Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
martinbrogan  
#1 Posted : 30 November 2023 07:22:48(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
martinbrogan

Hi All,

I am looking into vehicle accidents that have occcured over the last year at my company. In regards the point wilful misconduct or gross negligence’. Example: bus is turning a corner in a tight area and scratches the lower body work, no staff or passangers injured. 

Looking for guidance around how I can clearly mark these incidents into these catagories or not? working on human factor inline with just culture also across the business. 

Thanks in advance.

Edited by user 30 November 2023 07:35:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Roundtuit  
#2 Posted : 30 November 2023 09:07:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: martinbrogan Go to Quoted Post
wilful misconduct or gross negligence’. Example: bus is turning a corner in a tight area and scratches the lower body work, no staff or passangers injured. Looking for guidance around how I can clearly mark these incidents into these catagories or not?

IF (and it is a big IF) it would not be down to an individual to be determining that a driver had displayed wilful miss-conduct or committed gross-negligence in causing vehicle damage.

You HR / Disciplinary procedures should be followed through a fair and balanced investigation to establish the root cause.

Only when the disciplinary outcome ticks one of the boxes should it be recorded as such.

You need to be wary of creating a system that circumvents due process that will end up at tribunal ajudication

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC), Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#3 Posted : 30 November 2023 09:07:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Originally Posted by: martinbrogan Go to Quoted Post
wilful misconduct or gross negligence’. Example: bus is turning a corner in a tight area and scratches the lower body work, no staff or passangers injured. Looking for guidance around how I can clearly mark these incidents into these catagories or not?

IF (and it is a big IF) it would not be down to an individual to be determining that a driver had displayed wilful miss-conduct or committed gross-negligence in causing vehicle damage.

You HR / Disciplinary procedures should be followed through a fair and balanced investigation to establish the root cause.

Only when the disciplinary outcome ticks one of the boxes should it be recorded as such.

You need to be wary of creating a system that circumvents due process that will end up at tribunal ajudication

thanks 4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC), Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC)
Kate  
#4 Posted : 30 November 2023 10:09:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

I would restrict myself to saying that human failure was a cause of the incident and then at most classifying it according to the scheme in HSG 48 (the HSE guidance on human error).

Whether something amounts to wilful or gross misconduct or negligence is for others to determine as Round says.  That isn't a finding of an incident investigation, but of a disciplinary investigation which might follow it and might result in serious consequences for the individual and for the employer.  You shouldn't prejudge either the initiation or the outcome of a discplinary investigation as it has to be conducted fairly and an employment tribunal will scrutinise whether it was conducted properly.

In your place I'd be talking to the HR people about what they would like to see.  If you are going to implement a just culture then surely they will be involved, as the owners of the disciplinary process?

Edited by user 30 November 2023 10:11:25(UTC)  | Reason: Human error classified as a slip - so sack me

thanks 3 users thanked Kate for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 30/11/2023(UTC), Martin Fieldingt on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC)
chris42  
#5 Posted : 30 November 2023 10:45:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Of course, the investigation may also conclude that the organisation was expecting too much of drivers to be able to manoeuvre a bus constantly and consistently in such a “tight area”.

thanks 4 users thanked chris42 for this useful post.
Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), Martin Fieldingt on 30/11/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC), HSSnail on 04/12/2023(UTC)
martinbrogan  
#6 Posted : 30 November 2023 12:09:05(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
martinbrogan

Thanks everyone for the feedback. Great points and lots to bring into the conversations and involvement from others as Kate mentioned HR also. Point really noted from Chris was the manouvering is a great point and a concern I had raised previously due to space restrictions and the size of the vehicles. 

peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 30 November 2023 12:20:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Martin

You seem to have stepped on to the theme of the month, which I think is an output of the continuing debate between various Safetyisms.

So, on the one hand we have those following the tradition that has evolved from misquoting the findings of Heinrich in 1931 and being encouraged to identify people's unsafe ACTIONS as being responsible for MOST accidents (and property damage, near misses etc), often via the application of Behavioral (US spelling deliberate) Safety programs (ditto).

....and on the other side, people in Safety II and other isms pointing out that many incidents are multicausal and that it is more effective to identify and deal with the underlying causes.....

