Rank: Forum user 
|
All
I have been currently carrying out an investigation where an employee was struck on the head by a cage being moved by FLT. The activity was taking place in the rear of a container which was on a loading dock. The RAMs state that no persons should be in the rear of container when FLT is moving.
I have been struggling to change the culture along with regional advisor for sum time. To cut a a long story short my boss's want to discipline the injured person. My recommendation was further training, supervision and a consistent approach to enforcing policy and procedure. Upon investigating it would appear that the general opinion is that this has been common practice for a long. I feel that the root cause is with the management for failing to implement/enforce policy. I would almost go as far to say that they have knowingly and conivingly allowed this way of operating.
I havent given full story as would be typing forever.
Would appreciate thoughts/comments.
MAT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi MAT. I would agree with you that Management seems to be at fault (root cause) but I don't know the full details. That's the way the IP's lawyer would see it anyway if a claim comes in - they wont chase the FLT driver.
However, back at work, I assume you are the competent person, so, as an outsider I would be asking if the IP was made aware of the RA/RAM and the risks to his H&S as required in the Man Regs Reg 10. If he had not been made aware of the risks - then I would urge caution in apportioning blame on him. However, if he had been, and maybe was involved in the RA process as he should have been, then my personal view is that if he did not adhere to the known control measures then it would be appropriate to discipline.
I too have come from an workplace where changing the culture was made impossible due the lack of support from my line manager to implement the changes that I knew were desperately lacking. Quite often, it takes an incident to get their attention. After all this could have been a fatality?
I would advise that the RA gets reviewed asap, and that all relevant persons are made aware of the RA, the risks, and the controls. Sorry if I've missed bits - its early!!
FCSY
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi Mat,
Taking a disciplinary action is an easy action, but is it going to stop such accidents in future, Recommending for a pedestrian and equipment operation segregation and awareness to the people is a suggestion from my side.
Asok Kumar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
If the IP had not been made aware of the contents of the RAM/RA then wouldn't management still be the route course for not ensuring that it was brought to the attention of the employee. It's not the competent persons role (unless local policy states otherwise) to ensure that the contents and control measures are brought to the attention of employee's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It is impossible to determine the appropriate action without answers to the following questions:
* Why was the IP in the container?
* Why did the FLT driver move the cage whilst someone was in the container?
* Why did a supervisor not intervene? (Answer may be that there was not a supervisor, which may give you a line of inquiry)
* Did the RAM/RA properly identify all tasks to be performed, assess risks correctly and specify practical controls?
If disciplinary actions is considered appropriate it must apply to the IP, the FLT driver, their Supervisors and their managers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Works wonders when a supervisor is disciplined for not enforcing safe working methods. It is even better when you can do it to a director:-)
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As an additional (totally agree that it could be seen a Management failing and accepted practice) if this had been a prosecution the HSE may well have gone after the FLT driver as this (and I'm making assumptions about the FLT Drivers Training) would have gone against his training as an operator and his duty of care to a fellow employee. The Management are not 100% to blame, there has to be a certain amount of accountability here not everyone can be Supervised 100% of the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Mr.Flibble wrote:...................there has to be a certain amount of accountability here not everyone can be Supervised 100% of the time! Totally agree, but try using that as defense when defending a claim or when defending an actual or possible prosecution (been there and done that) and it often gets you nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MAT - I was in the same position in my first H&S role, so I did discipline the IP, made it clear that safety was important...gave the FLT driver a formal warning, the union didn't like it, the FLM's didnt like it, however stood my ground and continued in that vein for almost 2 years - consequently the site went from a poor site to a very good site...eventually.
PM me if you want any more details on what else I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
All
Thank you for your valued input thus far. Several good valid points.
The FLT driver was trained and assessed by an internal RTITB registered trainer. As well as having several years prior experience.
Agree FLT driver should not have been operating in area, should have stopped and waited for pedestrians to move to safe area as per procedure and training.
IP should have been following procedure in which he was also trained.
Boss wants to discipline for not wearing hard hat as required.
Boss may have a valid point as previous Toolbox talk 4 days previous about wearing required PPE was given to IP. Toolbox talk was a general in yard areas. After interviewing all persons involved they have all indicated that they never have worn hard hats when carrying out this activity, and supervisors/management have been present during the activity, never stopped or enforced procedure. Even though RA states hard hat must be worn, persons should be in safe areas when FLT is moving, it would appear that this has been accepted as the ''NORM''. As the accident has occurred they are looking to now apportion blame(IMO) has to be apportioned somewhat to management.
I can't help feel if IP was to raise cival action at the very best ''contributory negligence''.
Thank you all once again
MAT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Apologies again for the typo's
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.