My son's High School will be closed on 30th November due to strike action.

The letter he has brought home states "Neither the governing body not the head teacher are legally allowed to close the school in sympathy with the strike and we will not do so"

"However our main concern is the safety and supervision of our students throughout the day, on that basis it has been decided that the school will be closed etc. etc."

Contrast this with some of the "feeble" excuses and word games seen here to avoid RIDDOR reporting - who is the clever one, and who are pathetic?

People who live in glass houses.....

Who needs the Daily Mail to start these sort of stories when we can manage it ourselves? Of course the proposed strike action is ultimately the reason that the schools are closing, but is quite likely that it might well lead to a situation where the schools probably won’t have enough staff to ensure the proper supervision etc for the children‘s safety. I can’t help but feel that calling the Head pathetic is decidedly unfair. They can’t close a school ’willy nilly’ but they can close it because the effect of the strike creates a health and safety problem. Head Teachers and Governors may not know who or how many staff will go on strike, as the unions members are not obliged to tell them. Their other option is to wait until the morning to find out of they have enough staff, and if not send the kids back home again, That creates a logistical nightmare for both the school AND the parents, by giving them little or no notice to make alternative arrangements. Which of the 2 options would the vast majority of parents prefer; notice or no notice? I think I can guess! In that respect, the letter seems entirely prudent to me, and it doesn’t appear to me to be materially or factually wrong, nor a feeble excuse at all, nor pathetic, merely an explanation as to why the school; is going to close.

I am not entirely convinced that the majority of people who post RIDDOR questions are making excuses, feeble or otherwise or engage in word games to deliberately avoid reporting under RIDDOR, just that they are unsure. If the requirements are broken down, with perhaps a few exceptions there is generally little ambiguity as to what has to be reported and what doesn’t. Having said that then, perhaps Ian does have a point after all! On those occasions where people are in doubt, I suggest making the report, although I understand that some employers who contract for work are keen to avoid unnecessary reporting as this is something that is often asked in pre qualification questionnaires, and might (IMO probably unfairly) be held against them during the tendering process.