Hi All,

Based in Southern Ireland, i am aware of the HSA guidance towards first aid at work. My question is for those that work shift in an upper tier seveso site. Currently we dont have any first aid cover on shift - all supervisors pulled out about 3 years ago. Do we need to have cover on shift? There are only 2 guys on nights and weekends.

Thanks,

D

It comes down to your assessment - upper tier seveso site suggests a high risk environment which would push FA numbers up compared to say an office based CCTV monitoring station

In chemical plant situation - 3 person shift - we chose to train all shift personnel in EFAAW to eliminate the possibility of no cover in the event of shift swap / sickness

Are you telling us that the shift supervisors are refusing to work shifts?

Speak to SMT/HR to implement this as  Mandatory training. 

If they refuse to participate in this training, well then they cant go on site!

I would be reminding the supervisors their duties under the HSAWA 1974.

1. Follow the training you have received (They have the training)
2. Take reasonable care of your self and others (I would argue that it is reasonable for them to look after a first aid patient, since they have the training)
3. Co-operate with your employer on health and safety (You have asked them to do this, they must do this)

This is not a contract/payment dispute, this is the law. They are legally bound to follow the above. I appreciate that it is easy for somebody to point this out, rather than the person dealing with these awkward individuals, so I feel for you.

From a more practicable approach. You have the people trained. They can't object to you naming them as 1st aid trained personnel. The hard part comes when it is time to refresh their training.

Originally Posted by: niamh cowhey

Speak to SMT/HR to implement this as  Mandatory training 

You need to tread VERY carefully mandating FAAW training as a contractual obligation.

are you going to sack an experienced employee if/when they fail the refresher course (some people do)?

are you going to suspend employees whose certificate has lapsed whilst they get re-certified?

will you avoid that ideal candidate because they have issues preventing them being a First Aider?

even if they do spend the time attending, and somehow get certified what are you going to do when they find a string of reasons not to apply the training in to practice?

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

Take reasonable care of your self and others (I would argue that it is reasonable for them to look after a first aid patient, since they have the training)

Co-operate with your employer on health and safety (You have asked them to do this, they must do this)

They can't object to you naming them as 1st aid trained personnel. 

See you at tribunal

Some are uncomfortable treating others - will you sack them?

FAAW provision is an employer duty - personally I think you are stretching the concept of co-operation

Placing names on a list as "available" first aiders just because they have training could be perceived as falsification of company records in overstating the actual resource in addressing the risk assessment

HASAWA 1974, this covers UK legislation, Ireland is not in the UK ?

the OP also referred to SEVESO rather than COMAH

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

That’s fine but the idea that they have decided (collectively?) to stop being first aiders until their payments are restored worries me. 

Basic employment right to with hold labour (union or not) - even more so when there was a payment and some spread sheet conductor identifies the cost of everything to be eliminated and fails to perceive its value.

Lets be honest "our" profession on a company spreadsheet is all cost and no benefit - that's why we look for the prosecutions to indicate to our employers "if we don't the cost could be...". There are an increasing number willing to run such risk just at the time the regulator is becoming even more aggresive in the courts with enhanced sentencing guidelines.

I seriously doubt one of the supervisors would sit by and watch a colleague/friend bleed to death BUT from the employer perspective the supervisors have made clear their withdrawl from being listed as site first-aiders so there must be alternative arrangements made to meet any assessed requirement.

We don't have Good Samaritan legislation in the UK so could you with hold labour if it endangers another persons life? Ambulance/NHS/Fire-fighters can strike or work to rule so the answer must be yes.

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

I seriously doubt one of the supervisors would sit by and watch a colleague/friend bleed to death BUT from the employer perspective the supervisors have made clear their withdrawl from being listed as site first-aiders so there must be alternative arrangements made to meet any assessed requirement.

We don't have Good Samaritan legislation in the UK so could you with hold labour if it endangers another persons life? Ambulance/NHS/Fire-fighters can strike or work to rule so the answer must be yes.

What is your understanding/meaning of the above phrase? For me it's about offering first aid treatment without fear of prosecution from an uniuntentional injury or death. 

Does you view differ from that?

In that we do not have legislation stating someone MUST take a course of action as opposed to protections against a claim of negligence when someone acting with all best intention gets it wrong which is covered by the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

Hi All,

Not sure where i said there was a previous payment.. there never was a payment to any first aider, services were pulled as part of a different argument with the company.. what i am saying is that there is a thought they will re-train as first aiders if they are paid... if they wont get paid they wont re-train.

Initially i was wondering how we were fixed not having cover on shift.

Thanks all for replies.

From my reading the situation is as follows: it was decided that shift supervisors should be trained as first aiders so that they could comply with local laws on provision of first aiders. The supervisors were happy to do this on the understanding that they would get paid a “first aider bonus” for completing the training and keeping it upto date.  It was then decided (for whatever reason) to stop this payment. The supervisors then made it clear that if they were not being paid for this “extra” duty they would no longer be willing to act as supervisors.

The ideal solution is to find out why the supervisors are refusing to stay on as first aiders. I would be surprised if it was simply about the money. I say it might not simply be about the money but a fear that if they are the first aider they might be liable if something goes wrong. In the UK(not so sure about Ireland) at least the law is clear that they would not be liable if they used their best endeavours. I have come across something similar with employees saying that they will not do risk assessments  as part of the normal duties is it is above and beyond  what they are contracted to and as such they should get extra payments. We have said no, the risk assessment process is part and parcel of their normal job.

Anyway, management needs to find a solution which might involve a certain amount of stick and carrot. The simplest carrot would be to reinstate the payments but then management would be seen to have lost face.  Most contract have implied terms and conditions as  well as those spelt out and it could be that providing first aid is part and parcel the normal contract of employment and that the payment was not a specific payment for providing first aid. In that case you could insist that they provide first aid cover or you wave the big stick at them. On the other had it could be that the payment was specifically for providing first aid cover above and beyond the normal contact requirements in which case, they have you over a barrel.  It needs those people in HR to earn their money and work this one out.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/First_Aid/First_Aid_Regulations.pdf

Reading table 2 anything up to 49 employees for a factory requires one occupational first aider IF the safety statement risk assesment shows it to be necessary and such number should be doubled where the workplace is more than one hour away from medical assistance

Unfortunately we come back to where your company is located and what your risk assessment states to determine if having no occupational first aiders in a two crew shift would be acceptable e.g. are they competent enough to contact necessary medical assistance and apply basic dressing.

The FAQ's page seems very practical and easy to understand

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/First_Aid/First_Aid_Frequently_Asked_Questions/First_Aid_Frequently_Asked_Questions.html

Originally Posted by: Mark-W

My apologies 

Not necessary I should have picked better terminology with explanation