Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Brando
All,
We have a ban on the warehouse operatives wearing hoodies or any head gear which restricts their vision.
We have just interviewed a lady who wears a vale and head dress for religous reasons.
Can she be refused a position on health and safety grounds?
( The issue is when she turns her head - the head dress basically stays pointing forward restricting her side view ).
Brando
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper
If the 'mode of dress' is putting her or others at risk - and you can clearly demonstrate this - then I believe that it would be reasonable to refuse employment on H & S grounds.
In saying that, I feel that if this is the only reason for refusing to employ her then you may land in difficulty if you have not given the person the opportunity to discuss the issue as there may be alternative solutions to this particular issue.
It may be that the attire worn at the interview was not her 'day to day' clothing and other attire more suitable to the work being carried out may be available that meets her personal / cultural needs and does not compromise safety within the workplace.
FH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By willhiem
at the risk of sounding racist - i think if you have this policy in place then it should stick. had you brough this policy in and ther person was already working there then i suppose it may have looked worse or you'd have to maybe look at what tasks they do and maybe move them. I suppose you would have to check and see was this everyday wear etc as mentioned above.
I'm a bit sick of the way racism etc is being used as an excuse everywhere. In work religon and ethnic origins shouldnt come up, you're there for a reason - to work, if you want to practice your religion ouotside work thats fine, who cares, if its getting in the way of you fulfilling your job properly and safely then i dont think you are able for the job and should be moved or fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Warburton
Well said willhiem, and i agree. Although, i am sure there are some regulations covering religious head gear exemptions in construction. Can anyone shine some light on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By willhiem
I see my post has been removed, apologies, i myself didnt think there was anything offensive in it, obviously there was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Brando,
Apart from the main difference of dealing with a current employee rathaer than a prospective employee, does the thread "Rastafarians" provide you with any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By willhiem
without bringing up my old post which was pulled. (not getting into that now)
I'm just wondering about all this being PC etc how long will that last when an accident investigation into a work place fatality is taking place?
Is the first question the accident investigators ask going to be what religion was the person? Hardly, its going to be what was the person doing? Had they recieved training (part of which was wearing PPE or else training on what not to wear - ties / long hair / whatever).
on a different note but slightly in relation to this post. there could be something out there which allows this person to perform the task but keep their head wear like beard masks in clean room environments etc.
as i said in my other post (this could hardly be offensive)
'if you already have this policy in place then it should stick. Had you brought this policy in and the person was already working there then i suppose it may be worse or you'd have to maybe look at what tasks they do and maybe move them. I suppose you would also have to check and see was this everyday wear etc as mentioned above.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mike Miller
Hi Guys
Whilst I can understand your concerns
refusing employment where the dress of the individual is an issue is skating on thin ice! They may not be able to do that aspect of work but can they be offered something else where their clothing is not an issue? Does the company have a dress code? These are things to consider.
You could refuse based purely on health and safety and risk assessment but be prepared for a fight! I feel an ET coming on :-o
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
We appear to be having incomplete information from some who ask questions and then it becomes an "issue" and threads/responses are pulled off.
In this case, whereas I accept that a hood type covering may restrict a particular field of vision, there is no information on what the ware house operative duties are and in what specific aspect is this so important that a few seconds of tuning ones head cannot see the hazard??
Even wearing hard hats can restrict a particular field of vision.
Last, but not least, we would expect that in the hierarchy of risk controls, other control measures would be in place.
This appears more to do with dress code than purely health and safety, although there may be some health & safety inplications!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I should have thought there was more than one way to improve the field of view - making the head-dress turn with the head, or reduce the opaque regions and replacing with more veil.
I am no expert, but I imagine the religious intention is to obscure the face, rather than a specific and uncompromising design of headwear.
Lastly, it may sound silly, but have you tried it for yourself and found the view inadequate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brando
Sorry - feeling dumb again.
What is the Rastafarian issue???
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John J
I'm not sure why the head dress would turn as the person looks to the side as they are normally a close fit.
If it does I'm sure the person has learned to compensate for this. The same thing happens when you wear air blouses/tank suits and you quickly adapt to it,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris G
I disagree with Mikes point about offering someone an alternative.
Run this scenario:
I advertise (internally or externally) for applicants to do a specific task.
At interview I find an issue such as the one under discussion.
I then offer an alternative post in order to avoid the risk of an ET.
Oh dear I'm now employing someone is a spurious role for which I have no business case & I can now not afford to employ some one in a vital role as I've spent my budget.
When looked at like that it does seem a bit odd.
I do agree though that reasons for non employment would have to have a firm H&S grounding, rather than dress sesnse / xenophobic response.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By willhiem
I'd have to agree with you on that Chris, i think i pretty much said it before. I'd have no problem at looking at other tasks for the person had they already been in employment with the company and this rule was just implemented, however i dont think its possible to hire a person for a job they cannot do safely and therefore have to move them to another section or task which wasnt the reason you hired them in the first place. It doesnt make sense, its not racist or whatever its just business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head Chris.
Rather than assuming the job cannot be done for whatever reason that may be superficially described as "elf 'n' safety" we should be working with our employer to enable the best person for the job (in this case the individual wearing the headdress) to fulfill the role they have been appointed to.
It's all about enabling - not preventing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie
Without trying to be facetious, could you not just ask her to turn her head/headwear in the same way she would when trying to cross a road. Asumming that she could manage that without getting knocked over she should be ok in the work environment.
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.