accident while working....help needed please x

2sides2everystory

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Effectively yes, if they sack you within the first 51 weeks and give you one weeks statutory notice then you could not take them to an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal.

This is leading the OP away from proper exercise of her rights in this case. The initial claim suggested is an EL claim for compensation for injury at work due to unsafe system of work, and non-provision of 4WD or snowshoes equipment perhaps! It is also due to there being an unsafe place to work, and to colleagues acting unsafely by suggesting she must continue to slip and slide on the ice. These are Health and Safety issues and by raising them, the OP cannot be dismissed for doing so at any time irrespective of whether the OP has only worked for less than 12 months. If they were inclined to get rid of the OP, they might try to defend a dismissal saying it was for something else but they would be foolish to try.

Googlewhacker

2sides2everystory wrote: »

This is leading the OP away from proper exercise of her rights in this case. The initial claim suggested is an EL claim due to unsafe system of work, non-provision of 4WD or snowshoes equipment perhaps! It is also due to there being an unsafe place to work and to colleagues acting unsafely by suggesting she must continue to slip and slide on the ice. These are Health and Safety issues and by raising them, the OP cannot be dismissed for doing so at any time irrespective of whether she has only worked for less than 12 months. They might try to defend a dismissal saying it was for something else but they would be foolish to try.

I quite agree but I would rather the OP know fully that if she does go ahead with the claim then this may happen rather than her to go ahead without knowing this and then getting a shock later on.

It is better for the OP to be prepared.

Unless it is obvious discrimination it would be fairly easy to dismiss the OP.

dickydonkin

2sides2everystory wrote: »

1) Nope not necessarily, a breach of a common law or statutory duty is enough (there are plenty of those!). This article might add a little: http://a-level-law.com/tort/employers_liability/lecture.htm
2) Generally yes, but in this case the OP might be employed by an organisation exempt from buying EL cover e.g. the local authority. Few LAs do use their exemption thesedays I think, but even if they did, it doesn't exempt the employer from their common law and statutory duties which are the same as for any other employer.
3) Nope ... I am not sure that is generally correct either. For example, an employee may inadvertently have their hearing damaged by excessive noise at work. It might be many years before cumulative "accidental" exposures adds up to noticeable hearing loss.

1) You are stating the obvious. If someone is injured at work due to a breach of any legislation, (common or statutory) by virtue of such a breach , they will have a good chance of being awarded compensation for losses and injury. By not conforming to legislation which results in personal injury is by default, potential negligence. In respect of the OP, it is possible that elements of section 2 of the HASWA and section 3 of Management of HASAW regulations have been breached - not to mention a likely non - compliance of RIDDOR.

Generally yes, but in this case the OP might be employed by an organisation exempt from buying EL cover e.g. the local authority. Few LAs do use their exemption thesedays I think, but even if they did, it doesn't exempt the employer from their common law and statutory duties which are the same as for any other employer.

2) Ultimately, if a company/organisation has no liability insurance, any compensation will potentially have to be funded by that organisation - insured or not - and that may include any additional costs such as prosecution for not having such insurance. In the case of local authorities, guess who will have to pay any compensation to injured parties - yes - muggins! The tax payer! But you did concede:

I think, but even if they did, it doesn't exempt the employer from their common law and statutory duties which are the same as for any other employer.

So your point is totally irrelevant in the situation of claiming compensation from an employer- they will likely get it irrespective of who is funding it.

Nope ... I am not sure that is generally correct either. For example, an employee may inadvertently have their hearing damaged by excessive noise at work. It might be many years before cumulative "accidental" exposures adds up to noticeable hearing loss

3) In such a situation (which you should have been aware if you are as wised up as you suggest you are - and I suspect you already know) a court will still allow you to bring a claim, with the claim being allowed from the day a condition was discovered. Asbestos, wood dust, and indeed noise exposure being prime examples.

But I suspect you already knew that.

