Rank: Forum user 
|
Question regarding pregnancy risk assessments - I have a member of staff who is refusing to sit down with me to conduct a risk assessment. I have arranged on 5 occasions to sit down with her at a time convenient with her to conduct one, but she cancels at short notice or completely ignores my correspondence. I should point out that she works nights myself days, however I have offered to conduct it during her normal working hours. I think she thinks the company has a hidden agenda of some sort when really we are trying to help. Unfortunately, she is just one of life's obnoxious people. Interesting to know what others would do, or if you have any suggestions? Not sure what to do to be honest!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have had similar issues in the past with DSE assessments etc.
I find the best way is just to turn up at their desk!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Good advice so far.
As a last resort there may be a need to remind your employee that you as the employer have a legal requirement to complete a RA as per regulation 16.1 MHSWR and they have a duty to co-operate 7(b) HSWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Difficult.
Best to keep a record of all correspondence in case this all blows up.
Ask her why she is unwilling talk to you? Put the onus on her to explain herself.
If she is unwilling to provide a reason or provides an inadequate excuse, then raise the issue with their manager. They might know the reason why they are not cooperating. It could be more than them being awkward e.g. are they on a disciplinary or has she indicated that she has some concern over the pregnancy (first baby or a problem previously?)
No matter how difficult they become don’t lose your professional cool- they could be trying to wind up you up for their own reasons (unfair dismissal claim or a harassment claim?).
If this starts to get difficult see what your HR department can say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We used several different methods; one was to get an agreed time / date and for a senior manager to send a formal appointment letter stating the consequence of non attendance (eg costs or disciplinary). Another method would be to get your Occ Health provider to do it (somebody who may be perceived as neutral) including setting up the interview, appointment letter etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks. There is absolutely no reason why she would be difficult (towards me anyway), however according to her manager she has a track record. As you rightly point out, she must cooperate. I will send one last friendly invitation reminding her of mine and her responsibilities and copy her line manager in. Failing that I think I will have to just turn up out of the blue.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just pass the whole thing to HR
They should be better geared up to sorting it than you
I guess they are better paid too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Just throwing it out there as we had a similar issue. The pregnant lady didn't want to be risk assessed by a man was the reason she gave when approached by her manager over the issue. I ended up conducting her risk assessment and it was all fine. Subsequently I ended up doing all the pregnancy risk assessments while I was there.
I would ask if she wants someone with her and let her manager know of the issue and as previously mentioned keep records of correspondence. I think they sometimes feel the risk assessment causes problems rather than helps to alleviate them. My ladies were happy enough when they had been through the initial assessment and realised there was nothing untoward going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
mikejman6 wrote: I have a member of staff who is refusing to sit down with me to conduct a risk assessment. She's under no obligation to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Of course she doesnt have to, but as rayrapp pointed out, she has a duty to cooperate with her employer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Although if she has problems during pregnancy her GP may ask for one...probably saying it's legally required (i've had that one).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Absolutely - I bang my head against the wall with this one, and Hally I also have had a JP telling me it's a legal requirement to conduct an individual recorded RA for each expectant mother, but when I ask for a source, there isn't one. We have to consider risks to new or expectant mothers in our normal risk assessments, is what the Regs say. Let's not let H&S bureaucracy get in the way of good HR management here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was not aware of the HSE guidance provided by Gramsay. I had always taken the view that once notified of an expectant mother a RA should be completed. In fairness, regulation 16.-(1) MHSWR does not reflect the HSE guidance - so who is at fault?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whatever the legislation says bit risky NOT to do one..what if the pregnant employee has an issue related to the pregnancy which is very specific to her and you haven't covered it in a specific assessment for that person.
Its all very well having a general RA covering expectant mothers, but I am a firm believer that its important to have a specific assessment for each expectant mother.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray, there is no conflict between Reg16(1) and the current HSE Guidance. This persistent misconception was perpetuated by poor wording in the previous version of the HSE Guidance. It seems that many in this profession just can't resist continuing with an extra bit of bureaucracy and paperwork.
Any employer who waits until an employee informs him of her pregnancy to conduct the risk assessment required by Reg3 (as QUALIFIED by Regulation 16(1) has already failed (perhaps seriously and spectacularly) to comply with that statutory duty.
