Posted By Shane Johnston Two employees fighting while at work. One unable to undertake normal duties for more than three days. Is this reportable: 1) If emplyees are equal grade doing same job etc (employees just don't get on). 2) One of the employees is the line manager of the other (possibly bullying) Shane

Posted By Bill Elliott Yes it would be reportable under the Over 3 day injury rule. Nonconsensual violence which results in absence from normal duties. In these cases "violence" includes acts of violence to people at work IF it arises "out of or in connection with" work.

Posted By Shane Johnston Gilly, Thanks, bought a smile to my face first thing on this cold Friday morning. At this point in time I don't know who was involved ... so who knows.... it may well be TU and ROES sorting the issue out with a good old rumble. You can see it now .... non-members and members both cheering on their respective Rep, and management standing on confused. Anyway, would a fight between two employees be classed as " out of or in conjunction with work"? I can undertsand it if a member of the public hit an employee as the employer would need to assess the risk of this happening and put in place control measures (ie security gards in A&E Departments). However, what can an employer possibly do about two individuals who fight, but just so happen to do it at work? They were not acting on the behalf of the employer, beating hell out of each other was not on the job description, as far as I can recall. If an employee smokes and developes cancer would you report it simply because he smoked at work? I don't think this is reportable, but will seek clarification from HSE and let you know. Shane.

Posted By Shane Johnston If they were injured while they were an employee and it is a reportable, then it doesn't matter whether they are an employee after the event or not ... it has to be reported. This will undoubtedly be dealt with by HR (dismissal etc), but is fighting between employees reportable if one is incapacitated for more than three days? Might be a case for the police (if an individual wants to take the issue up with them), but can't see why the HSE would want to know. Shane.

Posted By Jack Not been watching the rugby then Zoe? As has already been said, to be reportable it would have to arise out of and in connection with work but that doesn't exclude employee on employee violence. I think L73 even has a couple of examples

Posted By Ian Freeman There are two issues here, under RIDDOR it is reportable regardless of TU membership. You could conduct a risk assessment of violence in conjunction with HR policies. The remaining aspects would be dealt with through HR, employment law etc.

Posted By Gilly Margrave Ian, We know TU membership doesn't come into it! That was a reference to a completely different (and very long) thread. Shane, I think something has been lost from your original question - a bit of a ding dong over the footie would probably not be seen as work related unless it was part of a persistent climate of belittlement and abuse - I notice one of your scenarios raised the issue of bullying. Of course if the argument was about Rugby Union that might well be regarded as discrimination on the grounds of RELIGION! Gilly

Posted By John Murgatroyd It's covered on the HSE site. Check-out workplace violence. http://www.hse.gov.uk/violence/law.htm The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) Employers have a legal duty under this Act to ensure, so far as it reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Employers must consider the risks to employees (including the risk of reasonably foreseeable violence); decide how significant these risks are; decide what to do to prevent or control the risks; and develop a clear management plan to achieve this. The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) Employers must notify their enforcing authority in the event of an accident at work to any employee resulting in death, major injury, on incapacity for normal work for three or more days. This includes any act of non-consensual physical violence done to a person at work.

Posted By Clifford Estensen Hi, You say normal duties, do you mean some other light duties perhaps? then the answer is no. there has to be a total absence for more than 3 days. RIDDOR hasn't changed and has rightly included violence that may be a dangerous occurance. It is about people and behaviour and control.Violence may result in the same or more severe injury than an accident or other dangerous occurrance.Also if a member of the public is taken to hospital from the work site or premises through sustaining an injury no matter how minor, that may have been caused by whatever, even a thump, then its reportable. Thats how I read it , maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

Posted By John Murgatroyd Another H&S leaflet.................. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg69.pdf In reality, management reaction to workplace violence is pants. "stand up for yourself" "you should have hit him back" "you must have provoked him" "pity he didn't hit you harder" This is probably because most managers have little management experience or training. It's largely irrelevant anyway, since reporting of incidents at workplaces (esp small) is avoided like a match in a gunpowder factory. And in any case, H&S action is more likely to be taken when there's a good chance of some decent publicity.

Posted By John Murgatroyd And there are countless more injuries that leave the employee unable to work for several days and are still not reported. "accident" books frequently have no entries for months at a time....many times the "procedure" at a workplace is that the manager/s fill-in the entries after a first aider has reported the problem. The entries never get to be filled-in. At my place of work the Number one first aider was the only one "authorised" to enter details. Until they got told that anyone could fill the entry. Many cases of violence are not only unreported but suppressed.