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
safetyman2010  
#1 Posted : 14 May 2013 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
safetyman2010

Hi, With regards to making a definition of 'normal duties' under RIDDOR regs what are peoples thoughts/practices in relation to this? If you qualify Lost time where the injured person is unable to carry out duties that would be reasonably expected of them as part of their normal duties - what would most companies define as as normal duties?? Training, Risk assessment review, other manual tasks and processes? Thanks
bilbo  
#2 Posted : 14 May 2013 10:18:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bilbo

safetyman2010 - not sure I get your drift here?. Normal duties are those duties that the individual was employed to undertake. If they are unable to carry these out due to an incident at work then RIDDOR applies surely? Or have I not understood your question?
safetyman2010  
#3 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:39:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
safetyman2010

Hi, sorry might not have explained properly. If an employee has an accident and cannot do their current job but can do another alternative task within the workplace would this still fall under the RIDDOR regs as reportable? E.g. Carries out training of other staff, reviewing risk assessments, writing SOPs, Working on an a different line. Thanks
bilbo  
#4 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:47:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bilbo

safetyman2010 - In those circumstances - likely to be RIDDOR reportable.
HSE_Steve  
#5 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:49:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
HSE_Steve

It would yes, they have to be able to carry out the full range of their normal duties. You cant even say that they wouldn't be doing that particular task today - if they can't do whatever could potentially be required of them for over 7 days then its reportable.
kdrew  
#6 Posted : 14 May 2013 16:46:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kdrew

Some organisations have been known to broaden employees job descriptions for this very reason, to avoid reporting. Not that I would condone this approach.
Kate  
#7 Posted : 14 May 2013 19:43:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If they are put on "light duties" because they are not fit to do everything they normally do - then (if it's for more than 7 days and caused by a work-related injury) it is reportable.
Kate  
#8 Posted : 14 May 2013 19:44:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I don't see how broadening a job description would help - if you can't do everything in it, it's reportable.
Canopener  
#9 Posted : 14 May 2013 20:04:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I can almost hear Ian B's groans of frustration. This question does at least seem to be one of those attempting to 'weedle' out of reporting. Come on; the reporting criteria are just about as clear as they can be in this particular respect. Either the IP can do their normal duties or not. If they can't and they can't for longer than 7 days (not including the day of the injury) then it's reportable.
kdrew  
#10 Posted : 15 May 2013 07:58:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
kdrew

Kate, just because you can't do ALL of your normal duties doesn't make it reportable. As an example, if you normally drive for a living but are unable to do so as a result of a back injury recieved during unloading but your job description includes working in the office (so called "light duties") then you you are still able to perform your normal duties and therefore need not report. Whether or not you agree with this approach is largely academic, it happens. As I said I don't condone this approach. Kevin
DP  
#11 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:23:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

As with much of the working in L73 its interpretation again - "being unable to undertake a full range of duties" can if wished be read 2 ways!
DP  
#12 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:24:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

Sorry wording.
S Gibson  
#13 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:38:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
S Gibson

Surely the easiest way is to look at contract of employment,if an employee has had an accident and cannot carry out their contractual duties it is reportable,or am I missing the point
redken  
#14 Posted : 15 May 2013 09:49:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
redken

Use the words in the regulation not in the guidance which anyway in this matter does not address the issue: "for work of a kind which he might reasonably be expected to do",
DP  
#15 Posted : 15 May 2013 10:30:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
DP

Exactly redken.............
Kate  
#16 Posted : 15 May 2013 19:38:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

If you can't do all of your normal duties, you can't do the full range of your normal duties. The two phrases are synonymous.
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.