Hi, If this was a temporary measure to facilitate access for the tractor and the individual was performing his duties as a banksman effectively throughout the process, surely the temporary removal of the barrier protection was a necessary measure to complete the work task and should not be subject to investigation, as the individual compensated for the removal of the safety measure (barrier) by monitoring the condition / accessibility to that area in the interim period. If, on the otherhand, theindividual involved left the barrier in an unsafe condition following the access arrangement process, then there may be an arguement for investigation / disciplinary, really we need more information. Pete,

Pushed a barrier down that was bolted to the floor ? ( Big S on chest or iron suit in red and gold ?) " From what I have been told so far" so thinking of the punishment before the investigation complete, not sure that is the right way around, take care you are not seen to be prejudging. Who planned this work and put the Banksman in a bad position ? Chris

To me the investigation should be to establish what happened. Once done you can then evaluate if there was a "breach" or whatever. To be perfectly blunt, this smacks of and could be used as a case study in confirmation bias - something happened but not yet entirely sure how, why or whatever, and I think someone needs to be punished so now I will only look for and gather data that confirms my original theory. Just a thought Jim

Why do you feel the need to quote a reg at all? The open minded investigation might conclude unsafe practices and maybe serious ones. However you are not a HSE inspector and the incestigation is not a criminal court.

If he is found to have moved it then you should take disiplinary action against him in whatever form that maybe or what will he do next this type of behaviour encourages others to follow suit and needs to be stamped out.

Anyone can decide if there has been a breach of any Act, but only a court can punish you.

Hi thanks for the responses. Just to make clear, there is no pre-judgement at all on my part. The investigator has spoken with me this morning on his findings and I was looking in to the possible breaches that may have taken place. As I have said, I am not the decision maker on this and will only put my recommendations in the report. It may turn out to be the case that the guy felt he had to move the barrier as there was an imminent danger, in which case there will be no further actions apart from to review and update the relevant SSW and Risk Assessments. As investigating manager I need to give the decision maker sufficient information to make an informed decision on the incident which is why I quoted the relevant regs. Be sure that I have come to no conclusion yet as to what my recommendations will be. Thanks again for the replies

Sort of with Ian on this one...this was not from the account a deliberate act so banging the guy on the heed with a bit of legislation won't help..he did what he had to do in the circumstances he might just have forgotten to put it back in place afterword or arrange for repair..? I have dealt with cases before like this and from the information you have provided so far you would be on a sticky wicket (and I would have though it is against your safety ethos -i.e investigate to learn rather than punish) to discipline this guy.

I feel there has been a bit of mixed interpretation of this thread, I initially saw it as an HR investigation, as opposed to an incident investigation and feel that's why we have got mixed responses from the forum in general. Pete,

The whole approach to this investigation looks odd to me, with questions being asked as to legislation before the full facts are known. As people have said in any sort organisation that believes in a just culture (as opposed to a blame culture) the aim should be to found out what system failures occurred rather than finding some body to take the blame. So question 1-how did the unit get “stuck”, was the move not properly planned, was someone trying to move something though too small a gap etc? Question 2 “How important to peoples’ safety was the barrier in questions-is it likely that vast lemming like hordes will throw themselves under vehicles if the barrier is taken down temporally? Perhaps the barrier should have been removed at part of the planned move anyway with some sort of temporary controls put in its place. Question 3 what sort of H&S culture e does your organisation have? Are people clear about their roles and responsibilities, was the banks man working outside his remit? Should he have summoned a more senior manager to deal with the issue” Did anyone in management care as long as the unit was actually moved? Question 4 was the unit being stuck itself a H&S safety issue? Was shifting it a matter of urgency or could they (to quote Bernard Cribbins in “Right Said Fred”) have a cup of tea and have a good think about it? Lots of things to think about before we start wielding HSWA.

Going back to the OP question. If there has been a breech of safety by your employee(s) that has potentially left a hazard, which was not rectified or reported, then you need to first come to understand exactly why this has happened. It is important to remember no workplace is perfect and the important point is learn what went wrong to prevent this or similar happening The investigation itself should allow you to uncover the how,when,what and where. Just get the facts. At that point you should not concern yourself with asking witnesses why - this can imply blame. Then, afterwards when analysing the evidence you have collected and by following through on the events in and asking your self why at each stage, you will see what combination factors have happened to lead to the dangerous occurrence. As other posters have commented, it is not sufficient simply to quote HASWA section 8 and punish, but to understand why, so that you can rectify each issue to prevent recurrence. This can range from better training/ signage or supervision, through to re-configuring elements of your workplace.

Very glad that I don't work there. Ever heard of no blame culture? Yours approach has a very narrow and incorrect focus IMPO

I think Invictus has the approach nailed down. Lets look at what went wrong, how and why, and then implement our lesson learned to ensure that it doesn't happen again. I try to apply this mentality to all honest mistakes that appear in my workplace. Malicious actions, if it can be proven, that is altogether different and these individuals shall feel the full legislative force of my powers! Got carried away there, but you get my gist. Happy Friday all. Pete

Fair blame is a reasonable concept - provided it is just that. Instead of looking at the person actually involved in the incident - what sanctions would you place on other layers of management? Examples could be - poor shift patterns, working hours, lack of training. Maybe there has been previous recommendations to provide better equipment etc all dismissed by senior managers, so these decisions may actually be the root cause of the incident. As others have said - can of worms if you want it to be. Don't pick on the guy at the bottom unless you also can reasonably and objectively identify other failings in the safety system.

James Reason's culpability decision tree may help. Black Box Thinking by Matthew Syed is also a good read for the eager safety practitioner.