Rank: Super forum user 
|
Bare with me and I’ll provide more info as this unfolds.
Quick question – as safety managers or whatever roles – have any of you ever undertaken and risk assessment and documented a SSoW for staff searches of their car boots.
By this I mean a member of the management team asked the staff to open the book, the managers looks inside, if anything needs moving the manager requests this, staff move etc.
Security could also be doing this.
End of search staff close their own boot. Job done.
Give me quick answers yes because? Or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Completed a risk assessment but not the search (securitys job).
A couple of things you need to consider;
- location of search, don't do it on the traffic route unless you can't avoid it
- ask staff to minimise what they bring to work to speed up the searches, reduce manual handling and avoid confusion over ownership of items
- consider the risk of assault, it's preferable that your security guards carry out the search with the car owner observing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Bit more info for you – I wont get back on here till Thurs.
I have just reviewed a claims letter for an employee who broke her finger whilst closing her own boot after a staff search (she closed the boot her car), controlled area staff car park.
Her solicitor is basing the claim on breach Reg 3 – no suitable and sufficient RA in place and SSoW.
Come on? If closing your own boot on your own vehicle in a significant workplace risk?
Millions of time this occurs in every day life in the workplace – does a plumber have an RA for closing his van door???
To add an interesting fact to the matter – I have reviewed the accident investigation – at the time I spoke to the LA regulator for the premises due to the IP going over three days lost – I wrote to them telling them about the incident and the circumstances and that I would not be reporting it under RIDDOR based on my investigation and findings, they agreed and put a note on the premises file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It sounds like a standard claim from a no win no fee solicitor. Hand it over to your insurers with an explanation of action taken on the investigation.
As far as the link to the risk assessment I would suggest that it wasn't reasonably foreseeable that somebody closing the boot of their own car would trap their finger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP - As John J has suggested, give the claim letter to your organisation's insurance person or agent. Many of the claims letters I've seen (when asked for information by my employer's insurance team) seem deliberately designed to provoke and/or alarm their recipients with insinuations of the sort you describe, e.g. not having a safe system of work and/or risk assessment for situations which clearly don't require them. Some of their writers would have no trouble winning a Carnegie Prize for Contemporary Fiction, except for the fact that the Prize itself is probably fictional!
Some months ago I helped deal with a very cunningly worded claims letter received by one of my employer's headteachers regarding a nasty injury incurred by a trespasser. Unfortunately, the matter is still being dealt with by my employer's insurers, so it's not appropriate to write any more about it at present. However, if and when I learn that the claim has foundered, I may be able to summarise the letter as an example of just how cunningly worded the letter was.
Also, though a significant proportion of claims are rightly doomed to founder sooner or later (but nevertheless take up time and other resources to investigate and refute), some claims do have merit because people have been significantly and unnecessarily harmed through negligence. However, breaking a finger while closing one's own car boot clearly seems to lack such merit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks gents,
I manage the Insurance Dept as part of my wider role.
You are right the clock is ticking and this is costing money – I thought I’d put it on here as it’s the first one for a long time that’s wound me up due to the nature and get some good ones!!
You sometimes need to vent your frustrations!!
The thing is, there would probably some small to med company out there that would settle this one on economics and then go and do a RAMS for the task – then they would it end up the Mail as ‘bonkers conkers’ if it got out.
This one wont be settled on economics I can assure you of that………………………
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Was the employee at work and was it a work related task?
If so there should be a risk assessment now because it has happened once (at least) and it must become reasonably forseeable?
If not at work then why was the employee required to have the boot searched?
The employee is perfectly entitled to go to any solicitor to seek compensation as the employer owes a duty of care that was breached.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris,
By your definition an employee trapping their finger in a perfectly serviceable door while entering the workplace would be entitled to be compensated?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
And why did the employee not take the manufacturer to task for providing equipment that carries a risk of serious injury.
I'd agree that compensation was due if the security guard/ manager had trapped her finger but as this was not the case if you pay out expect the floodgates to open.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You are supposed to record the significant findings of a risk assessment. I cannot think of a significant finding for someone opening their own car boot at work considering that they will do it countless times for other reasons eg. to put the shopping in, so for me no record needed. I agree with others its a standard no win no fee request to see what they can get away with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris Burns - Are you seriously suggesting that every employer in the uk undertakes a risk assessment and develops a SSoW for opening an closing their own car boot during the course of the day?
