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
Booker31986  
#1 Posted : 14 April 2021 13:07:23(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Booker31986

Employee injured on Thursday, went to hospital, diagnosed with multiple fractures to toe. 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.  I think this is an over 7 day incapacity because he couldn't carry out his normal duties, although the fact that he worked on Tuesday does muddy the waters.  What does everyone else think? 

johnc  
#2 Posted : 14 April 2021 13:21:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
johnc

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

thanks 2 users thanked johnc for this useful post.
Booker31986 on 14/04/2021(UTC), Evans38004 on 14/04/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#3 Posted : 14 April 2021 14:42:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

why is training not part of his normal duties?

For me it is part of his ongoing duties and forms part of normal work requirements...

thanks 1 user thanked stevedm for this useful post.
Booker31986 on 15/04/2021(UTC)
Booker31986  
#4 Posted : 14 April 2021 14:50:50(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Booker31986

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.   

CptBeaky  
#5 Posted : 15 April 2021 07:50:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Assuming that if he was to come in today or tomorrow he still wouldn't be able to his normal duties then I would say this was reportable. He was unable to go to site if you needed him to on the Tuesday, therefore he wasn't able to carry out his usual duties.

Training would be seen as only a part of his regular duties at best, therefore it would be akin to saying someone placed on "light duties" is still able to do their reular work activities if those light duties were a part of their regular duties. The guidance states unable to perform their normal work duties, it has no caveat for beaing able to perform some of their work duties.

thanks 2 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 15/04/2021(UTC), Booker31986 on 15/04/2021(UTC)
achrn  
#6 Posted : 15 April 2021 11:26:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

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.

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
Booker31986 on 15/04/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#7 Posted : 15 April 2021 11:36:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

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

The legislation defines it 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;

As for work location it doesn't make any difference to this so long as it falls under the persons contract of employment...

Solved. :)

Booker31986  
#8 Posted : 15 April 2021 11:38:47(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Booker31986

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

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 15 April 2021 12:31:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Some years ago, the regulator in the US, OSHA, announced its intention to crack down on the ruses used to avoid recording/reporting accidents.

I don't think that OSHA would consider catching up on some online training as being anything other than a "recordable" if the person would otherwise have been expected to have been on site doing their normal work.

I don't actually think that OSHA really made good on its threat, whilst in Great Britain, HSE Inspectors are likely to be overstretched in terms of any likelihood of enforcement of RIDDOR except as an extra charge on a prosecution.

However, on the basis of the narrative given, this one is reportable in my book.

P

achrn  
#10 Posted : 15 April 2021 12:32:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

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.

stevedm  
#11 Posted : 15 April 2021 13:27:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

I't'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'

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.

achrn  
#12 Posted : 15 April 2021 14:12:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

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.

I still don't understand why you say "based on that he can't do paperwork or training".  He apparently can do paperwork and training, but that doesn't mean he can do normal duties.  Nothing anyone (but you) has said suggest that either he is incapable or not allowed to do paperwork or training, so what did your comment mean?

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.

stevedm  
#13 Posted : 15 April 2021 15:22:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post

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.

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?  

achrn  
#14 Posted : 16 April 2021 07:50:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

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.

thanks 3 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 16/04/2021(UTC), flysafe on 16/04/2021(UTC), Kate on 16/04/2021(UTC)
stevedm  
#15 Posted : 16 April 2021 11:32:35(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

get it in context...look with unblinkered eyes at the definitions of work in the regulations before you give yourself a heart attack... 

CptBeaky  
#16 Posted : 16 April 2021 11:50:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

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.

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Kate on 16/04/2021(UTC)
achrn  
#17 Posted : 16 April 2021 12:19:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

get it in context...look with unblinkered eyes at the definitions of work in the regulations before you give yourself a heart attack... 

There is no definition of 'work' in the RIDDOR regs.

Kate  
#18 Posted : 16 April 2021 12:28:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

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

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 06/05/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#19 Posted : 16 April 2021 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

achrn - no need for a definition of "work" in RIDDOR as there is a definition in the parent Act, HSWA.

I don't doubt that catching up on some outstanding online training would be "work", but this does not alter my interpretation of reportability!!

A Kurdziel  
#20 Posted : 16 April 2021 13:02:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

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.

achrn  
#21 Posted : 16 April 2021 14:20:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

achrn - no need for a definition of "work" in RIDDOR as there is a definition in the parent Act, HSWA.

I don't think that is true either (as A Kurdziel has already noted).  I can't find one, anyway (though you have to watch out - HASWA has an interpretation section at the end of the act, but none at the beginning).

peter gotch  
#22 Posted : 16 April 2021 14:21:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

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

achrn  
#23 Posted : 16 April 2021 14:33:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: peter gotch Go to Quoted Post

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;

Yebbut "'work' means work..." doesn't define work, the definition just says that the work with which the act is concerend is work done as an employee (or self-employed).  I don't think that's a definition of work.

A Kurdziel  
#24 Posted : 16 April 2021 14:36:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

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

peter gotch  
#25 Posted : 16 April 2021 15:40:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

OK to try and clarify!!!

Section 53 of the Act has a number of definitions that explain the difference between and employee and someone who is self-employed in terms of how they work.

Read together the definitions say that work is something for which one gets paid by somebody.

Agreed that Section 52 defines "work" with "work as part of the definition".

Which means that your next port of call is the Oxford English Dictionary, which will include multiple defintions of the word, and you have to pick the one that seems to fit the bill in terms of what someone does to put food on the table and a roof over their head.

stevedm  
#26 Posted : 16 April 2021 16:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

...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... :)

chris42  
#27 Posted : 16 April 2021 18:03:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

L73 - The older and more useful HSE Guidance for RIDDOR 1995 used to say:

“day injury is one which is not ‘major’ but results in the injured person being away from work or unable to do the full range of their normal duties…”

Note at this time we were still at over 3 days reportable accidents. Of course, this is not in the latest quite useless guidance or latest legislation specifically.

But I have kept to the term “full Range of their normal duties” because if this were not the case then there would never ever be another 7-day reportable accident. They would all be brought in for one day’s training / paperwork. In fact, previously they specifically mentioned light duties did not count as full range of duties.

Therefore, it stands to reason normal duties means full range not just part of what they are expected to do. By all means have them in work doing something and contributing on light duties if they can, but it will not prevent a RIDDOR.

Of course, not paying wages to effectively make the injured person either lose money they probably cannot afford or lose holidays, could easily end up in a claim. This will cost you more in the long run or force people to resume full duties before they are fully fit to do so.

Chris

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 06/05/2021(UTC)
stokesy85  
#28 Posted : 05 May 2021 18:52:18(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
stokesy85

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

CptBeaky  
#29 Posted : 06 May 2021 09:11:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
CptBeaky

Originally Posted by: stokesy85 Go to Quoted Post

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

I think you are missing the point. I think everyone agress that training is part of "normal work duties". The debate is over whether you should be unable to do *all* normal duties during the seven days, or just *some* of your normal duties.

The majority (on this thread) appear to believe that RIDDOR requires the injured party to be able to carry out all the normal duties associated with their role on all seven days, or you should report. The counter arguement is that it is only the duties that you are expected to carry out on a particular day (that are part of your normal duties) that matter. (apologies if I am mis-representing your arguement)

thanks 1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
Brian Hagyard on 06/05/2021(UTC)
Brian Hagyard  
#30 Posted : 06 May 2021 11:16:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

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.

Users browsing this topic
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.