Definitely a near miss (unsafe act). Worth reporting, investigating and getting to the bottom of.

It's an unsafe act, which is also a 'near miss' because no injury occurred but could have if he had fallen or the ladder had toppled over. Suggest you find out why he needed to access the top of the ladder before launching into any disciplinary matters. A basic briefing on safe use of ladders/step ladders is probably all that is needed.

Classic example of why "near miss" is such a poor term. I have a client that calls them "safety learning opportunities". Use that term instead and it instantly becomes clear that this most definitely is!

Whether it a near miss or not, to me the important bit is; Why was he using a ladder that was too short? Sort out the safe system of work and provision of equipment that is suitable for the task, not the book answer to a definition. Enjoy the sunshine, Jim

Why do you think he is not an engineer? Strange comment to make.

Are you suggesting that he can't be an engineer because engineers would not act in this?

I don't think anyone has claimed it is RIDDOR reportable. Your list isn't an accurate list of what is RIDDOR reportable anyway.

Disciplinary action is wholly inappropriate unless proper investigation of the actual circumstances and related background such as training and perhaps actual practice (as opposed to what managers and/or safety professionals, etc., think happens or should happen) has been carried out and identifies that the person involved has chosen to work unsafely without good reason. Pursuing disciplinary action without clear justification is blatantly unfair and furthermore is liable to bring safety into disrepute. Bad news travels faster than good news! During my time with HSE I visited a paper mill to investigate a significant scalding accident to an employee at its water treatment plant. The employer had carried out what seemed to be a cursory investigation based mainly on information from witnesses and the employee's supervisor. However, nobody had really bothered to talk to the employee who was being blamed for doing a stupid act which resulted in his injury. After taking photos and making some sketches I went to visit the injured employee (still recovering either in hospital or at home) and learned that the plant had been modified along with his working arrangements some weeks or months before the accident occurred. As a result he found he was expected to be in two or more different places at the same time and could no longer do his job properly. I think he also raised this aspect with his supervisor but sadly to no avail. My investigations found that the injured employee had been wrongly blamed when in fact the systems of work were at fault alongside failure to heed "feedback" from the employee. I can't readily recall whether my investigation led me to serve an enforcement notice and/or pursue prosecution, but do remember feeling considerable satisfaction from having unearthed the true circumstances behind the accident. As regards the person on the ladder - and likewise for similar scenarios - don't get bogged down with definitions, but do investigate the situation and the wider circumstances and then use the findings as an opportunity, if appropriate, to make practical changes to equipment, systems of work and/or training!

I cannot believe how many practitioners wish to resort to disciplinary action before the matter is properly investigated. Health and safety must be detached from disciplinary matters for many good reasons. It is not out of the question, but must be the last resort - think of it like PPE.

Of course one might ask the question why the engineeer was given too short a pair of steps. Supervisory / management in need of discipline??? Bob

Engineers are peripatetic so would be difficult to supervise constantly. Think BT or Cable engineers.

Some of us from the "proper" engineering profession and who were around at the time of the Finniston Report (and beyond) still rail against the general abuse of the term "engineer" in the UK, often applied to others who might more properly called technicians, fitters, etc. See also link below for an expression of the obvious disparity (and thus lesser status, salary etc.) between the engineering PROFESSION here and in other Countries. http://www.engc.org.uk/e...neering%20Profession.pdf The acceptance of this disparity caused (and continues to contribute to) a significant loss of leading-edge technology and investment in the UK - the "brain drain" if you will.

Some of your best people will make your worst mistakes. The trick is to learn from it, correct it and move on.

Getting people sacked because they displease the practitioners on this forum seems to be a growing trend

Good point by farmsafety at #29. The person standing on top of the stepladder may have been doing just a fleeting visual inspection of something and been able to use suitable parts of adjacent plant/equipment to provide him/herself with adquate stability/safety while standing on top of the stepladder. Thus, in addition to talking to the person involved, it's very desirable, if feasible, to have a look at the location involved if this hasn't already occurred. On a wider note, forum users need to recognise and remember the considerable limitations of this forum and avoid pontificating on scenarios which can only be described by typed words, often very briefly, and without the benefit of photos and diagrams, etc. p.s. If pontificating can only be done by pontiffs, can anyone suggest an alternative suitable word?!! :-)

Thanks Ron, nice to see someone on my wavelength

My opinion is based on the basic information and I am not assuming anything!. In our internal reporting systems, this would be classified as a "potential hazard" based on our own internal definitions copied below:- Potential Hazard: A hazard is identified. Near- Miss: There has been an "event" but nobody has been injured and no equipment has been damaged. Incident: An event has occurred and there has been damage to equipment or a spill has gone beyond the point at which the material can be recovered. Accident: An event has occurred and someone has been hurt. Our internal reporting system is based on a "just culture" and its primary aim is to prevent a recurrence. However, we also have "Life Saving Rules" and a breach of one of those will follow a formal investigation procedure that may be followed by disciplinary process should the nature of the breach and the investigation findings warrant it. The disciplinary action could be against the supervisor and their manager too. So, you need to have a faily well defined system to have a robust internal classification of "Events". There is no universally agreed definition either.

Off course that is near miss, The Engineer did the unsafe act. Which is breach of the safe working procedures(Method statement)That unsafe act should be investigate and analyses the root cause. If I am not correct please correct me