Stonecold,
In the context of the OP, employees are under no obligation to inform the employer of their pregnancy, or any information about it. The employer has no duty unless that cooperation is granted. That cooperation cannot IMO be coerced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron Hunter wrote:
Stonecold,
In the context of the OP, employees are under no obligation to inform the employer of their pregnancy, or any information about it. The employer has no duty unless that cooperation is granted. That cooperation cannot IMO be coerced.
See what your saying, but its not like you cannot notice someone is pregnant :)..yes they dont have to inform the employer but it will be pretty obvious that an employee is pregant once they start showing. Good luck trying to convince a good solicitor that you didn't know an employee was pregnant and therefore didnt feel the need to take steps to ensure the pregnant employee properly looked after (vulnerable person, higher risk group etc)...I work for a very large company and over the years have had lots of issues with expectant mothers...some can be very demanding
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What I have always interpreted the guidance as meaning is that there is no need to create separate RA from scratch for every expecting mother. Instead what I have done is reviewed the existing RA/MS/SSW type documents and seen if what they cover is sufficient to deal with the pregnancy issues of that employees (no two pregnancies are the same). 99% of the time they are but sometimes we have had to take extra precautions e.g. moving person out a lab for example.
For such a process to take place you need the cooperation of the employee and if they are not willing to give you that cooperation you can either leave them to it or look at some sort of disciplinary action. Neither is a very good option and should only be taken if you hit a brickwall. You must of course demonstrate that you have done everything reasonable to work with the employee. I have never come across someone who absolutely refuses to cooperate: I have dealt with snarky, ungrateful, awkward people but never a total refusenik.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron Hunter wrote:Ray, there is no conflict between Reg16(1) and the current HSE Guidance. This persistent misconception was perpetuated by poor wording in the previous version of the HSE Guidance. It seems that many in this profession just can't resist continuing with an extra bit of bureaucracy and paperwork.
Any employer who waits until an employee informs him of her pregnancy to conduct the risk assessment required by Reg3 (as QUALIFIED by Regulation 16(1) has already failed (perhaps seriously and spectacularly) to comply with that statutory duty.
Stonecold,
In the context of the OP, employees are under no obligation to inform the employer of their pregnancy, or any information about it. The employer has no duty unless that cooperation is granted. That cooperation cannot IMO be coerced. Ron, thanks for your comments. Now let me see if I understand this correctly...an employer has a duty to carry out RAs and record any significant findings blah, blah. So are we saying that a generic type RA for expectant mothers, where the task and other hazards associated with their work is added to the RA? Secondly, how are employers or rather their responsible managers supposed to identify or know that one of their workforce is pregnant? It is not always so obvious, at least not until the latter stages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
quote=RayRapp] Ron Hunter wrote:Ray, there is no conflict between Reg16(1) and the current HSE Guidance. This persistent misconception was perpetuated by poor wording in the previous version of the HSE Guidance. It seems that many in this profession just can't resist continuing with an extra bit of bureaucracy and paperwork.
Any employer who waits until an employee informs him of her pregnancy to conduct the risk assessment required by Reg3 (as QUALIFIED by Regulation 16(1) has already failed (perhaps seriously and spectacularly) to comply with that statutory duty.
Stonecold,
In the context of the OP, employees are under no obligation to inform the employer of their pregnancy, or any information about it. The employer has no duty unless that cooperation is granted. That cooperation cannot IMO be coerced. Ron, thanks for your comments. Now let me see if I understand this correctly...an employer has a duty to carry out Ra's and record any significant findings blah, blah. So are we saying that a generic type RA for expectant mothers, where the task and other hazards associated with their work is added to the RA? Yes RayRapp wrote: Secondly, how are employers or rather their responsible managers supposed to identify or know that one of their workforce is pregnant? It is not always so obvious, at least not until the latter stages.
They have a right to not inform, however once they do you can request a cert from their GP (see HSE website). If the person for whatever reason does not wish to co operate I would ask them formally if they have been given any information by their GP ect that you need to know about. If they do not respond or say no, then the original generic RA would stand. We are not mind readers. Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry forgot to note obviously the generic RA is not just expectant mothers, but women of child bearing age and new mothers.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Can a generic RA ever be suitable and sufficent?
Conducting an individual recorded RA for each expectant mother, is surely best practice and acting in the spirit of the legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray,
The responsible employer is expected to recognise he has women of child-bearing age in his workforce, and start from there.
The greatest risk to the developing foetus is in the very earliest stages of development, when the mother may not know she is pregnant.
