Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Torres  
#1 Posted : 30 May 2019 08:05:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Torres

Hi All,

Based in Southern Ireland, i am aware of the HSA guidance towards first aid at work. My question is for those that work shift in an upper tier seveso site. Currently we dont have any first aid cover on shift - all supervisors pulled out about 3 years ago. Do we need to have cover on shift? There are only 2 guys on nights and weekends.

Thanks,

D

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 30 May 2019 08:42:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

It comes down to your assessment - upper tier seveso site suggests a high risk environment which would push FA numbers up compared to say an office based CCTV monitoring station

In chemical plant situation - 3 person shift - we chose to train all shift personnel in EFAAW to eliminate the possibility of no cover in the event of shift swap / sickness

Torres  
#3 Posted : 06 June 2019 09:25:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Torres

Hi Roundtuit,

Our problem is we had all shift supervisors trained up, they then pulled their services, looks like there is a payment wanted to go back and re-train. Have offered to others and answer is always no.. what can you do in that scenario??

Cheers.

A Kurdziel  
#4 Posted : 06 June 2019 11:02:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Are you telling us that the shift supervisors are refusing to work shifts?

Torres  
#5 Posted : 06 June 2019 12:46:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Torres

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post

Are you telling us that the shift supervisors are refusing to work shifts?

No, what i am saying is they pulled out of being first aiders..

niamh cowhey  
#6 Posted : 07 June 2019 11:19:00(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
niamh cowhey

Speak to SMT/HR to implement this as  Mandatory training

If they refuse to participate in this training, well then they cant go on site!

A Kurdziel  
#7 Posted : 07 June 2019 12:32:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

And you can’t reinstate the First aider payments? Why were they pulled? And why were they offered in the first place?

Here is a scenario to put to the shift managers:  someone is injured on a shift. They’re the only people available and there is a First Aid kit in the corner of the room. Would they really just sit there waiting for an ambulance while the poor sod bled to death? I don’t care if they have any bits of paper saying that they are trained or not; would they not feel the moral imperative to intervene?

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 07/06/2019(UTC), samf on 12/08/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#8 Posted : 07 June 2019 12:40:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

I would be reminding the supervisors their duties under the HSAWA 1974.

  1. Follow the training you have received (They have the training)
  2. Take reasonable care of your self and others (I would argue that it is reasonable for them to look after a first aid patient, since they have the training)
  3. Co-operate with your employer on health and safety (You have asked them to do this, they must do this)

This is not a contract/payment dispute, this is the law. They are legally bound to follow the above. I appreciate that it is easy for somebody to point this out, rather than the person dealing with these awkward individuals, so I feel for you.

From a more practicable approach. You have the people trained. They can't object to you naming them as 1st aid trained personnel. The hard part comes when it is time to refresh their training.

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 07 June 2019 13:27:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: niamh cowhey Go to Quoted Post
Speak to SMT/HR to implement this as  Mandatory training 

You need to tread VERY carefully mandating FAAW training as a contractual obligation.

are you going to sack an experienced employee if/when they fail the refresher course (some people do)?

are you going to suspend employees whose certificate has lapsed whilst they get re-certified?

will you avoid that ideal candidate because they have issues preventing them being a First Aider?

even if they do spend the time attending, and somehow get certified what are you going to do when they find a string of reasons not to apply the training in to practice?

Roundtuit  
#10 Posted : 07 June 2019 13:39:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Go to Quoted Post
Take reasonable care of your self and others (I would argue that it is reasonable for them to look after a first aid patient, since they have the training)

Co-operate with your employer on health and safety (You have asked them to do this, they must do this)

They can't object to you naming them as 1st aid trained personnel. 

See you at tribunal

Some are uncomfortable treating others - will you sack them?

