How do people feel about recommending disciplinary as part of an action point following an incident investigation? In the past I may have drawn a conclusion that the individual/s have indeed failed to follow Company procedure’s, and should therefore be retrained etc. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea , for me it is up to the individual’s management or HR to make this decision following the outcome of the report and not the advisor who is conducting the initial investigation. I would welcome your thoughts. Many Thanks

I agree with Ray; it is not for the H&S man to recommend or otherwise disciplinary action. I always make this clear when carrying out accident investigations. It is up to line management and /or HR to decide according to the company's policies.

The incident investigating Manager can recommend disciplinary action as part of the remedial actions but then hands over the incident report to a separate (not linked) Manager for the disciplinary investigation which is a seperate entity. This is a common approach I have seen where its possible/probable/certain that some form of misconduct has taken place.

There will be many organisations where the investigation is carried out or led by the local manager. In those cases it is essential that any findings that indicate wrongdoing by an individual are "cast iron" before any disciplinary measures are initiated. Good practice would be to get an objective overview from a non-involved manager.

A good safety investigator will make it clear at the outset that the investigation will focus on causes and mitigation to eliminate/reduce risk associated with the incident/accident. If this is not established then there's a risk that those interviewed/involved will not be fully open and honest and this will impact on the effectiveness of the investigation. As a part of the investigation competence and capability should be reviewed to establish the likelihood of a violation or repeat error occurring. Where this is established to have happened then this is where the Lead Investigator needs to be able to make a recommendation or action that prompts a disciplinary investigation/action. This is the fine line, although you don't make an explicit statement that this should happen if you feel there's a need then the wording of your recommendation is crucial, e.g. 'a full and thorough review of the individual's capability to undertake this and similar work, aspects that should be considered as a part of this review are... etc, etc'. Of the many talents and skills required by a good investigator, good writing skills is something that is often overlooked but essential to making sure your findings are not only understood but actioned accordingly.

I think it is far more effective to split post incident actions into separate investigation and analysis stages. The investigation is all about the what and when, including identifying what people did wrong as well information about the situations and conditions at the time. Following the investigation you move to analysis. This may include the disciplinary process, which should determine why someone did something wrong and hence whether they should be held personally accountable. There are other analyses that may be taking place, including root cause analysis. One outcome from the analysis stage is that more investigation may be required to collect further information etc. By splitting into these stages I can see no problem with someone leading an investigation to recommend that the disciplinary process should be initiated as part of the post investigation analysis.

It somewhat depends on the investigator's role in the company, if it's as an advisor or H &S manager working for the company, the time to recommend disciplinary action is before any incident has taken place and let the managers know this is one of the tools in the box in the event that an employee does breach the rules. During the investigation I think an investigor should only look at the facts, be totally impartial and not recommend disciplinary action. However at the clean up / recommendation stage it could be that the investigator may advise that an employee must be "forced" to comply in future to prevent a repeat incident, if for example an employee is constantly ignoring the rules, it's up to the employer how they do this. In my former job I was involved in HR and H & S and I would take disciplinary action if an employee breached the rules (such as no hat, no boots, no job) but if an accident occured the employee would either be warned officially that a further breach would result in action, but not disciplined further, or given extra training or instruction if this was thought to be more appropriate.

When I first read this and before anyone had replied, I was going to reply much along the same lines as Ray. However, on reflection, while any investigation should be as factual as possible, I suggest that it is incomplete (and potentially pointless) without making recommendations to try to prevent a recurrence; surely this is an integral and crucial part of any investigation? Disciplinary action may well be a reasonable and justifiable recommendation and those carrying out investigations shouldn't shy away from making such a recommendation; if it is justified. To do so would IMVHO be something of a 'cop out'. So, while the disciplining of staff and the process would be a matter for the 'line management' and HR, this doesn't and shouldn't stop a "H&S man" making a recommendation to do so. Perhaps Claire or Graham can enlighten us as to the HSE approach? The investigating Inspector has some part to play in deciding on enforcement action, certainly in respect of INs or PNs and I assume they make some sort of recommendation or indication to the CPS (the 'ultimate' disciplinary action!)?

I think the recommendation from an investigation would be to initiate the disciplinary process. I think this is different to recommending that disciplinary action is taken, and avoids most of the potential problems people have identified. Regarding preventative action. Good application of a good disciplinary process can have a very positive impact on a company's culture. I think that there is no argument that culture is critical in H&S. I would actually go as far to say that companies don't use the disciplinary process enough. This results in it only being used in difficult situations (e.g. after an accident) where emotions are running high. This is where the conflict can start.