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
multuminparvo  
#1 Posted : 27 January 2012 15:30:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

When is a salaried member of staff not at work? Scenario - Council service user threatens to kill Social Worker who is involved in the removal of child from family. Social Worker is attacked outside their home whilst not on duty. Injuriers serious. Police involved. Is this work related - the effect of 'arising out of or in connection with work'; injuries subsequent of an act of non-consensual physical assault and therefore reportable under RIDDOR. I believe so but thoughts of others greatly appreciated.
DaveDowan  
#2 Posted : 27 January 2012 15:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DaveDowan

Hi I would say that it is work related and reportable, regards Dave
DP  
#3 Posted : 27 January 2012 15:42:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

To clarify - SW was at work during the removal of the child The attack takes place at the SW's home whilst off duty at another point in time?
MB1  
#4 Posted : 27 January 2012 15:57:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MB1

I would expect if it has been identified that the attack was in relation to the SW then would be reportable. If reported I would highly expect this would be flagged up and followed up be the EA so an in depth review of lone working and especially in relation to violence and what systems are in place to help protect workers. The follow up will be just as important?
barnaby  
#5 Posted : 27 January 2012 16:06:04(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

How could anyone argue it's not " - - in connection with work"
pete48  
#6 Posted : 27 January 2012 16:13:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

Reportable if it is clear that the violence occurred as a direct result of the 'work' of child protection. The timing and location are not really relevant in such cases as long as there is a clear link. No if it is a result of a personal matter not related to that current work. P48
multuminparvo  
#7 Posted : 27 January 2012 16:22:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
multuminparvo

Morally and statutory it is unquestioned that all should be done 'so far as is reasonably practicable' to minimise and control the risk and affect. But as for a duty of the employer to report that is the question. Police withold intellegence on attacker who has a record (Data Protection etc) from Safety Team so RA is potentially weak. Where does reasonably practicable sit here - with the employer or the Police? I repeat I believe it to reportable but I'm grateful for the comments coming in. Any Police Safety Officers out there consider serious assaults to Police of duty as a retaliation to their worktime activities as RIDDOR?
Shineon55  
#8 Posted : 27 January 2012 21:58:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Shineon55

I think this needs to be taken back to basics. If the employee was not at work, then they weren't at work and it wasn't reportable under RIDDOR - and it was a case of serious assault actionable by the police. "Conduct of the undertaking" does not stretch to owing a duty of care outwith hours of employment in HSWA terms. A threat was made, and was possibly carried out (assuming guilt for the purposes of the question). I think the moral and legal need to be separated out. What if the assault had taken place in the middle of the night, at the weekend, if the two had bumped into each other unexpectedly in a shop. Practically, what can an employer do to stop an employee being assaulted when they are not at work? The moral aspect is possibly a different, more complex question.
barnaby  
#9 Posted : 27 January 2012 22:56:28(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

I agree that for injuries to employees to be reportable the employee must be at work, but if they are not at work wouldn't it be reportable (assuming the other criteria are met) under:
Quote:
any person not at work suffers an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in connection with work and that person is taken from the site of the accident to a hospital for treatment in respect of that injury
Irrespective of whether or not it is reportable (and I know the OP acknowledges this) I don't think the employer can wash their hands of of it. I would expect the employer to carry out a thorough investigation to see whether the systems it has in place for staff undertaking such work are fit for purpose. For example, to consider whether the action taken when threats were made was appropriate. I am aware of cases where serious threats to similar staff have resulted in "safe houses" being provided.
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.