FAAW provision is an employer duty - personally I think you are stretching the concept of co-operation

Placing names on a list as "available" first aiders just because they have training could be perceived as falsification of company records in overstating the actual resource in addressing the risk assessment

A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 07 June 2019 14:13:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I think that the issue(please correct me) here is that these people were trained as first aiders and we therefore assume that they were happy to treat people but have now decided not to act as first aiders as they are not going to get paid for it anymore. Not the same as ordering people to be first aiders if they can’t stand the sight of blood. I have had the situation where trained first aiders have treated one person for real and then decided that this is not for them. That’s fine but the idea that they have decided (collectively?) to stop being first aiders until their payments are restored worries me.

Edited by user 07 June 2019 14:14:25(UTC)  | Reason: words semantics meaning

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 10/06/2019(UTC)
johnnyboy64  
#12 Posted : 09 June 2019 12:25:19(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
johnnyboy64

HASAWA 1974, this covers UK legislation, Ireland is not in the UK ?

thanks 1 user thanked johnnyboy64 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 10/06/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#13 Posted : 09 June 2019 18:57:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

the OP also referred to SEVESO rather than COMAH

Roundtuit  
#14 Posted : 09 June 2019 19:09:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Go to Quoted Post
That’s fine but the idea that they have decided (collectively?) to stop being first aiders until their payments are restored worries me. 

Basic employment right to with hold labour (union or not) - even more so when there was a payment and some spread sheet conductor identifies the cost of everything to be eliminated and fails to perceive its value.

Lets be honest "our" profession on a company spreadsheet is all cost and no benefit - that's why we look for the prosecutions to indicate to our employers "if we don't the cost could be...". There are an increasing number willing to run such risk just at the time the regulator is becoming even more aggresive in the courts with enhanced sentencing guidelines.

CptBeaky  
#15 Posted : 10 June 2019 11:21:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: johnnyboy64 Go to Quoted Post

HASAWA 1974, this covers UK legislation, Ireland is not in the UK ?

Yep I should have seen that.

@Rountuit

"See you at tribunal

Some are uncomfortable treating others - will you sack them?

Basic employment right to with hold labour (union or not) - even more so when there was a payment and some spread sheet conductor identifies the cost of everything to be eliminated and fails to perceive its value."

I find these comments very intersting. It seems you know a lot more about employment law than myself (not surprising really). Could you really withhold labour if it endangered another person's life? Would it not be seen as a "reasonable request" to ask someone who agreed to have training, and passed that training to use that training to save a person's life?

I am asking an honest question, I am intrigued as to whether our law system is set up like that.

Roundtuit  
#16 Posted : 10 June 2019 13:06:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I seriously doubt one of the supervisors would sit by and watch a colleague/friend bleed to death BUT from the employer perspective the supervisors have made clear their withdrawl from being listed as site first-aiders so there must be alternative arrangements made to meet any assessed requirement.

We don't have Good Samaritan legislation in the UK so could you with hold labour if it endangers another persons life? Ambulance/NHS/Fire-fighters can strike or work to rule so the answer must be yes.

Mark-W  
#17 Posted : 10 June 2019 13:53:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

I seriously doubt one of the supervisors would sit by and watch a colleague/friend bleed to death BUT from the employer perspective the supervisors have made clear their withdrawl from being listed as site first-aiders so there must be alternative arrangements made to meet any assessed requirement.

We don't have Good Samaritan legislation in the UK so could you with hold labour if it endangers another persons life? Ambulance/NHS/Fire-fighters can strike or work to rule so the answer must be yes.

What is your understanding/meaning of the above phrase? For me it's about offering first aid treatment without fear of prosecution from an uniuntentional injury or death. 

Does you view differ from that?

Roundtuit  
#18 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:07:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

In that we do not have legislation stating someone MUST take a course of action as opposed to protections against a claim of negligence when someone acting with all best intention gets it wrong which is covered by the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

thanks 1 user thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 10/06/2019(UTC)
CptBeaky  
#19 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:14:48(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

That is how I understood what you were saying Rounduit. However I am still confused as to why, in this specific case (were it based in the UK) it would not be covered under 7a (HASAW act) in omissions? I very much doubt it would ever be followed up in a court of law, but employees do have a "common law(?)" duty to act at work in regards to health and safety.

