Rank: New forum user 
|
A migrant worker, resident in the UK since 2011, was making up potato boxes using a jig and nail gun shoots a nail through his hand and has made a claim. Full training was given to the worker, a competent risk assessment is in place and the individual understands English. A witness statement indicating that safety measures were being ignored so that work could be done faster. This individual had been doing this work for 2 months without incident. Having made a claim the individual is stating that he did not understand the training received. Training was given by a workshop supervisor with 30 years experience and no history of reportable injuries. The view of the insurance risk assessor is that the supervisor is not a qualified trainer and an offer of £50,000 should be made to the claimant. As an EHO working privately this horrifies me as much of my work is training but without a specific training qualification. 28 years experience and a public speaking masterclass. What is deemed competent to give training, I very much welcome any views and opinions. Thank you for taking the time to read this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
As a trainer, i spent nearly 3 years learning to train in a varielty of ways. Because peole work and learn in a variety of ways. You have to try and use the variety of ways in delivery inorder that the learner has the best chance of taking the required information in. By the way, what checks were taken to ensure that the reciever understood the training given?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In what way did the claimant not understand the training? If it was because it was not in their language then, what use is a training qualification? During my award in adult education (formerly known as PTTL) we only did training in English. 99% of this sort of training is done in English (or maybe Welsh). If it was because the training was in some way inadequate (boring, not relevant etc) then how can you make, teaching people to make up potato boxes using a nail gun interesting? What you can do is monitor what they are doing, after the training to confirm they are following your protocols. This is apparently what happened. The issue is not the training but the attitude of the insurance company who would rather pay up than defend the claim. After al,l they will recoup the costs by charging a higher premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
£50K for a nail in the hand? I don't know about questioning the training competence of your supervisor but I would challenge the logic of this assessor with the insurer.
Presumably you have some signed paperwork regarding training given (preferably countersigned by the i.p. stating they understood what was provided).
When did all training provision of necessity suddenly require formal educator training?
If this situation set a precedent UK industry would have to shut immediately as most job skill transfer is/was conducted primarily by "sitting with Bob". Bob's competence being 30 years on the job having learned by "sitting with Mary" and Mary's competence....
Go back far enough and we get to the first ever person to do a unique job task e.g. operate this new fangled nail gun thingy - who trained them to be the trainer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
£50K for a nail in the hand? I don't know about questioning the training competence of your supervisor but I would challenge the logic of this assessor with the insurer.
Presumably you have some signed paperwork regarding training given (preferably countersigned by the i.p. stating they understood what was provided).
When did all training provision of necessity suddenly require formal educator training?
If this situation set a precedent UK industry would have to shut immediately as most job skill transfer is/was conducted primarily by "sitting with Bob". Bob's competence being 30 years on the job having learned by "sitting with Mary" and Mary's competence....
Go back far enough and we get to the first ever person to do a unique job task e.g. operate this new fangled nail gun thingy - who trained them to be the trainer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
You do not need any qualifications to provide health and safety training. Yes, there are courses out there to enhance the skills of the trainer...but these are optional.
Anyone receiving training it is good practice to get them to sign a form saying they understood the training give. It is also good practice to a feedback form to evaluate the effectiveness of the training, sometimes called a 'happy' form. Might seem a bit OTT for very basic training, but there ya go.
As for the claim, I don't see anything within your post which indicates the employer was negligent. Not forgetting negligence must be proved before a claim can be successful. Perhaps not a vexatious claim, but very spurios nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
When I worked in the priosn we would get documents translated into the first language as a matter of cousre even if they said they understood english, they would also have to be observed completing the task and signed off by two supervisors prior to being allowed to do the task unsupervised. The oberved training was for all prisoners, this was in case educationally they couldn't read correctly and would just say they did so they did not look stupid, I would suggest that there aresome people out there with dislexia that would not tell you and preted they actually understood what you said and not ask you to go through it again.
I know this can seem as a bit over the top but it happens in workforces throughout the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think the point has been missed here. The training was not effective. As for me i did a PGCE. It appears that this isn't needed to be an effective trainer. So much for higher levels of competence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Are you really saying that you need Post Graduate Certficate in Education to be able to teach someone how to safely nail together a potato box!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Training like a Risk Assessment is only suitable and sufficieent until found wanting. The OP cited that a witness saw the i.p. doing the task in a manner taking short cuts - that is not a trainiung failure but someone off on their own folly acting without adequate supervision, and possibly an indicator of a culture issue where poor performance is not reported by those observing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Training like a Risk Assessment is only suitable and sufficieent until found wanting. The OP cited that a witness saw the i.p. doing the task in a manner taking short cuts - that is not a trainiung failure but someone off on their own folly acting without adequate supervision, and possibly an indicator of a culture issue where poor performance is not reported by those observing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit  Training like a Risk Assessment is only suitable and sufficieent until found wanting. The OP cited that a witness saw the i.p. doing the task in a manner taking short cuts - that is not a trainiung failure but someone off on their own folly acting without adequate supervision, and possibly an indicator of a culture issue where poor performance is not reported by those observing.
