accident at work and docked a days pay!

Emmzi

Also what HO87 said. BUT it's a judgement call. If I were an established employee I'd be checking a report had been made in full.

dickydonkin

HO87 wrote: »

Has there been an investigation of the accident? As your son missed the following working day/shift as a direct result of the injury (regardless of the fact that he omitted to report sick) this should be dealt with as a lost time injury and may amount to an incident reportable under the RIDDOR rules. At the very least one would hope that a responsible employer would want to ensure that a recurrence was avoided and the failure of goods cages is hardly unknown. He should contact the Health & Safety rep at his place of work.

This incident would not come under the 'Over 3 day injury' as defined by RIDDOR.

The incident occurred on a Thursday and the OP's son returned on the Monday and when calculating the '3 days' the day of the accident must not be included.

What must be considered are the following days after the day of the injury/incident (assuming that the injured person was still unable to fulfil his normal duties) and this is irrespective of whether the injured person was sheduled to work those days or not.

If after those three days an injury dictates that normal duties cannot be carried out, it then becomes reportable as an over 3 day injury.

But please do not go down the 'reporting to the HSE route' as this is not going to help anyone - particularly the OP's son. It was a minor incident, although painful for the OP's son no doubt.

It would seem this incident was possibly not foreseeable and possibly a freak accident - it probably hasn't happened before and will likely never happen again - although I do concede that using cable ties to secure cage doors is not ideal. If the ties had snapped and resulted in a load toppling on top of someone, then that would be a different matter.

Although the OP's son has breached the company's absence reporting procedures, the company have also caused the injury that resulted in the absence in the first place.

That said, two wrongs don't make a right and due to being on a probationary period, I would suggest that a grovelling apology is order of the day and move on.

HO87

dpassmore wrote: »

This incident would not come under the 'Over 3 day injury' as defined by RIDDOR.

I entirely agree.

However, it is a common misapprehension that for an incident to be reportable under RIDDOR it must result in an absence of three days or more. This is not the case. RIDDOR also requires the reporting of deaths, major injuries, over three-day injuries and dangerous occurrences (where no injury results), amongst others. Temporary blindness is defined as a major injury and the OP's son's injury may well be deemed to be temporary blindness.

On the basis of the OP's posts it seems that the employer is rather more concerned with pursuing adherence to sickness procedures than investigating the accident.

annie123

Thank you for al the replies.

I'm getting lost now re all the technical talk!,

He was only off sick 1 day (Friday) as he doesn't work weekends.
And yes the company have no interest in investigating the accident, just the fact that he didn't call in 1 hour before he was due in.
His supervisor and the pharmacist did say she didn't think he'd be fit enough for work the next day, his eyeball was bright red and you could see the swelling starting.
Its the store manager who has called the meeting next week.

He did apologise profusely on the Friday and again on the Monday.

So far I gather that:
a. it is reasonable to dock a days pay
b. be fired for not being awake in time to call when on probation

I was a manager in a totally different business, and if something like that happened it would have been...take tomorrow off, no question of not being paid and hopefully see you on Monday. Main concern would have been that employee was fit and well.

It seems that retail is much tougher on its staff, doesn't make for a pleasant work environment I would have thought.

bristol_pilot

annie123 wrote: »

I was a manager in a totally different business, and if something like that happened it would have been...take tomorrow off, no question of not being paid and hopefully see you on Monday. Main concern would have been that employee was fit and well.

It seems that retail is much tougher on its staff, doesn't make for a pleasant work environment I would have thought.

Indeed. I work in a safety-critical industry. Something like this would be taken very seriously. There would be an investigation, the whole site would be stood down to attend a safety briefing and the firm would call in the inspectors themselves. Do you really want to work for a firm that does not take its employees safety seriously? A job is never worth getting seriously injured for. Certainly not for a day's pay.

dickydonkin

HO87 wrote: »

I entirely agree.

However, it is a common misapprehension that for an incident to be reportable under RIDDOR it must result in an absence of three days or more. This is not the case. RIDDOR also requires the reporting of deaths, major injuries, over three-day injuries and dangerous occurrences (where no injury results), amongst others. Temporary blindness is defined as a major injury and the OP's son's injury may well be deemed to be temporary blindness.

On the basis of the OP's posts it seems that the employer is rather more concerned with pursuing adherence to sickness procedures than investigating the accident.

You are correct in stating that there are many situations that require reporting under RIDDOR and there is also a requirement to report diseases that are defined in the regulations - and there are many.

Injuries such as certain bone fractures and amputations for example, are required to be reported. Some dislocations are another example.

There are some strange anomolies however, as a fractured arm for example would need to be reported, but any fractured digit does not - although potentially any fractured finger or toe may likely have to be reported in any case as it would be likely that the injury would result in being off work for over three days.

I do accept however that many people who break fingers/toes (depending on the work they do) can return to work immediately after treatment - and many do.

As for the suggestion of temporary blindness, then yes this is a mandatory reporting injury, however, from the information posted, I do not think that this would apply in the OP's situation, however, had the cable tie actually penetrated the eye, then that would have been reportable.

Temporary loss of vision due to a swollen eyelid would likely not need to be reported, however, lost vision due to an impact to the head, splashes to the eyes with hot weld/chemicals or inhalation of substances most certainly would.

However, it is a common misapprehension that for an incident to be reportable under RIDDOR it must result in an absence of three days or more. This is not the case.

It is the case.
Although I think you may have been attempting to explain that an 'over three day injury' is not the only criterion for reporting.

RIDDOR (Reporting of Injuries Diseases and Dangerous Occurences Regulations) is currently under review and hopefully there will be some simplification of the regulations - as you can see - it certainly needs looking at.

adonis

I am amazed that a lot of councils are not being sued over this, the amount of planning notices put up with cable ties at eye level with the ends sticking out is crazy, how long does it take to cut the ends off.