Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all,
A little puzzle for you, from a colleague who asked my advicxe..... He works on a COMAH site who employ security personnel through an agency. There is a dept manager for the main company and a manager for the agency company.
One of the security guys seriously injured his leg tendons during a fall. he was "off work for five days" however the two managers paid him a little visit and advised if he came back on "light duties" he would receive his full pay. Consequently the employee did as he was advised.
I strongly suspect that the incdient was not reported under RIDDOR.
Any advice regrading potential sanctions for these two would be helpful.
CLearly breaches of RIDDOR reporting and ethical behaviour... anymore ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I don’t know about others but with the information provided …………………..!
You say that you SUSPECT that it was not reported under RIDDOR, and then that there was CLEARLY a breach of RIDDOR. Those two statements appear somewhat at odds with each other!
Similarly given the brevity of the information provided I am not sure if there was necessarily anything unethical about the visit. If the IP wasn’t going to be paid for being off sick (many employers and agencies don’t pay contractual sick pay) but could return on light duties with or without a ‘may be fit note’, it seems to me that they have given him the opportunity to return to work and sustain his earnings. That isn’t in itself unethical. Is it? Arguably this is what the ‘may be fit note’ system is intended to do.
As for ‘sanctions’, again with the limited information I am not sure if they have done anything wrong, and therefore whether any ‘sanctions’ are needed.
I except to get a bit of a hammering but with the information provided, I wouldn’t want to be judge’ jury and executioner without more/more reliable information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Another side to this, and its "morality". Was the incident investigated, a cause found and preventative measures taken?
If, indeed, they did not report it as a RIDDOR then they are in breach of the regs. Were they trying to help the IP, or was it a ploy to sweeten him so an EL claim didn't fall on their desk?
I must have my cynical head on today.
As Phil rightly said, the information posted needs to factual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I am with phil Rose on this one, I have worked with an employer who would visit his employees and see how he could help them return to work, to enable a steady income when sick pay was poor or none existent, no underlying reaons, education is what is required in this case not punishment or sanctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
mark - I am supposing you're not in a position to verify whether a RIDDOR report was lodged. But can you say whether an appropriate entry was made in the site accident book / records?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It makes no difference if it was reported or not. That's why Lord Young put forward the changes to RIDDOR in the first place. It matters nothing if it is reported or not, this only messes up the HSE figures, so what is being lost????? Most organisations dont care about telling someone if they are guilty in some way so dont tell anyone is the general opinion, see RSSB report on Netwrk Rail reporting process. The important thing was the accident investigated and any action required actually carried out, now that would do more to prevent it happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I agree that the investigation/prevention step is the most important but all the while companies pay bonuses on the lack of "reportables" the implied massaging of figures in the OP will occur.
Heard of a case recently where the IP was told that he'd be paid for the couple of weeks he was off sick following an accident if he signed a disclaimer that he'd take no action against the company or report the accident to the authorities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ian, this does happen, and happened to my brother many years ago. However, I would like to think it is very much the exception rather than the rule. That is clearly an unethical and 'illegal' approach and such a 'disclaimer' would surely be worthless. After all who on earth would be so foolish as to produce it and to whom? I can just see the wry smile on the face of our local principal HSE inspector!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.