.....which in turn then gets into debates as to Blame Culture or Just Culture

....which is all very good for keeping the proponents of different Safetyisms busy on Conference platforms, social media and the H&S press, with one of the first type of OSH proponents now accusing the second lot of being keen to assign incidents as being "Acts of God" rather than assign responsibility to those whose human error has been critical. [Opinion piece aka "blog" in the current edition of SHP - reading of which I am not counting as CPD as, to be honest, the piece says absolutely nothing new]

My own take on the scenario you present would be that a proper investigation should be done to consider all the various cause of the incident you describe, which might include that the CONDITIONS in which the driver was expected to perform were inherently sub standard, making it much more likely that any unsafe ACT was far from a deliberate "violation" if considering the various human factors as categorised by e.g. Reason and repeated in e.g. HSG245.

Then leave it to HR to make any decisions on disciplinary action IF merited.

 

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
martinbrogan on 30/11/2023(UTC)
MrBrightside  
#8 Posted : 30 November 2023 15:55:08(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
MrBrightside

Hi

I was a H&S Manager in the Bus Industry previously and I wouldn't put it down to either.

Bus Drivers have to deal with some many variables and issues when out on routes; blocked roads, bad parking, other road users etc. 

It could simply be Driver error, could be a new Driver (lack of experience), time constraints, weather conditions, parking issues.

Totally need to trend, but I would look at all the other potential causes

thanks 4 users thanked MrBrightside for this useful post.
Kate on 30/11/2023(UTC), HSSnail on 04/12/2023(UTC), A Kurdziel on 04/12/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 07/12/2023(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#9 Posted : 30 November 2023 16:17:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The issue is that different people use language in different ways. Proponents  of HG48 (such as me) talk about violations, where people decide not to follow the rules but often for what  in their minds are good reasons:

  • Routine: where nobody follows the rules so why should I?
  • Situational: I would like to follow the rules but in reality, we are just not set  upto do that  and I don’t want raise this with my boss as he wants a quiet life.
  • Exceptional: I don’t do rules

This is bread and butter to H&S people, but HR still tend towards the find some one to blame approach; sack the person responsible and move on. They are looking for  “wilful misconduct” which is  a sackable offence. Why is it a sackable offence because its wilful misconduct, obviously!

‘Gross Negligence’ is more of a legal term where the person is so negligent so they can be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

H&S people should only worry about the HSG 48  definitions and leave the blame/no blame stuff to others.

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
martinbrogan on 07/12/2023(UTC)
Acorns  
#10 Posted : 01 December 2023 13:44:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Are they the only outcome options?
Surely the investigation would provide enough info to come with other choices that are more useful.
As above, perhaps we are asking drivers to do more and when we as the operator ask too much and part of the cause is driver error ( minor error rather than gross / wilful misconduct), it always come back to being the driver’s error!
Perhaps we need to look at what’s bring done leading to the conclusion before getting too picky about wilful neglect / gross miss conduct.
thanks 1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
martinbrogan on 07/12/2023(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#11 Posted : 04 December 2023 13:40:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I am currently rewriting our incident reporting procedure. I am looking at the part when you have to classify the severity of the incident  and by implication the outcome for those people involved. The system was drawn up years ago, and it is very old school. So  it still looks to blame some one. If the wrong box gets ticked, then some poor sod  will have to go through a disciplinary procedure. Note this this starts near the beginning of the evidence gathering process before any sort of root cause has been established. It definitely needs changing.

 

This is what seems to have happened with the original posting: “bus is turning a corner in a tight area and scratches the lower body work, no staff or passengers injured.” There has been damage to company property, and someone must pay. The only severity ratings  seem to  be “wilful misconduct or gross negligence”. At no point is the question asked why someone might decide to turn the corner in a tight area.  Was it the wrong sort of bus? Every so often  bus companies manage  to send  a double decker under a low bridge. Does everybody else  get through the corner ok in their buses or do they have near misses (which people might not want to report). Has the corner been remodelled or its in the process of being remodelled  and surrounded by Heras fencing?

Lots to think about, which is supposed to be our job, to think about stuff and make it  better.    

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
peter gotch on 04/12/2023(UTC), martinbrogan on 07/12/2023(UTC)
firesafety101  
#12 Posted : 04 December 2023 13:51:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Just to mention most buses have a lot of Bus in front of the front wheels and it takes good driver training to remember this.  The driver sits in front of the front wheels.

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
martinbrogan on 07/12/2023(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.