Rank: Super forum user 
|
Forget the technicalities of this specific case, it has happened and should now be defended or conceded on its own merits, personally I whould say dig your heals in and fight it. But, the wider aspect of protecting employess by wearing bump caps is not that expensive, Just looked on a well known supplier and they cost as little as £4.08p plus VAT each (remember the company can claim the VAT bit back). If you want some sort of style to make it more actractive to get staff to wear them they are available in baseball cap style at a cost of £8.55 each. There are a lot of people working in distribution warehouses but not for the same employer so the total number employed is not a reason for an individual employer to cry too expensive. Say a company has two hundred staff working in such places the cost would be less that £850. It wont be the total answer but it could be a lot cheaper than a court settlement and a possible HSE instruction in the form of an improvement notice or even a prohibition notice for a simple answer in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Safety equipment is zero rated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
One of the issues which I think has been covered is that generally it is too expensive to defend...even though we may want to just to prove a point...did it once over a £10k claim cost just short of £75k + time etc. Was it worth it? Well H&S system was vindcated, reduced small claims slightly for a period...but best for the business...? I'm sure I would get away with that now in this climate..
Most claims are under £10k and it takes in the region of £50k+ to defend them..better to agree a lower figure no blame...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
I can totally believe what you are saying, the same has happened with our site, all processes in place and training up to date for a task, Operative done the task for years and still make a claim against us. More & more now we are fighting these claims, they are starting to slow down as everyone realises we will fight, & we are winning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bob
On the basis of what has been said about this "injury" are you seriously suggesting the HSE/LA would serve an improvement notice for bump caps?
Next we will be issuing steel gloved to office workers to prevent paper cuts!
Control measures should be proportional to the risk - I have still seen no evidence that bump caps should be worn in most warehouse situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I'm going to jump back in with my two penneth's worth again.
The pro bump cap party have stated they see no reason why bump caps shouldn't be worn in warehouses.
Perhaps not but it was a roll cage that caused in the injury, roll cages don't stay in warehouses, they go on lorries to shops and supermarkets where they are rolled on to the sales floor to replenish stock.
Are you seriously suggesting that you would expect to see the shop floor staff of your local supermarket wearing bump caps whilst they re-stock your wheatyflakes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Safety Smurf wrote: Perhaps not but it was a roll cage that caused in the injury, roll cages don't stay in warehouses, they go on lorries to shops and supermarkets where they are rolled on to the sales floor to replenish stock.
Are you seriously suggesting that you would expect to see the shop floor staff of your local supermarket wearing bump caps whilst they re-stock your wheatyflakes?
This is important when looking at the practicability of providing bump caps. if you were to introduce the policy it would have to apply to all who "come into contact" with roll cages; warehouse operatives picking, delivery drivers manoeuvring and shop floor staff unloading.
The number of persons who would need bump caps then shoots up. Plus the fact that a safe system of work, if correctly followed by trained operatives (as seems to be the case with the OP) and suitably monitored to ensure compliance, would seem appropriate to me.
bob shillabeer wrote:There are a lot of people working in distribution warehouses but not for the same employer so the total number employed is not a reason for an individual employer to cry too expensive. Say a company has two hundred staff working in such places the cost would be less that £850.
A lot of retailers, us included, have far more than 200 staff in warehouses that would pick / move roll cages, in the region of 1000 for us.
Taking the point about all persons that use roll cages, you'd then be looking, for us at least at 8000+ employees. At that point the costs mount up (and we're by no means one the "big" retailers). It wouldn't be a one off cost either, there would need to be a ready supply of replacements etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
stevedm wrote:Most claims are under £10k and it takes in the region of £50k+ to defend them..better to agree a lower figure no blame...
And that is the real 'monster' of the current system right there. If those figures are correct (not doubting just dont know) then that surely is one of the worst outcomes of the Woolf reforms? That and this specific example of a claim for a minor injury suggests that whilst individual access to justice may have improved an employers abiltiy to defend a claim has been significantly reduced. Which ever side you see this from it is just plain crazy
Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread but this seemed, to me, a very relevant point in this discussion.
p48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
why cant you just sack him obviously a trouble maker!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
psycho wrote:why cant you just sack him obviously a trouble maker!!!!!!!
And pay out again. This time for unfair dismissal!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
In order to win a case of Negligence, basically 3 things need to be demonstrated, that a duty of care was owed, the duty of care was breached, and that there was resultant damage. I think I would argue that the duty of care was not breached, supply the NWNF solicitor with your risk assessment, SSOW, training records etc and see if they continue!
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=Baker30611]In order to win a case of Negligence, basically 3 things need to be demonstrated, that a duty of care was owed, the duty of care was breached, and that there was resultant damage. I think I would argue that the duty of care was not breached, supply the NWNF solicitor with your risk assessment, SSOW, training records etc and see if they continue!
Mike
Who will fund it? You will have to enter into the black hole that is 'suitable and sufficient'....
There was damage
Therefore there was a breach
You always did owe him a duty
Not a logic I hold with but costly to prove otherwise for minor claim..expert witnesses, engineering reports..
Like I said before you may wish to make a stand then enter with a flexible budget...:) I would put a smiley here but can't...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This will go nowhere because of course you will have the goverment, IOSH, BSC, the HSE, ROSPA and all the other H&S bodies one after the other in the witness box saying that 'common sense' must provail. Oh no sorry they all stand around saying what must be done but are never willing to back it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Its still going strong then!!!
No way in a million years is a reasonable employers who complies with the law and follows sound proven risk management principles is ever gong to end up issuing bump camps for loading and unlading roll cages - the against bunch - you have said it all in many forms and you are spot on.
One thing I'd like to add and I touched on it with a previous post when I stated 'direct to PPE' would worsen the problem.
You can just see how this would pan out?
Once you start issuing out PPE in silly circumstances you create a negative culture - as Jake said - if you issue PPE to a set of employees operating cages then all others operating them require caps to, it’s the same operation - you've 'self regulated' yourself into this position.
Do you want to walk into a supermarket chain and see the girls stacking shelf with pumps camps on having to be ridiculed by shoppers and they would - 'them have head office have made us would be the cry' It would get in the mail for sure!
Now to the serious matter - you ridiculed those staff how are they going to take management and real safety measures seriously? There is more - it will be seen as silly measure by the employees and indeed first line managers - the PPE use wont be controlled - there will be piles of the things back of house.
The next bump on the head is on its way to being a genuine claim because the managers have failed to in the company controls of making the PPE mandatory. Yes there will be contrib by the claimant for not wearing it. Now technically you could be in trouble with enforcers too - you have issued them and your not enforcing their use. Doubtful I know but!!
Now we move on and the next safety manager coming in is a sensible one - how is he going to get out this silly not thought out control measure- he cant - you have screwed him because if he removes the PPE - every bumped head is a genuine claim and you wont be able to defend it because the Lawyers will have you by them good and proper. They removed the protection will be the next cry? They took the bumps caps off us.
The workforce will cotton and you WILL be getting bumped heads every week and you will be paying out a lot more.
It times like this I feel like giving up………………………….. I am glad its Friday and I'm an hour away from a bevvi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.