Rank: Super forum user 
|
No Chris it would not be as the searcher does not interfere with the property of the one whom is being searched – therefore removing and issues if items are found – e.g. claims of he put it there are removed if searches are conducted in this manner
This is a boxed standard for employee searches (authorities excluded).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
What If an employee refuses to assist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don’t know for sure Chris as I am the safety manager not the security manager – however, given that staff searchers are in the T&C’s of employment I would assume that this would be seen as refusing a reasonable request. At this point within our organisation a suspension from duties (on full pay) would probably be the course of action taken followed by an investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:I wasn't really going anywhere DP but as you have answered there must surely be a way of preventing this. As I have said earlier stop asking employees to open/close their boot lids.
I know what you answered before but is it not practical to have the searcher open the boot, ask the owner to do the rummaging than the searcher closes the boot?
No, they would have to know how every boot operates. Which is more likely the searcher injuring themselves on an unfamiliar car or the owner trapping their hand in it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is going to be really popular I can feel it.
I would like to sack them for incompetence.
If they are that incapable of working safely with something they use on a regular basis and should be intimately familiar with then their concentration & attention span is probably insufficient for anything remotely complex!
Chris B I can see your point, however, I disagree.
We may have to agree to disagree!
What ever happened to the "you are responsible for your own acts and or omissions at work" ethic.
Now I don't expect employees to be exposed to risks for the sole benefit of the company, however, a security search is not just for the company, it is for the wider employees etc.
This is just wrong, I would be very worried about the performance of this employee in their "day job" if they can't do something as simple as close their own car boot without injuring themselves!
I really hope that the employees solicitor has to cough up for wasting the employers time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Paul,
It's unlikely that anything will be recovered from the solicitor, the insurers will write it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Having worked in Insurance for many years, including dealing with claims for the mines, I've seen a number of claims, from the simply ridiculous to the completely life changing.
If this had landed on my desk in a HSE capacity, I would repudiate it.
I can't see how this employee can claim this had anything to do with her work, or working conditions, despite her being on company premises. As DP stated, it's part of all the employees' contracts that vehicles can be stopped and searched. I feel that the IP should know how their boot operates, and would put this claim down to being clumsy or distracted. It sounds like bandwagoning to me.
If she'd done this at a supermarket, would she have sued them, because she happened to be in their carpark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would like the Mods to note that I am deliberately being a good girl and keeping my opinons to myself!! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
No the practice in the security industry is to ask the owner of the vehicle to open the boot, move items in the boot and to shut the boot. Security staff looks with their eyes not their hands. Security do not want the risk of being accused of stealing or damaging the searchees property. Furthermore it is safer for the security staff to allow the vehicle owner to open/close the boot and as the owner can be assumed to be more familiar with what hazards might be in the boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
haven't looked at this Forum for nealy two years, and it' s still as dire as ever
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
No, it worse than that...lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:I wasn't really going anywhere DP but as you have answered there must surely be a way of preventing this. As I have said earlier stop asking employees to open/close their boot lids.
I know what you answered before but is it not practical to have the searcher open the boot, ask the owner to do the rummaging than the searcher closes the boot?
Give it up now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ptaylor14 wrote:ChrisBurns wrote:I wasn't really going anywhere DP but as you have answered there must surely be a way of preventing this. As I have said earlier stop asking employees to open/close their boot lids.
I know what you answered before but is it not practical to have the searcher open the boot, ask the owner to do the rummaging than the searcher closes the boot?
Give it up now
Enough said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP - Just to check and help us understand this topic in a wider context, are the searches being conducted to detect products and/or other items which employees might be tempted to steal from the premises involved? If so, presumably such items are of sufficient size that their presence in someone's boot would be readily evident to the people conducting the visual searches of the car boots, even if sometimes they have to ask the car owners to move or open other boot contents. However, if the filchable items are small and easily concealed, it would seem that the searches are of little practical use - unless employees tend to be deterred from stealing such items because they know that searches are carried out and perhaps on a random basis.
Also, could it be that the searchers also use gut instinct and experience to mentally assess a stopped employee's reactions and behaviour just before and during a search? TV documentaries about customs officers or traffic police officers for example seem to show such instinct and experience is involved in their work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Mental...
I never usually peruse the IOSH forums but the differing opinions expressed by similarly qualified 'professionals' astounds me. Anyone who tries to justify the actions of someone harming themselves, whilst using their own property, in an everyday activity must surely hold the rank of sargent major in the 'elf and safety' brigade!
Control measure the Daily Mail can pick up on - Lets get yellow bumber stickers denoting a 'trapping hazard' made compulsary for all cars, perfectly reasonable...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I haven't been on this board for quite some while. I now remember why.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I must agree with Geoff :-)
Competency - Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs
Risk - Probability x Severity
Have these all really been taken into consideration before delving in depth into opening ones car boot door?
I will leave this discussion to its own devices now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Is there a risk assessment for security staff carrying out a boot search - yes or no?
the ssow is for the security officer carrying out the vehicle search,the ra is in place for searching hgv.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Wow I can't believe this post has been going for nearly 4 weeks - astounding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.