employers are less likely to manage health and safety effectively."
"Employers that do comply may be penalised in tendering processes where they are required to disclose the number of RIDDOR Reportable incidents and may lose out to employers who do not have any disclosed RIDDOR reportable accidents precisely because they do not comply and keep RIDDOR records."

Lots of both positive and negative reasons in that for not just reporting as a default position.

Hey, perhaps we need an offence for falsely reporting under RIDDOR? Misleading the national efforts to reduce accidents and ill health "arising from or in connection with work". That would surely fill this forum up for a few weeks!

Bee that as it May, a seed sown for a flower to germinate and be pollinated by hard working bureaucratic bee. How ironic would that bee?