The employer's duty extends irrespectively to the unborn child. This was IMO the original intent and meaning of the Parent Directive, a meaning has become obscured and confused over the years by HR application of related employment law and by associated health professionals (who in my experience often have a wholly different interpretation of the term "risk assessment").
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
quote=paul-ps]Can a generic RA ever be suitable and sufficient?
Conducting an individual recorded RA for each expectant mother, is surely best practice and acting in the spirit of the legislation.
According to the HSE a generic one is all that is required, but a specific one is always going to be better. In other places it suggests once informed you may want to revisit the generic assessment. HSE guidance from FAQ's No. Employers must carry out a general risk assessment for their employees to assess all health and safety risks they are exposed to while at work. As part of that process, you should consider female employees of childbearing age, including new and expectant mothers, assessing the risks that may arise from any process, working condition or physical, biological or chemical agents. While it is a legal obligation for employers to regularly review general workplace risks, there is no legal requirement to conduct a specific, separate risk assessment for an employee, once notified in writing that she is a new or expectant mother. However, you may choose to do so, to help you decide if any additional action needs to be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks Ron/Chris for those explanations - you live and learn.
For the record, it still all sounds very confusing to me as there is much which is implied and little explicit within the regulation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Would a generic RA cover an expectant mother with epilepsy and Hep C?
If a generic RA were suitable and sufficient, companies would simply purchase or copy/paste.
Using a template to build on is practical, but you need to focus on the risk to that person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ron is bang right here, and it's not about 'generic' assessments. Where you employ women of child bearing age any risk assessment should consider potential impacts on pregnant workers. In most cases the impact will be no more or less than it would be for any worker, but where special considerations would apply you should mention them and devise appropriate controls. The controls would be implemented when the women declares herself to be pregnant. A fine example would be in a cheese making business; listeria is a minor risk for most people, it's a very serious risk for pregnant women.
This requirement of the regs is one of the most misunderstood and badly applied in UK H&S law. Having said what I have said above I have been powerless to prevent members of my teams here and in the past devising pregnancy risk assessments and merrily rolling them out to all and sundry (well, only if all and sundry are pregnant). They say 'yes, we know what the law says but HR want us to cover this off' or something of that kidney. I'm trying to get some perspective into this in my current role, but it is an uphill struggle to say the least,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with Ron. The requirements have consistently been misunderstood and led to confusion between OSH and HR procedures.
1. Employers must consider risks to female employees of childbearing age, including new and expectant mothers, that may arise from any process, working condition or physical, biological or chemical agents. This assessment will indentify all controls required to prevent harm to the at-risk group. The assessment will identify standards, SSOW etc to be followed as relevant.
2. One of those controls should outline how and why employees should notify and what the employer will do as a result of any such notification. That specific procedure is best covered in HR procedures and NOT safety and health procedures. The general risk assessment remains an OSH procedure.
3. A sound risk based procedure should require a review with the employee to identify any changes to their work or work pattern that is defined by the general risk assessment. Any requirement for the employee to notify and co-operate is an employment contractual matter and once again not OSH.
4. The general risk assessment should, of course, be subject to standard review procedures for risk assessments.
This approach to managing this area of risk ensures that those responsible for and best placed to apply the required risk controls (i.e line managers) just get on and do it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whoops button happy. I meant to add that the review I mention above is obviously best done with the employee. However, if that is not possible (but I doubt it would be if line management were doing it!) then the employee should simply be instructed, both verbally and in writing, on any specific changes to work and work patterns required and line managers must then ensure these are followed.
I do wonder whether the matter of night work is one big reason why this employee is reticent to co-operate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pete48 wrote:Whoops button happy. I meant to add that the review I mention above is obviously best done with the employee. However, if that is not possible (but I doubt it would be if line management were doing it!) then the employee should simply be instructed, both verbally and in writing, on any specific changes to work and work patterns required and line managers must then ensure these are followed.
I do wonder whether the matter of night work is one big reason why this employee is reticent to co-operate? I can see a big can of worms coming. When I have conducted personal RAs with the individual such as for epilepsy, injuries, ill health of all manner and expectant mothers, there are often unusual things peculiar to that individual which I would not have known unless I interviewed them prior to completing the RA. Indeed, I recall one such RA which blew up in my face where an intervening Line Manager asked why I did not consult first with individual before completing the RA and she got upset with all the nonsense and tears followed. I had of course consulted the individual and HR were on my side because they knew the true facts. Just goes to show even the best planned RAs can still go awry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
paul-ps wrote:Would a generic RA cover an expectant mother with epilepsy and Hep C?
