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
Admin  
#1 Posted : 17 August 2001 13:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ben Bishop A part time member of our catering staff is giving us concern as to their suitability to the job. They are a long standing employee who also works for the local council. Here's the thing! She is a walking accident! In our workplace she has received 4 injuries in less than a year and 3 at home that caused absence from work. After thorough investigation it came down mainly to her inability or unwillingness to heed simple instruction or just odd behaviour. She is seeking legal advice for the latest which involved trying to balance a still hot, full fat fryer on a shelf above head height, that was far too narrow, and covering herself in oil. My feeling is that it would be safer for her and her collegues if she no longer operated in this environment. Is being accident prone enough grounds to dismiss a member of staff?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 17 August 2001 14:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede If she is also a council employee she is probably a union member it that employment if not in yours. So I hope you have got a full suite of risk assessments and method statements for the use of the fat fryer, its storage & location; evidence of training and supervision. Without this you will get slaughtered by the UNISON brief at any industrial tribunal. So you must look to the HR routes of failing to follow instructions and other actions that under the terms of her employment are disciplinary items. Ideally your organisation would come to an understanding with her that this kind of work is not for her and come to an amicable settlement.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 17 August 2001 14:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams Ben, What David said is true either the GMB or Unison would take the case apart. Now It may be appropriate for you and the Huddersfield campus to look at the supervision. If you consider her to be a risk to other members of staff and herself where is the supervision aspect? This is not saying that you use the supervisor as a scape goat. And once again do you have all the risk assessments? It may be appropriate to consult the with the Unions on this matter before it gets any worse. Ashley
Admin  
#4 Posted : 17 August 2001 14:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson Following on from David's comments, if you do not have a full suite of risk assessments and evidence of training, then it may be a little premature to put all of the blame onto the employee? Have your accident investigations found any other failings in the system, or have they found that the blame is all the employees? Nick
Admin  
#5 Posted : 17 August 2001 15:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Diane Warne Ben, I sympathise greatly with your situation. Some years ago I had someone working for me who was a problem for similar reasons, and what struck a chord with me was your statement "inability or unwillingness to heed simple instruction or just odd behaviour." I know just what you mean! This was a person who had plenty of training, and the instructions were clear to everyone else, but she was stubborn, and would do things her own not-very-sensible way instead. However, as has been already mentioned, slaughter with the aid of the unions is a distinct possibility. You need sound HR advice for sure, but as has again been said, an amicable solution to avoid legal confrontations would be the least damaging option. I know it sometimes sounds as though an employer is trying unfairly to "blame the employee" for accidents, but sometimes all the risk assessments, procedures and training in the world won't prevent some people from doing exactly what they aren't supposed to, often quite bizzarely. Best of luck.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 17 August 2001 16:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods Why don't you just name the woman because if she or any of her coleagues read your comments then they'll know who it is anyway. Is your plan to publicly pillory this woman in the hope that she has a breakdown or worse so she'll have to leave her job. Just by writting what you have my oppinion is that you have as much chance of any diciplinery action sticking as Julian Clary has of becoming a world heavy-weight boxing champion. Trades unions need people like you carry on the good work. Bob Woods GMB Representative Huddersfield
Admin  
#7 Posted : 17 August 2001 16:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods P.s have your bullying and harrasment policy copies of Risk assessments and safe systems of work ready monday am.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 17 August 2001 16:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi You state that after a thorough investigation, the cause is down to not following instructions--but what are your systems/arrangements/procedures for the provision of Information, Instruction,training, supervision etc-- all this follows follow after conducting a proper risk assessment!!! If you do not have robust systems, then it is unfair to simply assign the cause to a person being accident prone. Only if you have done all of the above can you sucessfully follow the disciplinary route. From a safety perspective, and from what has been consistently demonstrated & proved, a significant majority of accidents are due to management failure and not because employees are accident prone!!
Admin  
#9 Posted : 17 August 2001 18:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andy Lucas Ben, I would point out Sec 7 of HASWA, she probably does not appreciate the legal requirement to look after herself and others. This usually helps. Regards Andy
Admin  
#10 Posted : 17 August 2001 19:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Bennett Andy, Sounds like a very narrow minded management response to me, using section 7 of the HASAWA to admonish responsibility for failings. May I point out to you section 2: "The provision of such information instruction training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of employees." For the original posting by Ben, ensure you have Risk Assessments, Safe Systems of Work and Training Records etc. You do not state if this lady has been absent from work due to this accident, assuming she has, have all this information ready for the HSE inspector who will be issuing at the very least an improvement notice. Kind regards Lee.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 17 August 2001 19:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Lee Bennett Apologies my last post should have read: For the original posting by Ben, ensure you have Risk Assessments, Safe Systems of Work and Training Records etc. You do not state if this lady has been absent from work due to this accident, assuming she has, have all this information ready for the HSE inspector who will be issuing at the very least an improvement notice if you havent.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 17 August 2001 22:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Keith Archer. Don’t wish to get embroiled in this subject but while the blame is being shoved about could I suggest that management procedures and systems of work a reviewed for instance why was cooking oil whether hot or cold is being stored away in pans above head height. Would suggest that you carry out new suitable and sufficient risk assessments to prevent further risk to all your employees. Do you have a training programme if so review this, as education is a good method of accident prevention, if not introduce one urgently? Keith
Admin  
#13 Posted : 17 August 2001 23:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle Ben. Is this persons accident prone nature a new thing, or has it been on-going for some time? Have you considered that the person may be suffering from a condition that results in this accident prone nature? I recently listened to a programme on a little known condition called DISPRAXIA, which results in the kind of carelessness and accident prone nature of the person you describe. It may be worth investigating further. Stuart Nagle
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.