Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
13farrar  
#1 Posted : 21 September 2011 12:20:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
13farrar

Does anyone have a short (and frankly) blunt memo/notification/warning regarding "zero" tolerance of the after effects of D&A on operatives attempting to work on construction sites?

We just want to hammer home the message that workers can be:
a) removed or even banned from site without notice and at their expense.
b) subject to disciplinary measures including dismissal if directly employed.
c) relieved of company vehicle keys.


A deeper question would relate to the possession of keys for a non-company vehicle, and how far we can morally be involved in stopping individuals from driving away, once we have "guilty knowledge"?

I apologise if this one has been discussed in the recent past.
CDB193  
#2 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:03:42(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CDB193

I dont work in construction but we have an employee handbook which states ......

Disciplinary procedure
From time to time the company may be required to invoke the Disciplinary procedure, which is designed to protect your interests as well as those of the business. This Procedure is based on the ACAS Code of Practice for Discipline at Work (September 2004) and is compliant with all relevant legislation.

It goes onto say .......

No employee will be dismissed for a first breach of discipline except in the case of gross misconduct when the penalty may be dismissal without notice or payment in lieu of notice.

Gross misconduct
The following list provides some examples of offences, which are normally regarded as Gross Misconduct; they do not, however, constitute an exhaustive list: [Have cut this list down in size considerably]

- serious incapability through alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs
- serious negligence which causes, or may cause, unacceptable loss, damage or injury
- misuse of company property - bringing the company name into serious disrepute
- serious infringement of Health and Safety rules
13farrar  
#3 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:05:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
13farrar

Thank you CDB.
CDB193  
#4 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:16:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CDB193

13farrar
- just found the link to the ACAS document we use

http://www.acas.org.uk/m...Health_Work___Wellbeing_(August_2011).pdf

Got some good stuff on the legal implications if you dont deal with an employee under the influence etc ..at about page 26

Good luck

CDB193
SP900308  
#5 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:17:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SP900308

13farrar,

Does your company operate a system of testing for D&A, periodic or otherwise?

Simon
CDB193  
#6 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:19:43(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CDB193

We're in aviation so pilots etc all get routine testing, for the rest of the population no but have known of a couple of instances where managers have had to tackle the odd person who has "lunch off site" and the peer culture here is pretty robust

13farrar  
#7 Posted : 21 September 2011 14:28:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
13farrar

Simon, This is something we are contemplating right now.

We had one sub contractor's operative removed from site in July; that was easily dealt with, as we simply told the sub contractor not to send that individual to any of our sites in future.

We now have a suspicion about one of our directly employed men, so hence the contemplation for testing.
I think the best way is to "randomly" check all of the men on one particular site, without our target feeling like he is being singled out.
13farrar  
#8 Posted : 21 September 2011 15:33:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
13farrar

On the subject of "random" samples for drug testing, if we do decide to "target" our suspect, what is the recommended minimum number of workers we should test at the same period, so as not to appear unfair to the individual concerned?
We clearly don't want to give him a loop-hole.
NickH  
#9 Posted : 21 September 2011 17:05:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

Surely that would depend on how many workers were on a given site? I'd go with a workable percentage.
NickH  
#10 Posted : 21 September 2011 17:08:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH

I'd also be tempted to split that percentage across multiple (even unconnected?) trades.

However, if the person in question know's they are flying close to the wind; no matter how 'discreet' you make this exercise, I suspect they'll know where it is predominantly aimed.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.