If a generic RA were suitable and sufficient, companies would simply purchase or copy/paste.
Using a template to build on is practical, but you need to focus on the risk to that person.
I wonder if you're missing the point. It isn't a matter of "generic" assessment. It's about assessing risk to the unborn child and nursing mothers arising from hazards in YOUR workplace. Pregnancy is not a hazard. Neither are other the potential health issues something which should be addressed by the average H&S practitioner via "risk assessment". Individual assessments involve personal data with attendant data protection issues. The issues can often be very personal and emotive (e.g. history of miscarraige). Best left to HR and medical professionals IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ray, in my mind the confusion arises from calling the review a risk assessment and ergo it must be something to do with OSH. Thank goodness for that is often the cry from line managers retiring quickly to their cup of tea :-)
That I agree is a bag of worms.
It really should be no different to any other management review of an individual. Follow the ''people' or HR procedures and modify arrangements as required. HR procedures, of course, should recognise the controls in the general risk assessment.
Therefore no need for any direct OSH input after the general risk assessment has been agreed. Unless, that is, the individual review highlights something not covered in the general risk assessment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Therefore no need for any direct OSH input after the general risk assessment has been agreed. Unless, that is, the individual review highlights something not covered in the general risk assessment." Unless of course the HR people immediately pass this onto H&S as it is not really their thing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with Ron except to say that if its best left to HR and medical professionals then the good work at the beginning will probably go astray the nearer we get to the birth and afterwards as a good H&S person should be a part of the process throughout and as for personal issues I have found that people can and will talk to H&S and possibly Occie health but not to HR as HR is seen as 'management' and HR do not manage production where the people tend to work and the problems day to day work problems lie so their influence is not usually great in day to day ops & as H&S is the only area that works across all parts of a business H&S should be involved in all cases where the unusual / complicated is present
and as said pregnancies in themselves are not the problem its where things are not usual that problems arise and this is again where H&S sits across all aspects of a business
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You have to laugh when the regulations uses the term 'of child bearing age' if you Google (other search engines are available) youngest and oldest mother - these are 5 years old as the youngest and 70 as the oldest - I guess all women at work are of 'child bearing age'. Dohhhhhh......... The case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council, details where an employer owed a greater duty of care. Its it possible that one expectant mother may require a higher duty of care that another, for example if they have preeclampsia, all pregnancies are different and are individual to that person - so how can it be possible to include all of these into a generic RA. Don't get me wrong I can see where this can be adopted for example if a chemical is teratogenic the RA could state 'do not use when pregnant', this is something that I adopt and can be useful. However, I subscribe to the way most people conduct RA in respect of 'new and expectant mothers' and that is an individual assessment which would include speaking with the individual - I do this to decide if any additional action is needed to be taken, as per HSE guidance. http://www.hse.gov.uk/mothers/faqs.htm#q3
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry meant 'general' risk assessment and not 'generic'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You should already have an RA for pregnant females.
As said, unless there are individual issues, which from your initial post seems not to be the case, then an insistence of an individual assessement could be seen as discrimination.
You seem to be biased against this woman anyway (she has ¨history¨), from my viewpoint you seem to have issues with her which you need to resolve, and not business issues.
The way you are proceeding I would expect her to complain to HR about your harassment of her. This will only get worse.
If she was in a union, much worse. Hope she joins one: soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ha ha, thanks JohnMurray.
Maybe my initial post was a touch vague - Risk Assessment complete now anyway. Of course, we have conducted risk assessments for all manner of things here, and as previous posts have mentioned, these are all done with new & expectant mothers in mind.
Its important we do sit down and conduct individual "reviews" of the initial assessments at my workplace as again, we have many different potential hazards here, some more relevant than others, especially when pregnant.
Im perfectly entitled to form my own opinions based on my own dealings with an individual. As long as I stay professional in my work environment (not anonymously on a forum), no harm done. I'd welcome her to join a union if thats what she would prefer to do. Not sure they would share your opinion though Mr Murray...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Really.
My union has a long list of inappropriate questions asked of pregnant women: the most inappropriate being "do you still have sex with your partner"
Still, all professionals eh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.