But on Tuesday he was still not able to carry out all the normal functions of his job so still part of the 7 days

stevedm - I did wonder about that but as his normal duties this week were to be away on site and the injury stopped him doing that I felt that this did make it reportable.   

Surely 'normal duties' implicitly means all their normal duties - just becasue you can find something that injured party can do that would be some small part of their normal duties that doesn't  dismsiss all RIDDOR obligations.  If anyone really did try and argue that I'd say that's making a mockery of the regs.

Coming in to the office to do some catching up on paperwork / training is not 'normal duties' unless their normal duties ie exclusively paper work and online trainign, in my opinion.

achrn and CptBeaky - you have confirmed what I was thinking. Thanks for your opinions.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

ok...so based on that he can't do paperwork or training? 

Eh?  There's nothing in RIDDOR that says that a person who is the subject of a RIDDOR report cannot do any work that was a part of their normal duties.  I honestly have no idea what this comment is supposed to be addressing.

It's still a RIDDOR if they can't do tehir normal duties but you find them something else to do instead.  No part of RIDDOR regs (that I've ever noticed) says the subject is not permitted to work.  Can you elaborate, please.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

Think you need to read the post - in this instance he had outstanding training which he would have completed as part of his NORMAL DUTIES...you have said unless he is required to do paperwork or training all day every day it isn't normal duties...there is no suggestion here that it is about finding them 'something to do' which would be, you are correct, not normal duties....quite simple really.

There absolutely was a suggestion that the training was finding something to do - "Was off work sick on Friday and Monday.  Came back in Tuesday to do some outstanding online training. Before the accident he was scheduled to be out on site all week - he is an electrician. He has taken today, tomorrow and Friday as Annual leave so he gets paid - we don't have anything other than statutory sick pay."

So sick Friday and Monday, found something to do Tuesday, but it was explicitly not what he was scheduled to do - if he was fit to do normal duties, normal duties for Tuesday were scheduled to be on site, and apparently that wasn't possible (if it was, why was he doing training instead of what was scheduled?)  Why is he taking leave for the rest of the week rather than do the scheduled work?

You say "he had outstanding training which he would have completed as part of his NORMAL DUTIES", but we know that isn't true, because he was scheduled to be on site all week - so he would not have completed this training on Tuesday as part of his normal duties.

A clearer case that the individual was working but not able to do normal duties is hard to imagine.

Originally Posted by: stevedm

and everything you have just said is also part of his normal duties under his employment contract...

only commenting on yours...so are you acutally arguing with yourself?  

OK, one last try:

You say "everything you have just said is also part of his normal duties".

PART OF

Please can you identify where in RIDDOR it says that if an injured party can do any part of their normal duties then RIDDOR does not apply.  My understanding of RIDDOR is that 'unable to perform their normal work duties' means 'substantially all of their normal duties'.  That is, what matters is whether the injured party can do everything they would normally do - if they can't do everything they would normally do, that counts as being unable to perform normal duties.

RIDDOR actually says "Where any person at work is incapacitated for routine work for more than seven consecutive days..." (reg 4 (2)) and routine work is defined as "work which a person might reasonably be expected to do, either under that person’s contract of employment, or, if there is no such contract, in the normal course of that person’s work" (interpretation clauses).

Thus, to a strict reading, if there is anything that the worker would normally do and they now can't then RIDDOR applies.  That is, if they can do 99% of their normal duties, but not the final 1%, then it's potentially reportable, because that 1% would be work that they are expected to do.  This is the opposite of what you seem to be arguing. 

Unless training is everything (100%) of what the person normally does, and they never normally do anything else, the fact that they did some training while injured does not mean that RIDDOR is not applicable.  If there is anything in their normal duties that they cannot do, RIDDOR applies.

What if we boil this down to an extreme example to make a point.

I work at a manufacturing plant. In the factory people are expected to manually handle items regularly. They also fill in paperwork after each completed item. A person hurts their back, by tripping over something. Can I ask them to come in and do 30 minutes of paperwork halfway through their sick period, and then not report the injury? Would this break they the"more than seven consecutive days"?

As you can see this would be blantantly absurd. This would be open to massive levels of abuse to game the system. "Normal work activities" encompasses all the work a person normally does, not just a small part of it.

In this case the electrician could not perform the duties normally expected of that electrician for over 7 days. The fact that they managed to find some training to do is irrelevant to that fact, even if it was training that was scheduled. The electrician could not carrying out all of their "normal work activities" for over 7 consecutive days due to an injury cased by an accident resulting from workplace activity. As far as I can see it is one of the easier RIDDOR questions to have been asked for a while.

It's a RIDDOR if they are unable to do the whole of their normal duties - their normal work.

If someone's job is to manually handle loads all day and then sign a chit to say it's been done, and they are unable to handle the loads but can still manage to sign the chit - that's a RIDDOR.

Edited to add: I've just realised that Cpt Beaky had already made exactly the same point.

Edited by user 16 April 2021 12:31:40(UTC)  | Reason: Didn't read the whole thread

Do you know I don’t think that there is a clear  definition of ‘work’  in any law including the  Health and Safety at Work Act. I once had a copy of Redgrave’s  Health and Safety law and they had managed to put something together from various sources, but that book is no longer accessible.

There is a definition of ‘worker’ but that essentially mean some who is paid to do ‘work’ with no a definition of ‘work’  itself.

AK - I still have a copy of the 1976 edition of Redgrave's Health and Safety in Factories, but it's too much hassle to scan the right page! At the time that this Redgrave was published the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 was still such a new fangled thing that it was included after the Factories Act 1961.

Unlike all the regulations made under HSWA the defintions in the Act are towards the back of the Act (though there is plenty of stuff in the Act that nobody reads that follows the definitions in Sections 52 and 53).

Section 52(1) of HSWA as very slightly amended now reads...

52 Meaning of work and at work.

(1) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) “work” means work as an employee or as a self-employed person;

(b) an employee is at work throughout the time when he is in the course of his employment, but not otherwise;

(bb) a person holding the office of constable is at work throughout the time when he is on duty, but not otherwise; and

(c) a self-employed person is at work throughout such time as he devotes to work as a self-employed person;

and, subject to the following subsection, the expressions “work” and “at work”, in whatever context, shall be construed accordingly.

P

‘Work’ is what a worker does and a worker is someone that  does ‘work’!

...god love us...the DEFINITION does come from RIDDOR and it says this.....

“routine work” means work which a person might reasonably be expected to do, either under that person’s contract of employment, or, if there is no such contract, in the normal course of that person’s work;

now have a beer and calm down... :)

Training is part of normal duties are the workplace required them to complete the training.

I agree Cpt. And Im in the ALL duties camp - remeber you dont even have to be at work for the reporting requirement to apply. If you have an accident the day before you start a 14 day holiday - the employer is still sopposed to check that you WOULD have been able to do your job had you not been on holiday.