Posted By Kirsty Davies2
I would agree with the union. Any steps of such adjustments without backing of any approved research or precautionary document would deem unnecessary.

This could also be taken as discrimination against a pregnant woman. (Stress - She could use this as an excuse for any future miscarriage)

Passover

Posted By John Richards
Yes.

Posted By peter gotch 1
vblaney

I suggest that you might want to get an opinion from an occupational health practitioner WHILST still having regard to the precautionary principle.

It is going to be very difficult for one union to argue against a principle which is generally embedded in TUC policy unless it is clear that the level of potential risk is disprortionate to possible equal opportunities discrimination.

For some of the international case law that is relevant see http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=35882

Regards, Peter

Posted By TBC
I would suggest, given the history of the woman concerned that steps were taken to immediately remove her from any potential danger until further advice or information was available. If that further advice and information suggests no risk then return her to her normal (all be it light) duties after a risk assessment has been carried out with her taking part in that assessment. I don't see any discrimination here - it was done in the best interests of the pregnant woman and the unborn child.
On another matter of pregnant women - I was in a queue at a well known Swedish retailer in Toulouse yesterday. As we put our bits on the belt and about to be served a pregnant woman charged past us to the front, because it gave priority to pregnant women and disabled people. She would have been delayed about two or three minutes otherwise - hope she caught her bus to maternity unit OK. If she was that bad in pregnancy should she be out shopping?

Posted By D H
Very difficult scenario here - but John - as far as the "precautionary principle" is concerned, it also requires that just because there is no scientific facts to back up the fear of something going wrong, that is no defence in law for doing nothing at all.

Employers have the right to move any employee to any area as long as the new tasks are within their capability and their salary is not affected.

HASAWA also puts the onus of the employer to protect people against reasonably foreseeable risks. And just because there is no data to back this up, if the employer can show they have concern of harm in the risk assessment, this must be acted on.
I would then put the onus on the union to prove that the employer acted unreasonably.

Vblaney - have you spoken to the major power distribution companies to see what they do with their staff? Their methods may be argued to be "industry best practice"

Dave

Posted By jervis
Surprised at the Union rep as i am my self we are there to give advice and to make sure our members work in a safe environment. The lady involved should of been in the risk assessment if in any doubt removing her from the risk of exposure until you have got evidence against no risk surely is the best option.
Disagree with some of the other comments but want go in to them as we all have our own opinion on things some write some not!

Posted By Karen Todd
The only potential issues I can think of are:

1) Balance - as you grow big quickly, your centre of gravity changes accordingly, and some people's balance goes completely up the left.

2) Size - some people end up really huge, and in some areas there is very little working space.

Yes, I've been there & done that. I didn't climb any ladders while pregnant for reason 1) above. Biggest issue I had was with my lace-up safety boots - got to the stage where I couldn't do them up but got a zip-up pair and they were grand.

KT

Posted By Swis
I strongly agree with Kirsty, John, MP and GeoffB4.

Adjustments without any sufficient scientific knowledge - A definite discrimination case here!

Posted By peter gotch
The precautionary principle as expounded by the Government's former Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA)

"the absence of evidence of risk is not the same as evidence of absence of risk."

The possible risks associated with EMFs etc are subject to significant debate in Europe [and beyond] with a view to the potential for a further Physical Agents Directive.

The precautionary principle is precisely why there is current concern as to the possible occupational health and environmental risks associated with nanotechnology.

Regards, Peter

Posted By John Richards
The ILGA also stated:

Erring on the side of safety to account for uncertainty is very common. Indeed risk assessments are very often deliberately designed to be over-prudent. Rather than attempting to produce an explicit quantification of uncertainty, overcautious risk estimates are adopted that minimise the likelihood that additional information will reveal that they were in fact too low. Such risk assessments are in effect upper-bound estimates of risk. In other words, if more accurate risk assessments were available, they would very likely be much lower than the overcautious estimates and would be most unlikely to be any higher.

Adopting overcautious estimates has many drawbacks. They can produce results that are highly distorted, particularly if they are introduced at more than one stage in the assessment. Each individual introduction may appear sensible, but together they may have a multiplicative effect that produces results that are so overtly over-cautious as to be misleading. The approach can also assign incorrect priorities to risk and thereby distort the pattern of regulations. If different Departments, or different parts of the same Department adopt different procedures and different degrees of caution, the net result will be that some risks might be regulated too stringently and vice-versa.

Shortly before they were wound-up, and the treasury took over.

The pregnant lady is considerably more at risk at her own home. Especially if decorating.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/ab...ittees/ilgra/minrpt1.htm

http://www.hse.gov.uk/copyright.htm

Posted By John Richards
But the lady may not want to be moved.
The lady may take it as discrimination.
While it has been said on here that the reason for the caution is because of "electric fields", it could just as easily be said that the real reason if because she is a woman.
It seems to me (and after consultation with several others) that the "electric fields" scenario is rubbish.
She is much more at risk from falls, falls onto live wires (in spite of said live wires needing to be covered anyway) and possibly from fumes emitted from insulation/transformers, whatever !
The phrase "red herring" covers it ?

You may well consult her, and she may well agree. And then take action against the "discrimination".

Is she in a union ?
Probably you don't know.....some companies do not ask anymore......

Posted By peter gotch 1
Geoff,

I have a day job!

Just trying to provide an example of another potential risk that we have yet to fully evaluate.

Last week's Guardian article illustrates the concerns at high level.

It took several decades before the realisation that ionising radiations dose limits derived from Hiroshima were seriously out of touch with the real level of risk.

The jury is out on EMFs partly because all the studies have been localised, i.e we have not looked at them nationally to see whether localised increases in e.g. leukemia that are not identified as being statistically significant turn out to be so if we look at these studies in conjunction.

....and of course, the Canadians are using the sorts of arguments on this thread to continue advocating the mining, export and use of chrysotile against the perceived wisdom of most of the rest of the World.

P

Posted By GeoffB4
Despite your protestation, you generally correspond during the day, so normally I take it you respond in company time? Being self employed I can answer in my time with a clear conscience!

The question wasn't about nanotechnology and has no reference to nanotechnology, so why not concentrate on the subject instead of trying to sidetrack?

Posted By Kirsty Davies2
Wolseley Centers Ltd v Henderson (1991)

Verdict
“The employer's belief that employee’s duties would be hazardous to him was unreasonable in the light of medical evidence to the contrary. The employer had acted in fundamental breach of the contract of employment when it refused to allow employee to return to work.”