The IP opened her book as part of an internal search process - so yes its at work. What controls are you going to suggest with regards the SS?
She closed her own car boot on her own hand - car boots are opened every day during the course of work millions of times every week - are you further suggesting that because its happened once all of us reading need to get the clip board out? and provide more ammunition for further ridicule of this honorable profession?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As stated pass details onto your insurers and hope that they fight the claim.
I appreciate that some insurers often pay out on seemingly daft claims as to them its easier/cheaper than fighting a claim, but then its down to the people arranging the insurance to apply pressure on them to fight dodgy claims. If not then a company can choose not to renew with any such company (granted that this is often a Director/Board level decision) but we as safety professionals can advise the Board and apply some pressure.
If we have to start risk assess opening car boots, then where do we go next, office/factory doors??? (different assessment for each type of door????). Then what|? will we see sales for soft closing toilet seats could soar as companies buy them up to stop the risk of catching fingers under fast closing loo seats.
Think we should focus on assessing the serious things, such as staplers, staple removers, hole punches, the risk from shattering plastic rulers etc etc LOL :-0
Sorry having a bad day, so a little rant/vent/sarcasm helps lift the spirit and enable me to continue in this obviously most dangerous world we live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I know if I was stopped and searched I would suffer a certain level of stress, as I would think any normal person.
Sufferig stress makes people act in different ways, has anyone thought of how employees react when subjected to this extra stress?
The individual was placed under stress by whoever did the search and that should be a topic for risk assessment.
As for a perfectly serviceable door, how do you know it is serviceable, are there maintenance records?
How do you know the vehicle boot does not have a fault with the closing mechanism?
My point - if the person is at work then risk assess - no RA then expect to pay out.
If not at work why was the search carried out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP wrote:Chris Burns - Are you seriously suggesting that every employer in the uk undertakes a risk assessment and develops a SSoW for opening an closing their own car boot during the course of the day?
The IP opened her book as part of an internal search process - so yes its at work. What controls are you going to suggest with regards the SS?
She closed her own car boot on her own hand - car boots are opened every day during the course of work millions of times every week - are you further suggesting that because its happened once all of us reading need to get the clip board out? and provide more ammunition for further ridicule of this honorable profession?
Honourable profession - yes let's make sure we don't let employees down and look after them when the employer is at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I am speaking here as one who lost his job through an accident at work. The employer did not look after me and neither did the insurer.
I have been at the sharp end with experience so I know how the employee will feel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris,
I believe your experiences are affecting your perpective on what is reasonable. I'm have had a claim claim in the past from an employee who caught their hand on a door latch. As you suggest the service records where requested but we couldn't provide a record for that door individually. The claimant took it to the eleventh hour before dropping the claim. I'd have happily taken it to court to get a ruling. As it was the message was clear - take care for your own safety as required under the HASAWA.
The problem is too many people focus on the trivia rather than the stuff that will cause us serious problems. We are supposed to be addressing significant risks. What could effectively be put in place to avoid this incident? Saying take care will hardly help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:I know if I was stopped and searched I would suffer a certain level of stress, as I would think any normal person.
Sufferig stress makes people act in different ways, has anyone thought of how employees react when subjected to this extra stress?
The individual was placed under stress by whoever did the search and that should be a topic for risk assessment.
As for a perfectly serviceable door, how do you know it is serviceable, are there maintenance records?
How do you know the vehicle boot does not have a fault with the closing mechanism?
My point - if the person is at work then risk assess - no RA then expect to pay out.
If not at work why was the search carried out?
Is it any wonder that our profession is seen in the light it is.
Would it not be the responsibility of the owner of the car to ensure that the car, doors etc are in a resonable condition? Or is this really something that an employer should ensure. I think I will ask the company to have my car MOT'd for me and then pay for any repairs just in case i get injured.
