hi there there is no time limit relating to when a work related accident can be reported by a member of staff. It is natural to be cynical as I would expect people to report ASAP but I've seen posts on this forum in the past where people have reported 6 months to 1 year later - I would be very suspicious about that. Rather than determing it as non-work related which is difficult why not try to encourage your staff to report straight away - the quicker they report the quicker you can deal with it to stop it happening again. good luck!

Hi Rosy, I have been encouraging staff to report accidents at the time, and will re-enforce this message in the Memo. With regards late reporting. Lets look at this scenario as an example. An employee had a 4 week period of absence between July and August. The employee did not relate his absence as work related injury, and during his return to work interview in September he was again asked if the injury (back ache) was work related - he said no. However, more recently, HR have stepped in because of regular absences from work. During an interview with HR to discuss his record he told HR his 4 week absence was related to work! I dont feel I need to record this as an accident as he has previously stated the incident was not work related. What are you thoughts? This is just 1 of 3 non-reported incidents in the past 1/4.

I wouldn't under any circumstance use that "threat". It will not bring any positive response on any number of levels. Spurious reports are a fact of life and you will not improve that by threatening people. You may not see it as a threat but others will; especially those you currently suspect! Do your investigations professionally and where you find evidence of false claims then make sure you HR/Mgmt people follow it up with the individuals concerned. If late reporting is not related to the onset of symptoms post incident then again get HR/Mgmt on the case. If you want to write anything, talk about the need for prompt reporting because of the positives not he negatives. p48

The trouble with this statement is that late reporting is not grounds to say an injury wasn't work-related. Is the scenario something like the following: Solicitor: My client was hurt. Pay him compensation. You: He reported it late, so I've determined it wasn't work-related. Solicitor: OK, I'll take your word for it that it wasn't work-related and withdraw the case.

Fair enough - im just extremely annoyed with the current spate! In hindsight having a line like that in the Memo wont encouraging the reporting, or help build a positive culture. TBH - I am sick to the back teeth with the Managers and Supervisors (by title only) within this area of our site. I would encourage our solicitors to fight any case which was not reported as a workplace accident at the time, but months later was raised during HR investigations into absenteeism. All employees know the reporting procedure, its in their handbook, on the notice board and they all had a similar Memo 18 months ago. Its is so frustrating!

Bruce as I indicated above, the employee needs a doctor's report to support his late claim. Your lawyers will ask for it.

Line in your policy that states (or words to the effect of) 'All accidents at work must be reported as soon as possible after the event or in any case within 48 hours- failure to do so will result in the recording and investigation of such being at your line Managers discretion.' - 'This approach is in everybodies interest'. Go via your safety committee, get agreement with your union and get it included (and the all important signature) however you usually do at your place of work. If its not reported within 48 hours it didn't happen. Served me well for the last 15 years.

Think you are on thin ice here especially where accidents involving musculoskeletal injuries are involved. You must have a pretty. Why do you quote "As soon as possible" if you then quote "within 48 hours" Either Or in my opinion. Besides this might not be possible to hit the 48 hour target if it involves Riddor!

Thin Ice from what? If thats the policy - thats the policy. An accident happens at a definative point in time 1 second before no accident, 1 second after - post accident. Reasons for both is the spirit is ASAP but 48 hours gives a clear cut off - Of course this is not Possible (in effect) with RIDDOR but you would know about that anyway and would have already started the investigation. Lets not get mixed up with accident investigation and claims defence. One does not always equate to the other. There will always be a scenario that challenges your policy/stance but do whats best for most of the time. IMO you may even adopt for recording anytime you like (weeks, months later) but I would not waste a Managers time filling in an investigation when there is nothing left to investigate because of the passage of time. Again, you have to do whats correct for you, your organisation and the spirit of what your trying to achieve.

Had a similar issue to Bruce a few years ago in a previous organisation. We went through a period of 5 or 6 months when a number of accidents started to be reported several days or even weeks after the alleged incident with no witnesses. Common theme was that the individuals concerned had poor attendance records and were either already in the disciplinary procedures for this or had been warned they faced it if their attendance did not improve. If the absence was as a result of an accident, their attendance recorded would not be affected. Some would report their non-attendance as being due to an accident when ringing in on the first day, where as others did not mention an accident until their return to work interview, which in some cases was several weeks later. We addressed this by updating the accident reporting policy and procedure. In it, we stated that :- - all employees had a duty under Section 7 of HASAWA to co-operate with the Company to enable it to comply with its legal duties. - all accidents must be reported before leaving site at the end of the shift on which the accident happened. - any accidents not reported in this time frame would not be considered a works accident, but would be logged - any employees not reporting accidents within this timeframe will be considered to be in breach of Section 7 and could face disciplinary procedures Some of you might think this a heavy handed approach, but it worked. It put an end to the issue and the feedback through the grape vine from the shop floor was actually positive, because it was felt that the individuals who had been involved with this were trying to play the system and that management had addressed it in a fair way.

We can agree to disagree Ron :-) It's totally clear and robust (I'm trying not to describe word for word - else I'd copy and paste the whole policy here - I'm giving you the bones - please hang the flesh off and assume we all know the law) The process I have described works for UK Manufacturing and is an option available for the OP to put in place to rid him of his 'problem'. It works but there will always be more than one way to skin a cat.

B Bruce, I have experienced similar issues where I previously worked. I found that informing the staff of the reporting procedure, how to complete the accident/incident record and finally investigate (depth of investigation related to incident type and elapsed time of reporting) worked well. Where we believed that the accident may be not true we would also inform our insurers of this matter and they would investigate with this in mind, once this was know by the workforce it seemed that the reporting improved and that the people who had dubious accident,s seem to either stop or that individual left as they could no longer have time off when not related to an accident at work I suggest that you communicate your intentions with all staff so they are fully aware, this will in turn get them involved and as staed in an earlier post seems to wheedle out the less honest. Regards PaulR