sack 'em to encourage les autres

How's about, in strict accordance with the HR policy on disciplinary and capability processes; Verbal warning, written warning and so on, with everything written down so you're not embarrased at the industrial tribunal. Whatever you do, don't make it up on the run or after the fact. Or, if you don't want to go formal, have a word with their mates to find out why they think they're not playing and then have a chat with the transgressor where you offer to leave 'em alone if they play nicely or you'll go down the verbal, written warning etc route. Jim

TEDY I'd be wanting to try and find out WHY they are not following your procedures first. Are personnel faced with methods of work that are not user-friendly, might not be adequately trained and supervised etc etc. Might be a safety culture that influences non-compliance.

Out of interest, before you launch down the disciplinary route, has the softly softly approach completely failed? Two things I would do. 1) Ask in a straightforward manner, "why do you not wear the eye protection we have provided for you?" It might turn out to be a comfort or practicality issue in which case you need to do something. 2) Toolbox talk in the work area, without picking on individuals. The reminder that to date, surgeons are not performing eye transplants, brings home the fact that to lose an eye is final, no second chances. Once these routes have failed, along with the friendly chat approach, then yes, by all means go down the disciplinary route and record actions in the personel file. Consider dismissal at the end if the other unsafe acts are endangering other workers or the public. Finally, make sure you are above reproach in the provision of information, training, instruction and supervision.

Thanks everyone for your advice..really helpfull!

First offence = quiet chat with offender and line manager about why they chose not to use the ppe and the reasons why they need to reconsider. Observation recorded in writing somewhere (in my case usually an email to the line manager about what was discussed) Second offence = formal interview, review of ssow,ra's,policies with offender and line manager written warning. Third offence = Sorry but we are terminating your employment with us in the interest of the safety of yourself and others.

Very uncomfortable where is says involve HR managers . I am of the view that the senior H&S Manager should be equal to the H&S Manager. My previous Senior HR Manager in the public service stated a full time H& S professional was a luxury . The person also believed in self assurance with no regard to Safety Management Systems and is now can HR director with health and safety reportees. I am hoping IOSH can raise our professions status so that poor decisions such as this cannot happen.

After numerous briefings, presentations and tool box talks we have just issued two final written warnings for failing to wear ppe - ear protection. Compliance has now risen to the levels that legislation dictates. Not my first choice but 'they' have has so may warnings etc that it needed drastic action to show that 'we' as management team were not going to tolerate low level non compliance.

Actually, just remove "HR" from my first post at #4 and job jobbed, Jim

Surely it is quite simple,if the offender is putting himself and possibly others at risk they are breaching Health and Safety Regulations which are law,and should be disciplined,this will send out a clear message of the importance of ppi

I worked for a manager once who told me the following: "If you find somebody doing something wrong blame the person standing next to them. Give them a good *ollocking as loudly as you can. The person who was doing something wrong will hear you and know not to cross you. The person you are giving the unjust *ollocking to will think you are raving made and will never doing anything to upset you in the future." I suppose the logic is sound but I could never bring myself to try it.