Injury at work!

dickydonkin

gunman786 wrote: »

No, less than a year (approx 6 months). I am a casual worker, working on average 3 days per week.

Agency or working for the company directly?

gunman786

I work for a bakery and do general roles, i could work on the ovens one day and clean utensils on another.

Chemicals im assuming are probably used for certain equipments and trained persons, which would probably explain why the department manager was cleaning out a tub.

Maybe it is their lacking of professionalism to have me trained and prepared for such occuring events.

gunman786

dpassmore wrote: »

Agency or working for the company directly?

i work for an agency for this big company

Googlewhacker

gunman786 wrote: »

i work for an agency for this big company

If you are agency then expect to not be wanted back if you make the claim

MrRedundant

gunman786 wrote: »

I work for a bakery and do general roles, i could work on the ovens one day and clean utensils on another.

Chemicals im assuming are probably used for certain equipments and trained persons, which would probably explain why the department manager was cleaning out a tub.

Maybe it is their lacking of professionalism to have me trained and prepared for such occuring events.

So you have no dealings with these chemicals and thus training on them would be irrelevant.

Common sense would suggest that an employee doesnt put themselves at risk or touch chemicals they dont recognise.

Did the room happen to have warning signs? I'll bet it did.

The more you say the more I think you have no case and the only thing you will acheive is a weekly visit to DWP

Googlewhacker

MrRedundant wrote: »

So you have no dealings with these chemicals and thus training on them would be irrelevant.

Common sense would suggest that an employee doesnt put themselves at risk or touch chemicals they dont recognise.

Did the room happen to have warning signs? I'll bet it did.

The more you say the more I think you have no case and the only thing you will acheive is a weekly visit to DWP

Either way, advice on here is only advice and not by professionals and the OP should go seek a proper solicitor and get their views on it

dickydonkin

MrRedundant wrote: »

How does it?
What is your role? how does it involve chemicals or that room?

Going to answer or just avoid the question?

Mr Redundant - by virtue of the fact that the OP seemingly has not received suitable information, training and instruction on the process or chemicals involved is a failure on the company.

They are potentially negligent by virtue of these shortcomings.

Furthermore, they are potentially in breach of COSHH Regulations, The Management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations, The Health & Safety & Work Act - and that is just based on the OP's post.

Googlewhacker has made a very good point in respect of retribution. It should not happen - but sadly it does. Just something for the OP to be aware of.

What is your role? how does it involve chemicals or that room?

The OP' has clearly stated in his post he was 'entering the washroom' and in no way indicates he was working with the chemicals.

If that room is designated for a specific task involving chemicals, the OP should have been informed (through the training process) that it was a restricted zone - was it? and had he?

I suspect no on both counts - but perhaps the OP can confirm.

dickydonkin

MrRedundant wrote: »

So you have no dealings with these chemicals and thus training on them would be irrelevant.

Common sense would suggest that an employee doesnt put themselves at risk or touch chemicals they dont recognise.

Did the room happen to have warning signs? I'll bet it did.

The more you say the more I think you have no case and the only thing you will acheive is a weekly visit to DWP

This is absolute rubbish - sorry for being so blunt, but please!

When you go into B&Q, you would have no 'dealings' with various pesticides and thinners etc. However, if a member of staff spilled a corrosive substance while stacking the shelves over you, then sadly, B&Q would be potentially negligent.

Health & Safety in any workplace has not just the employees to consider, but 'others' who could be affected by processes or operations within that environment.

Just because this guy was not working with the chemicals, he was 'affected' by the seemingly haphazard process nonetheless.

Common sense would suggest that an employee doesnt put themselves at risk or touch chemicals they dont recognise.

And common sense would suggest that the OP did not deliberately touch the chemicals - he slipped on his backside for goodness sake. Please read the original post.

gunman786

I took reasonable steps to avoid any accidents there, tbh the place looked overly dangerous with too much water and it wasnt apparent to me what chemicals were being used which would cause such risks on contact. I think they dept manager failed in his duty to take reasonable care to avoid such accidents from happening.

There didnt appear to be any 'wet floor' signs visible on entry to the room.

lucylucky

It is possible that the area that was being working on had warning signs to advise of same.

Perhaps because of the sequence of accidents the OP ignored them in a noble attempt to assist.

The OP can clarify.

EDIT - and did before I posted!