RIDDOR Regs - Normal Duties definition Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

safetyman2010		#1 Posted : 14 May 2013 10:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

bilbo		#2 Posted : 14 May 2013 10:18:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

safetyman2010		#3 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:39:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

bilbo		#4 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:47:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		safetyman2010 - In those circumstances - likely to be RIDDOR reportable.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

HSE_Steve		#5 Posted : 14 May 2013 13:49:41(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

kdrew		#6 Posted : 14 May 2013 16:46:04(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		Some organisations have been known to broaden employees job descriptions for this very reason, to avoid reporting. Not that I would condone this approach.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Kate		#7 Posted : 14 May 2013 19:43:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Kate		#8 Posted : 14 May 2013 19:44:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		I don't see how broadening a job description would help - if you can't do everything in it, it's reportable.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Canopener		#9 Posted : 14 May 2013 20:04:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

kdrew		#10 Posted : 15 May 2013 07:58:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

DP		#11 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:23:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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!
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

DP		#12 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:24:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Sorry wording.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

S Gibson		#13 Posted : 15 May 2013 08:38:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user		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
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

redken		#14 Posted : 15 May 2013 09:49:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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",
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

DP		#15 Posted : 15 May 2013 10:30:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		Exactly redken.............
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Kate		#16 Posted : 15 May 2013 19:38:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user		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.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest