Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Clive Lowery
Urgently need some advice.
We are an SME who employ Sub-Contractors on construction sites. We are not the Principal Contractor.
Had an incident last week where one of our subbies was using a 110V industrial paddle mixer, to mix plaster in a large bucket.
During the operation he was ordered to switch off as a Safety Consultant needed to talk to someone else and didn't want to shout above noise.
Operative refused, then unbeknown to operative, Consultant pulled plug out of distribution box, causing mixer to "kick" as it stopped.
Operative suffers twisted wrist and makes pistol like gesture towards Consultant with comment of "Your a deadman".
Operative is then dismissed from site by PC. Subsequently goes to see doctor and is signed off as sick for 1 week.
Whilst not defending the actions of our Subbie, or arguing agaist his dismissal, I do feel that the consultant was also wrong.
Any guidance as to how I should approach this?
Consultant is freelance, working for Principal Contractor and is full time based on site.
Thanks in anticipation
Clive
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Frank Hallett
Hi Clive
This looks as if it has the potential for going to be messy, and with an extremely unsatisfactory outcome for all parties. So, as someone has to be brave [or brass-necked] enough to start the responses to a rather more common situation than is generally admitted; I'll make myself the target here.
Taking your info entirely at face value and considering both the Civil and Criminal law aspects altogether:-
1. It would appear that the subbie could have been at fault for failing to respond sensibly to the Safety Consultant's request to turn off the paddle. However, was he at point when turning off the paddle may have not been a sensible action?
2 It would appear that the safety consultant was at fault for failing to ensure that the subbie was aware of, and ready, for the sudden stopping of the paddle. However, did he provide sufficient warning of his intentions prior to performing the act?
3. It would appear that the safety consultant may have been at fault in initiating the sequence of events if it transpires that he could have done his talking to the 3rd party in another place.
4. The PC may well be at fault for supporting the safety consultant and not considering all of the possible root causes of this alleged injury. However, this could be seen as a routine and entirely predictable response to the situation by the PC.
OK, that should be enough to get your teeth into folks. Please, carefully read how I have phrased the statements above before putting me through the shredder.
Frank Hallett
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Descarte
I used to know a safety advisor who whilst contractors were working on site if he noticed that the compressors (electrical generation not air) were not earthed he would simple turn them off whilst the guys were conducting work several stories above. This may seem blatently stupid and iggnorant/arrogant but it was on a oil refinery and the fact they had to come down to start it again and get a ear full to simply connect the earthing cables which were always present meant they probably made sure they earthed it the next time.
In this scenario if there was a resulting accident I am sure the Safety advisor could get out of it by saying he was preventing an immediate safety risk. But just so he could talk to some one in the vicinity without moving 10m away is maybe a bit irresponsible.
My 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mal Shiels
Here is my two penneth, hope it helps.
I have been safety advisor on site carrying out inspections, placed in the position of the consultant i would never have taken his course of action. How can you expect site operatives to listen to you or build any rapport with them when you treat a situation like this.
I would have asked the operative i wanted to talk to to if he would mind coming outside, if he did not want to fine, you could go back later, unless of course the situation demanded a response there and then.
Then an informal chat with the subbies employer , whilst clearly explaining why i was asking for the operative to stop work, would have taken place.
It seems one of the root causes here is the nature of the consultants request to the operative.
I have worked on the tools on site, supervised operatives on site, and now act as a health and safety manager, if you treat people with respect you will almost certainly get it in return.
Of course there may be other factors here we are unaware of, the consultant is full time on site, is there a history between the pair? has there been other problems?
As Frank put it well earlier, this could be messy, as it seems attitudes and behaviours are at the root of this problem, good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
First of all Clive, for information, these forums have a problem that people need to be aware of; if someone writes a continuous string of letters of greater than 16 characters in the title without a space - It causes the "hot topics" box to enlage and overlap the text area.
My advice in this circimstance would be to remove the consultant from site and find another. There are situations when one would turn off equipment because immediate danger exists, this is not one of those. This person has a blatant disregard for other people just because he wanted to talk to somebody else! This machismo action suggests a person who lives in a state of abjection and fear as he confronts the absorption of his (as is most likely) into the Archaic Mother and thus annihilation of self!
The operative is going to find some good supportive solicitor and the PC can only hope that the consultant has PI insurance so that their EL insurers can recoup the costs. I feel loss of earnings for 6-12 months and permanent partial disability coming on here.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Just as an afterthought here I would get your QS to start the claim against the PC now as this is going to need early and clear documentation.
Email me if you need a further conversation
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
It was unreasonable to ask someone to stop what they are doing to have a conversation which could be held somewhere else. This is a blatant attempt to throw ones weight about and would apper to be the underlying causeof the incident at the end of the day the guy just wanted to do his job.
If this is what the Consultant does when he doesn't get his own way you can only imagine the manner in which he asked for the mixing to be stopped which is likey the reason why he got the response "No".
The threat may be criminal matter as it may ammount to assault or at least result in a brach however witnesses would need to have been present to prove B.R.D. that this happened but this could be mitigated by the circumstances. And then again he just said "your a dead man", he never said "Im going to kill you", he was commenting on what type of man he is, however, "Your an @*se*%le" would have been more appropriate and indeed accurate
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.