Scenario: Worker injury results in 6 days off. Worker comes back to work, but can't quite do exactly what they used to? 

Technically becomes a RIDDOR as can't return to normal duties. 

In your opinion, do companies still report it as RIDDOR? Is there any guidance/clarification on the term normal duties? For example: Employee has a sore back and blames employer becuase had to stack more boxes than usual that day. The employee is a wharehouse operative and picks and packs orders and does general duties around a wharehouse. This employee says back is sore and decides to have 3 days off. The employee returns saying my back is fine, but I don't want to risk further injury so I require light duties for a week. This then becomes a RIDDOR? Maybe the light duties are completing orders at a desk or printing lables etc so not "Normal duties" but normal duties requires definition? Normal could mean just being in the wharehouse again? My point as well is that I think the above example is not in the nature of a RIDDOR? or I am wrong? 

Thanks that does help, but I probably used a bad example in regards a persons back. 

Like many i had always assumed (and yes i know what that makes me and you) that a person had to be fit to do all their duties so "light duties" would still require a RIDDOR.

So rather than look at the guidance i have gone back to the regs.

What they actualy say is

 Where any person at work is incapacitated for routine work for more than seven consecutive days (excluding the day of the accident) because of an injury resulting from an accident arising out of or in connection with that work,

It defines routine work thus.

“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;

No where does it sall ALL ROUTINE WORK. Iam no longer as convinced as i was that light duties would require a riddor - providing those douties were still routine work - as far as i know this has never been tested in a court of Law - would be greatful if anyone can point me to a case.

Hi,

Under RIDDOR reg 4 it quotes as below,

• "Injuries to workers which result in their incapacitation for more than 7 days (Regulation 4"

incapacitation means, Incapacitation is defined as a state of being disabled, or unable to move or function. (Collins Dictionary).

Hope This Helps

Stokesy, to clarify Brian's comment it is a legal convention in British law from I don't know exactly where that if something is not defined in legislation (or the parent of legislation) then interpretation is via reference to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Cambridge might have recently outperformed Oxford in the Boat Race but when it comes to legal interpretation Oxford wins all the time.

So, as example, if you read a code of regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, there is usually Regulation 2 which interprets various terms, though you might find definitions elsewhere as well. If the term you are looking for is not defined in the Regulations, your next step is to look for an interpretation in HSWA, which failing you default to the OED.

P

Originally Posted by: peter gotch

Stokesy, to clarify Brian's comment it is a legal convention in British law from I don't know exactly where that if something is not defined in legislation (or the parent of legislation) then interpretation is via reference to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Is this true?  If a word is undefined, then it carries its ordinary meaning, but as far as I am aware, no one dictionary has special status in determining ordinary meaning.