We get searched quite regularly and I don't stress because I don't have anything to stress about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hmm..surely, the response is quite simple: 'We only do RAs for signifcant and reasonably foreseeable risks, we don't provide training for staff closing their car boots either.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Can't resist contributing to this one :o)
The issue is that closing a car boot is an action whose risks are insignificant and therefore does not require a risk assessment.
"Under normal circumstances", whether at home or whether at work, the risk is insignificant. So we don't all need a risk assessment!
In support of what ChrisBurns has posted, the circumstances of this event can be viewed as NOT normal. No matter how innocent you may feel, a security search does raise one's stress levels and can lead to carelessness in doing the simplest of things.
I'd suggest that all security procedures should have a risk assessment. The same security men likely also have duties to check premises, that doors and windows are closed at night, a job possibly with (normally) insignificant risk "under normal circumstances" but there will be times when circumstances are NOT normal, e.g. if there's a power cut or a 3 foot snowfall etc etc when a written risk assessment might be recommended.
Anyway, the stress of a car search, how could the stress risk be controlled? Some comforting words from the security guard before the search begins, putting the member of staff at ease, may reduce the chance of him/her carelessly leaving finger in door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
JohnW wrote:Can't resist contributing to this one :o)
The issue is that closing a car boot is an action whose risks are insignificant and therefore does not require a risk assessment.
"Under normal circumstances", whether at home or whether at work, the risk is insignificant. So we don't all need a risk assessment!
In support of what ChrisBurns has posted, the circumstances of this event can be viewed as NOT normal. No matter how innocent you may feel, a security search does raise one's stress levels and can lead to carelessness in doing the simplest of things.
I'd suggest that all security procedures should have a risk assessment. The same security men likely also have duties to check premises, that doors and windows are closed at night, a job possibly with (normally) insignificant risk "under normal circumstances" but there will be times when circumstances are NOT normal, e.g. if there's a power cut or a 3 foot snowfall etc etc when a written risk assessment might be recommended.
Anyway, the stress of a car search, how could the stress risk be controlled? Some comforting words from the security guard before the search begins, putting the member of staff at ease, may reduce the chance of him/her carelessly leaving finger in door.
The act of closing the boot is normal and should not be need to be risk assessed. Maybe the way to reduce stress is to ensure that the only items in the car are yours. If a security guard at an airport asked you to open your case and you then hurt your finger then you couldn't blame the airport because they asked you to open it.
I thought people were shouting for 'common sense' . We appear to be going backwards if this posting is anything to go by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
farrell,
I didn't say 'risk assess boot closing', I said 'risk assess a car search', and that includes a control to reduce the stress that can lead to carelessness.
JohnW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Please let this thread drop out of sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stuff4blokes wrote:Please let this thread drop out of sight.
Ditto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I don't understand why anyone would want this important topic to drop out of sight. Does it show how far we have come as a profession?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
'I don't understand why anyone would want this important topic to drop out of sight. Does it show how far we have come as a profession?'
It has become painful and embarrassing reading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I just hope the Richard Littlejohn isn't reading this thread
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris - I am truly sorry you have suffered a workplace accident 1) I hope you have made a full recovery 2) if your employer was liable I hope you were compensated.
Given this information I can understand to some degree your stance on the matter.
It is company policy and normal procedure that staff are searched - staff know this and a condition of employment - there are no surprises here - the only stress will be if you have something in the boot that should not be as suggested.
We do look after our employees and discharge our duty accordingly - for example in higher risk searches where HGV cabs are searched RAMS are in place - in these instances the vehicles belong to us and we control the arrangements around these vehicles.
We have the duty to identify and control significant risk via the RA process - if we had done and RA as you are suggesting what control measures could we have possibly put in place to for an employees opening and closing their own car boot or a stationary vehicle in a secure environment? This being the premises car park.
Moving forward - now its happens and you suggest its foreseeable it will happen again - ok - now tell what controls I am to put in place to prevent any reoccurrence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP perhaps you can answer this? Why ask a question on a "Discussion forum" if not prepared to listen to views from all sides?
We all know there are two sides to every argument-with something else inbetween.
I amhappy that there is someone seeing my point and suggesting boot searches should be risk assessed but that should be from stopping the vehicle to allowing it to proceed.