It is a training issue because once he put the cliam he he stated he couldn't understand the training as he doesn't understand english. If they had documentation that he could and did understand the training then at least that is some proof but they don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: Invictus Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Training like a Risk Assessment is only suitable and sufficieent until found wanting. The OP cited that a witness saw the i.p. doing the task in a manner taking short cuts - that is not a trainiung failure but someone off on their own folly acting without adequate supervision, and possibly an indicator of a culture issue where poor performance is not reported by those observing.
It is a training issue because once he put the cliam he he stated he couldn't understand the training as he doesn't understand english. If they had documentation that he could and did understand the training then at least that is some proof but they don't.
To be clear: The claimant has stated he didn't understand the training. He has not stated he doesn't understand English.
If you read the OP statement it says the worker has been in UK since 2011 and "the individual understands English".
If training has been undertaken it should have been recorded. If the individual was seen to have been ignoring safety measures, it should have been reported, investigated and possibly further training given - all of which should have been recorded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think there are two issues here. Firstly, there is understanding a language, and there is really understanding a language. If you had taken a foreign language at school, would you say that you understand all of the common usage, accents and nuances of that language? You might understand basic conversational language, but once the subject matter veers into the technical, would you understand this? I would question the statement that the IP understands English, a broad statement that needs some qualification.
However, I also think this is a typical example of an insurance company being unwilling to defend a claim, and just rolling over to avoid the perceived risk of a greater loss if they defended the claim. It's little wonder that a claims culture has been developing in this country for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry Invictus - pretty bold statement to say there is no training record as the OP has not stated either way.
I will repeat as no one seems to have blinked - £50K for a nail in the hand - who is the guy Richard Clayderman? He doesn't understand English now because he has been primed by ambulance chasers - just ask the Police how often someone speaking fluent English suddenly has language issues when asked for their details as part of an investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry Invictus - pretty bold statement to say there is no training record as the OP has not stated either way.
I will repeat as no one seems to have blinked - £50K for a nail in the hand - who is the guy Richard Clayderman? He doesn't understand English now because he has been primed by ambulance chasers - just ask the Police how often someone speaking fluent English suddenly has language issues when asked for their details as part of an investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Loads of assumptions being made here - as usual for this forum. Perfect example of this "He doesn't understand English now because he has been primed by ambulance chasers". No evidence to support this assumption, just the prejudice of the person who made the assumption. The guy is making a claim therefore he must be on the make, enouraged by ambulance chasers.
Looking at the original training a couple of questions need to be asked.
Was the effectiveness of the training assessed in any way?
Did the IP achieve a satisfactory level in that assessment?
Was it recorded in any way?
Has the training been refreshed and re-assessed at any time?
If so was this documented?
From the point of view of the job being done:
Was the IP adequately supervised?
Did the IP do the job in line with his training?
If not what action was taken to correct this?
Did he receive counselling, refresher training or any form of disciplinary sanction?
Was any of this documented?
In fact was any of the above done at any stage, because if not the company involved is on a very sticky wicket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Sorry Invictus - pretty bold statement to say there is no training record as the OP has not stated either way.
I will repeat as no one seems to have blinked - £50K for a nail in the hand - who is the guy Richard Clayderman? He doesn't understand English now because he has been primed by ambulance chasers - just ask the Police how often someone speaking fluent English suddenly has language issues when asked for their details as part of an investigation.
Whilst on the face of it I agree that 50k sounds a lot, it depends on the extent of the damage from these injuries. This was a man who made a living by working with his hands. If the damage is so bad that he has lost function in his hand, his ability to work, not to mention his entire life, will be changed as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Sorry Invictus - pretty bold statement to say there is no training record as the OP has not stated either way.
I will repeat as no one seems to have blinked - £50K for a nail in the hand - who is the guy Richard Clayderman? He doesn't understand English now because he has been primed by ambulance chasers - just ask the Police how often someone speaking fluent English suddenly has language issues when asked for their details as part of an investigation.
Not sure it is 'bold' statement could be inaccurate assumption, then again it might be correct. I think it is a bold statement otsay he doesn't understand english now because of ambulance chaser or is that just an assumption.
50k might be the correct amount but I think you may find this is just the reserve, but don't know as I don't have enough information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.