These are Health and Safety issues and by raising them, the OP cannot be dismissed for doing so at any time irrespective of whether the OP has only worked for less than 12 months. If they were inclined to get rid of the OP, they might try to defend a dismissal saying it was for something else but they would be foolish to try

But try proving it!

The situation you are referring to is where an employee (for example) may refuse to work in unsafe conditions, continuously raises H&S issues or spragging on a company to the HSE etc.

In the case of the OP - it may now be possible to dismiss her due to her inability to carry out her normal duties due to her condition, capability or quite simply say she is surplus to requirements - easily done - and you are naive to think otherwise.

As for the ridiculous control measures suggested:

This is leading the OP away from proper exercise of her rights in this case. The initial claim suggested is an EL claim due to unsafe system of work, non-provision of 4WD or snowshoes equipment perhaps! It is also due to there being an unsafe place to work and to colleagues acting unsafely by suggesting she must continue to slip and slide on the ice.

The suggested 'controls' highlighted are unrealistic and are not 'safe systems of work' in the true sense. A 4WD could not drive on/in the area where the accident occurred as the OP suggested the incident occurred at a patients home. What type of 'snowshoes' needs to be supplied? The OP is a care worker for goodness sake, not Scott of the Antarctic. Let's include a sledge and a pack of huskies as well! Furthermore, the employer did not ask her to 'continue to slip and slide on the ice', but to continue with her duties in inclement weather - arguably a case of negligence for that alone.

Removing the risk from the person or the person from the risk is the ideal way to work safely - in this case, suspension of operations would have been the ideal control measure if no other reasonably practicable safe(er)methods of undertaking the work was available - which seemingly there wasn't.

Savvy_Sue

dpassmore wrote: »

As for the ridiculous control measures suggested:


The suggested 'controls' highlighted are unrealistic and are not 'safe systems of work' in the true sense. A 4WD could not drive on/in the area where the accident occurred as the OP suggested the incident occurred at a patients home. What type of 'snowshoes' needs to be supplied? The OP is a care worker for goodness sake, not Scott of the Antarctic. Let's include a sledge and a pack of huskies as well! Furthermore, the employer did not ask her to 'continue to slip and slide on the ice', but to continue with her duties in inclement weather - arguably a case of negligence for that alone.

Removing the risk from the person or the person from the risk is the ideal way to work safely - in this case, suspension of operations would have been the ideal control measure if no other reasonably practicable safe(er)methods of undertaking the work was available - which seemingly there wasn't.

to be fair, I can understand the employer not wanting to suspend operations, leaving vulnerable people unvisited for potentially days.

however, I'd expect them to offer advice on travel in this weather, and you can get things like these which can be fitted to normal boots or shoes to make walking on ice slightly safer. and there's been research which confirms that wearing socks over your shoes also helps.

still trying to work out how my own accident could have been prevented, but at least it wasn't at work!

dickydonkin

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

to be fair, I can understand the employer not wanting to suspend operations, leaving vulnerable people unvisited for potentially days.

however, I'd expect them to offer advice on travel in this weather, and you can get things like these which can be fitted to normal boots or shoes to make walking on ice slightly safer. and there's been research which confirms that wearing socks over your shoes also helps.

still trying to work out how my own accident could have been prevented, but at least it wasn't at work!

Very valid comments and suspending operations would have resulted in a difficult situation for the service provider, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, someone should have contingency plans for such a situation - although I have to concede, I honestly don't know what those would be as I suspect that many services would have been cancelled in such bad weather.

I have to state that the OP should be commended for her stoic attitude in attempting to carry out her work in very difficult circumstances - in stark contrast to that of her employers!

People in Scandinavia and other countries who suffer extreme weather must really laugh at us when the UK comes to a standstill when we have winter weather - not unusual for December and the recent events in Scotland is a prime example.

With regards to this thread, I hope the OP gets fighting fit very soon and this incident has no repercussions in respect of her employment.