I am always of the opinion that HASAWA was written to protect the employee and from potential Bullying is one issue that is now recognised as a work hazard. This fits that scenario and I am on the side of the employee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
DP I have just read your latest reply- you could start by standing the vehicle owner to one side and have the Security people do everything. Remove the employee from the potential hazard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:I know if I was stopped and searched I would suffer a certain level of stress, as I would think any normal person.
Sufferig stress makes people act in different ways, has anyone thought of how employees react when subjected to this extra stress?
The individual was placed under stress by whoever did the search and that should be a topic for risk assessment.
As for a perfectly serviceable door, how do you know it is serviceable, are there maintenance records?
How do you know the vehicle boot does not have a fault with the closing mechanism?
My point - if the person is at work then risk assess - no RA then expect to pay out.
If not at work why was the search carried out?
what absolute nonsense.
Maintenance record yes. MOT certificate
Stress from opening a car boot????? God help us
Question?
what power could anyone exert to prevent this accident?
What possible safe systems could be instituted as the result of a risk assessment.
Chris your in the wrong job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Happy to listen to and engage in sensible debate at anytime - I just feel you are way off the mark in your understanding of what a significant risk is. Aren't we now in discussion two people offering opinions of a situation.
If you read my earlier post I have clearly noted - I am also venting frustration in this matter, to which you are fueling but be assured I do respect you opinion.
No we cant engage as you suggest - you can go rummaging through other people property - that's why staff are asked to open boots glove boxes etc and move items themselves if required by the party undertaking the search.
Given your example I do believe you would be introducing further risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The point of this is a possible civil action...Yes... then the lack of a risk assessment is only relevant if the claimant can establish that the lack of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment lead to the injury. As some writers have said even if you produced an RA for an employee opening and closing their boot while undergoing a search what findings could you establish ie what could you as an employer do to make sure that this did not happen, other than deciding not to search employees cars because of the risk of them trapping a finger while shutting the boot?
I cannot imagine any court going down that route; judges are very wary about extending the law as such a judgement would do. No this is just a standard attempt from a lawyer to try to get someone to pay up because there is no risk assessment for some trivial low risk activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Er, DP's original posting asked "have any of you ever undertaken and risk assessment and documented a SSoW for staff searches of their car boots". The info about the claim regarding the employee's finger came later. Although there was a strong consensus that the claim was frivolous, there might be a case for establishing/reviewing a system of work/agreed method regarding the various aspects, not just safety, of the vehicle searches - though not as a reaction to the claim letter.
TV programmes such as "Motorway Cops" quite often show traffic police officers searching the cars of suspects they have stopped. As it's foreseeable that such officers may follow some sort of method for such searches, can any forum users with knowledge of OS&H within police forces offer any information which might help regarding company searches of the sort described by DP?
p.s. DP - you probably know already that the alternatives suggested by the spellchecker for DP aren't very complimentary and include dopes and dupes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is there a risk assessment for security staff carrying out a boot search - yes or no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There is no RA for Staff car searches because I don’t feel it is a significant risk for a member of the management team to ask a member of staff to open their car boot – then – for that member of the management team to look inside to conduct a search and then ask the member of staff to close their boot.
Not sure where security came into this?
No there is not one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
According to the IOSH Managing Safely course notes 70% of workplace accidents are preventable by good management.
Where would you place this accident - inside or outside the 70% ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not too sure where you are going with this so I’ll play the game!
I can’t see how via any type of management controls – given this specific situation – we could have prevented this member of staff closing her car boot on her own hand.
Given I don’t have access to the rest of your notes and to how these figures were constructed I would have to say outside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I'd put it with tripping over kerbs, walking into things, paper cuts etc. Firmly in the 'take responsibility for your own actions' bracket.
The owner of the car knows how it works better than any of the managers. Telling people to take care while closing their boot could be equated(quite rightly) to 'Elf n safety' gone mad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I wasn't really going anywhere DP but as you have answered there must surely be a way of preventing this. As I have said earlier stop asking employees to open/close their boot lids.
I know what you answered before but is it not practical to have the searcher open the boot, ask the owner to do the rummaging than the searcher closes the boot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.