Maybe this should be in a new thread so as not to usurp this one.

Torres  
#20 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:18:35(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Torres

Hi All,

Not sure where i said there was a previous payment.. there never was a payment to any first aider, services were pulled as part of a different argument with the company.. what i am saying is that there is a thought they will re-train as first aiders if they are paid... if they wont get paid they wont re-train.

Initially i was wondering how we were fixed not having cover on shift.

Thanks all for replies.

Mark-W  
#21 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:30:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

In that we do not have legislation stating someone MUST take a course of action as opposed to protections against a claim of negligence when someone acting with all best intention gets it wrong which is covered by the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

I misread your post. I was looking at it from the other direction, not in the view of you MUST, rather than, if you do and it goes wrong.

My apologies

A Kurdziel  
#22 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:37:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

From my reading the situation is as follows: it was decided that shift supervisors should be trained as first aiders so that they could comply with local laws on provision of first aiders. The supervisors were happy to do this on the understanding that they would get paid a “first aider bonus” for completing the training and keeping it upto date.  It was then decided (for whatever reason) to stop this payment. The supervisors then made it clear that if they were not being paid for this “extra” duty they would no longer be willing to act as supervisors.

The ideal solution is to find out why the supervisors are refusing to stay on as first aiders. I would be surprised if it was simply about the money. I say it might not simply be about the money but a fear that if they are the first aider they might be liable if something goes wrong. In the UK(not so sure about Ireland) at least the law is clear that they would not be liable if they used their best endeavours. I have come across something similar with employees saying that they will not do risk assessments  as part of the normal duties is it is above and beyond  what they are contracted to and as such they should get extra payments. We have said no, the risk assessment process is part and parcel of their normal job.

Anyway, management needs to find a solution which might involve a certain amount of stick and carrot. The simplest carrot would be to reinstate the payments but then management would be seen to have lost face.  Most contract have implied terms and conditions as  well as those spelt out and it could be that providing first aid is part and parcel the normal contract of employment and that the payment was not a specific payment for providing first aid. In that case you could insist that they provide first aid cover or you wave the big stick at them. On the other had it could be that the payment was specifically for providing first aid cover above and beyond the normal contact requirements in which case, they have you over a barrel.  It needs those people in HR to earn their money and work this one out.

 

Roundtuit  
#23 Posted : 10 June 2019 14:53:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/First_Aid/First_Aid_Regulations.pdf

Reading table 2 anything up to 49 employees for a factory requires one occupational first aider IF the safety statement risk assesment shows it to be necessary and such number should be doubled where the workplace is more than one hour away from medical assistance

Unfortunately we come back to where your company is located and what your risk assessment states to determine if having no occupational first aiders in a two crew shift would be acceptable e.g. are they competent enough to contact necessary medical assistance and apply basic dressing.

The FAQ's page seems very practical and easy to understand

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/First_Aid/First_Aid_Frequently_Asked_Questions/First_Aid_Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

Roundtuit  
#24 Posted : 10 June 2019 15:01:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: Mark-W Go to Quoted Post
My apologies 

Not necessary I should have picked better terminology with explanation 

Q9  
#25 Posted : 11 August 2019 22:10:45(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Q9

Originally Posted by: Torres Go to Quoted Post

Hi Roundtuit,

Our problem is we had all shift supervisors trained up, they then pulled their services, looks like there is a payment wanted to go back and re-train. Have offered to others and answer is always no.. what can you do in that scenario??

Cheers.

Its essentially a man management problem. Talk to the three guys and ask what the problem is, you will probably find they are narked about something and have taken an odd collective action in retaliation. Find out what the problem is and the solution should be apparent. Don't think of it as winning or losing just problem solving. Payments for first aiders is fairly normal. 

If the FA needs assessment required 3 guys to be trained in FA and now there is no cover on shift then I would assume that creates a problem. If you are an employee request in writing what FA arrangements are in place and what impact having no cover on shift means and what the arrangements are.

Users browsing this topic
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.