Posted By Debbie Spowart I sometimes wonder why I do my job!! I did the risk assessment for a task, wrote the Safe Working Procedure, included these in the induction training package, got them all signed for by our new employee as read and understood - issued the necessary PPE, which he signed for and in signing so understood that it was company policy to wear it all times (written on acceptance form). 2 months later totally ignored what he'd been instructed to do and wear and injured himself. I was able to give all this information to our insures and felt confident that I has done as much as I was physically able to do. Has just been awarded £1500 compensation for personal injury. Arghhhh!!!!

Posted By John Murgatroyd The insurance company will have made a decision based on the probable outcome of any civil litigation. You should ask them the reason for the payment (they should have notified the company anyway). Then modify your procedures. And it's not a claims culture, it's compensation for injuries or wrongs. Live with it, it won't be the last.

Posted By Stuart Nagle I was talking to an senior and well qualified HR professional recently, who states categorically that accidents and claims can be directly related to the volume of absence an employee has, e.g. the persons most likeoly to have high absenteeism are those most likely to have accidents in the workplace and those most likely to make claims for injuries. I would be interested in quantifying this issue with others and wondered if any of you can correlate this theory... Stuart

Posted By Jim Walker I am with Jack on this. It is always, always the employer's responsibility to ensure controls are implimented. Debbie, I have been in the same position as you find yourself, but you have to accept that this incident highlights a management failing.

Posted By Joe Holland Previous Company I worked for had same problem. Training for the task was given to all persons who were then tested on their competence for carrying out that task, employees had involvement in SSW and suitable PPE was always issued. Employees signed all aspects and received regular tool box talks. Supervisors were always on the shop flkoor monitoring work. At Union insistence all injuries (even 1cm cut by someone using a self possessed pen knife which was against Company Policy - yes he won a claim). After paying out several claims which were defendable, the Insurance Company was called to a meeting. Their answer in paying out was the fact as has already been pointed out, it was cheaper than paying massive sums on claimants solicitors, medical examinations etc and that they had so many claims awaiting investigation and settlement that they could not keep up with the workload. The Company stated that this was not acceptable and told them that if they wanted to remain as Company Insurers then they would need to win cases. Costs were high in defending and winning cases but so were the Union solicitors costs. Many of the cases submitted for injury were obviously bogus (sports injuries etc happening off Site). Over an 18 month period, claim submission dropped drastically with the Union only taking on cvases which I believed had a genuine case and where negligence on behalf of the Company could be proved. It wasn't cheap and the Company Insurance Premiun rose significantly BUT it has now steadied. Had the Company not taken that action then Insurance Premium would have rose to an extent where it would have resulted in workers being laid off and parts of the business being sub-contracted. Speak with your Insurance Company.

Posted By Adam Jackson Fustrating though it is Debbie, sadly under the current "someone else is always to blame" claims culture cr@p like that does get paid out. We just had a case with an electrician who had worked for the company for 27 years. One of the buildings has very low ceilings at the sides. He is issued with a hard hat, he was told he should wear it in that building, he knew the building layout from his long experience, and there was a dirty great sign on the door identifying it as a hard hat zone. Predictably enough, he didn't wear his hat and walked into a low roof beam. He cut his head but unfortunately fractured a vertebrae in his neck. He was given the PPE, he was told of the need to wear the PPE, he had to open a door with a sign on it telling him of the need for the PPE, and the injury was not reasonably foreseeable from someone just walking. I argued and argued against it and we ended up getting a Barrister's opinion at their chambers in Manchester. Sure enough, the advice was we were liable because nobody had consistently made him wear the hard hat, which given he works alone most of the time would be difficult, but that was irrelevant. He lost 20% of the award for contributory negligence but still walked away with just over £160,000. (And before someone jumps in with the blindingly obvious, yes, PPE was the last resort. We even applied to pull the building down and re-build it with higher ceilings but the planning permission was refused. The ceiling is the roof so there is no void we could use to raise it into.)

Posted By TBC Well done Heather. I have always been in favour of going down the disciplinary procedure route when injuries occur and PPE is provided and not worn. It seems the only way of hammering home the message to employees who bend or break the rules.

Posted By Jim Walker Whilst people here are speculating about what would happen in civil court, in criminal court similar things would & do happen. Regardless of operatives "stupidity" it is still down to the employer to manage all activities. HSE would go for the employer rather than the employee. It all makes you wonder if MarkSmark has the right idea after all!!

Posted By jackw. Hi. I tend to agree with Jack. Was the level of supervision adequate and was a disiplinary procedure applied to this employee as a result of refusing to abide by your rules and regs re safety PPE etc.? The legislation is clear and indeed punctuated with you must provide adequate "training, information, instruction and SUPERVISION". Seems from what you have told us it is the lack of supervision of this employee that your insurers might have considered the weakness in your case to the point that it would be lossed..of course it may be as some have said that £1500 isn't wrth going to court for.. if it is then it's a pity and anopen door for small claims. I would be interested in why your insurers paid up. Cheers

Posted By Debbie Spowart Perhaps should have put it into my initial thread. The guy injured was originally employed as a Class 1 driver (63 years old). He worked for 2 months, sustained his injury, was off work, (we reported it to RIDDOR which resulted in letter from local HSE and they were happy with our training, RA and SSW's), guy came back to work but in the mean time had had his class 1 licence suspended and eventaully taken away by DVLA(they have to have medicals every 5 years to retain it ) due to extreme high blood pressure. We offered him an alternative job but on a different rate of pay because we didn't want to see him out of work in his last 2 years of pre-retirment. Then 3 months before he retired and nearly 2 years after the accident he issued a letter from a firm of solicitors. At no time did he lose any money whilst off work etc.

Posted By Jasonjg Now this may only be a rumour so do not hold me on it. Apparently Insurers do not like handling cases where the employer continued to pay the employee wages whilst off work after an accident. They seem to think it is looked at as an admission of guilt in the courts. Like I say, maybe just a myth. Has anyone else heard this?

Posted By Debbie Spowart The guy in question was interviewed and the riot act read to him the following day. The response we got from him was that 'I didn't think it would ever happen to me'. No-one ever does. And yes we do pay 100% salary when people are off sick - we like our employees to stay with us.