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 : 08 May 2003 13:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By wendy mcgarrity I'd be grateful if anyone has had experience of a risk assessment being challenged at an employment/industrial tribunal. A colleague has asked in regard to the following (summarised) scenario. Employee mentions disability at recruitment but signs to say no adjustments needed to work place. Risk assessment for job states specific training needed (which has physical component) Employee states unable to undertake this component of training due to condition ( only picked up that course is still incomplete after 2 years!) Employee sent to OH Dr. who asks for Risk assesment of job to be reviewed. In meantime reasonable adjustment tried unsuccessfully. End result 1)R/Ass review still shows training absolutely neccessary. 2) OH Dr. states employee never likely to be fit to undertake training(backed up by GP) 3)Employee suspended on H&s grounds. No suitable redeployment available. 4)Going to tribunal with challenge on R/Ass as key issue. Looks to me to be another H&S v DDA. Any views?
Admin  
#2 Posted : 08 May 2003 15:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jim Walker Hi Wendy, You seem to have joined a group of “disabled persons bashers” in the forum this week (see various postings). I’ve no experience or knowledge of tribunal investigations, but would like to make a few comments on your scenario. Last time I looked, there was a specific requirement under the Management of H&S at Work Regs. to consider various persons who might be harmed (ACOP para. 21) – disabled staff is one mentioned. My interpretation therefore is you can’t just slap a system of controls based on a “fit person” and shoehorn subsequent hires into that category. Also, the RA needs reviewing when “significant change in the matters to which it relates” (reg 3.3b) happen – in this case, when the disabled person started the job. Unless the employee was fully (totally) conversant with the company work systems how could he reasonably declare no adjustments are required? Why was he required to sign such a statement? Was he also competent to do the risk assessment as well? If this training was such an essential part of the risk control, how come it took the company two years to spot the lack of the training (absence of an important control)? Training is well down the hierarchy of controls and should (in my opinion) really be only used to control residual risk. But by implication, this task carries such a high risk (without the training) that someone is to be thrown out of work. It looks to me like both DDA AND H&S failures, as the company has breached the MHSW regs by not applying their own RA. Maybe if as much energy had been put into finding alternative control measures as has obviously been put into confrontation, everyone might be happy.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 08 May 2003 16:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert M Edwards I could not agree with Jim more, the whole perspective of employees with a disability and their treatment is littered in case law by poor risk assessment. I have provided detail on the current case law on this area, for which the awards are unlimited incidently,in an earlier posting on disability dicrimination. If the person at interview was asked to sign a form which said there was no adjustment necessary this will be seen as a breach of the DDA and H&S in my view. The onus on risk assessment and adjustment is on the employer and with a new employee it is hard to envisage any employee faced with this form signing 'yes I need an adjustment'. It points to pressure to conform on face value.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 08 May 2003 16:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Agree Jim, there does seem to be a general desire to side with the employer. It would be interesting to hear the 'tried and convicted' persons point of view. Also interesting that the training appears to carry more risk than the job, or have I read it wrong? Geoff
Admin  
#5 Posted : 08 May 2003 17:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By wendy mcgarrity Thank you gentlemen for your helpful replies. I suspected that, like me, you would feel that systems had not been appropriately followed on the part of the company. I have tried to paint the picture as factually as possible based on third hand information,and am disappointed that you think I am a basher of people with disabilities. I will of course, pass on your replies to my colleague (who is not a member of IOSH and therefore unable to post her own enquiry)
Admin  
#6 Posted : 08 May 2003 17:28:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Hilary Charlton I think I must be missing something here - the guy has been employed for 2 years, during this time no one has noticed that he has not completed his training? Fair enough it can happen, however, no one has noticed either that he is not doing part of the job, the physical part referred to in the risk assessment. Well, is he doing the complete job or not? At this juncture the main question would seem to me to be "is the risk assessment for the job correct?". Surely if the person has been doing the job 2 years without this training then this training could be regarded as "superfluous". Surely theoretical training could be carried out if the employee cannot undertake the physical training and, quite obviously, from not having to undertake this task for 2 years he doesn't actually need to do the physical stuff. Additionally, if he can't actually do the physical part then he is not very likely to suffer risk from it is he? I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is a disabled person basher, it is a difficult situation but certainly there is something seriously wrong with the system employed when dealing with this person. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but I really don't think you have a case.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 08 May 2003 19:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Geoff Burt Hilary - is it a man?
Admin  
#8 Posted : 08 May 2003 20:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Hilary Charlton You're right Geoff, I don't know if its a man or a woman - force of habit I'm afraid, I work in a heavy engineering plant where 90% of the workforce are men and most H&S people in my environment are men so I get into the habit of assuming that everyone I deal with is going to be male - which is a silly assumption really when you consider that I'm not male!
Admin  
#9 Posted : 09 May 2003 09:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Stuart Nagle You point out that the person in question has been doing their job for two years!! During this period has the job been done satisfactorilly and have the requirements of the post been met? It is stated that there is a 'physical' element to the post that 'at interview' the person stated they would not be able to undertake? If this is in fact the case, who has been doing the physical task? and is this now considered part of their duties? It would appear to me that the two years 'in-post' justifies that you are satisfied with the person and the arrangements, regardless of what any previous risk assessment may have stated or the opion of the Doctor. This seems to point to the fact that arrangements have altered, in respect of the physical task involved (someone else doing?) which in essence could be a control measure to avoid a partially disabled person doing the job, and the arrangements (for the last 2 years) have been accepted by the employer until it was noticed that the risk assessment for the post had not been competed/reviewed. I would suggest that a risk assessment(s) for the task(s) are not the job description for the post, and also that if the post has been filled satisfactorilly for the last two years, why now is it unsatisfactorilly filled just because a risk assessment has not been completed!!! I think you are on dodgy ground here....
Admin  
#10 Posted : 09 May 2003 12:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson Thought Employment Tribunals looked at liability for losses and not who was at fault (Criminal Courts). Think maybe could use Coxall v Goodyear see other thread.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 10 May 2003 11:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert M Edwards The employment tribunal can look at the manner in which the risk was calculated and report to the HSE any findings for criminal activity. To establish liability in the scenario given it is necessary to examine the process of risk assessment as part of the facts of the case.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.