Question for the legal eagles?

dickydonkin

dpassmore wrote: »

celinepatricia well I certainly hope it isn't either, but as you can appreciate, I take exception to my competence being questioned from postings that are based on fact, law and experience.

I am still awaiting a response from dmg24 so I can be given the opportunity to respond to any aspect of my postings that s/he has perceived that my knowledge of H&S law is 'at least' 'vague'.

I apologise for hogging your thread, but if accusations are being made against me by a poster, I hope I am given the chance to respond and defend myself.

Anyone can question a posters competence but at least provide a VALID argument as to why there are doubts.

dmg24 Doubt my competence by all means - but at least give me some clue as to which aspect(s) of my post(s) you believe are not legally/factually correct rather than post a blanket statement doubting my competence because it does not conform to your way of thinking - or certainly we could debate the issue(s).

Having reviewed my posts on this thread, I am confident that I am correct and I await your response with interest.

Still waiting!

poet123

dpassmore wrote: »

Now that is certainly an instance where I would record a risk assessment when someone is returning to work following an injury by virtue of the fact there is certainly a foreseeable risk of exacerbating any underlying medical issues.

I would also expect this to be done in the instance described by the OP. The removal of a cancerous tumour is not a small matter, and the employee should be able to expect that their work situation has been assessed for any possible issues which may affect their safety/capability to do the job. If there has been substantial impairment which renders the employee "disabled" as outlined by the DDA then the reasonable adjustment test comes into play.

Of course, without knowing more about the nature of the job/side effects of the illness we cannot make an informed decision.

dickydonkin

poet123 wrote: »

I would also expect this to be done in the instance described by the OP. The removal of a cancerous tumour is not a small matter, and the employee should be able to expect that their work situation has been assessed for any possible issues which may affect their safety/capability to do the job. If there has been substantial impairment which renders the employee "disabled" as outlined by the DDA then the reasonable adjustment test comes into play.

Of course, without knowing more about the nature of the job/side effects of the illness we cannot make an informed decision.

Absolutey poet.

Certainly I would assess someone returning to work after a prolonged illness and remember it is not just the safety of the person who you have to consider but also others who may be affected by their acts and omissions.

For example, someone returning after the removal of a tumour may be on certain medication that could cause dizziness or fatigue. Diabetes was another common example I also had to assess. Quite often it was not the original ailment that raised potential problems, but the medication.

If those workers roles involved activities on machinery or working at height, then obviously those aspects of the role would need to be eliminated or certainly reduced and constantly monitored and a risk assessment should be carried out to ascertain what activities can or cannot be undertaken.

Of course it is not uncommon for someone returning to work after a prolonged illness to be unable to continue their duties.

Based on the OP's post, it certainly seems that there is potential for her partners illness to be covered under the DDA (now the equality act I believe), however, as you correctly stated, there is insufficient detail provided to ascertain if that was indeed the case.

Unfortunately, many people in the OP's situation have not only to contend with the worry and grief of a very serious illness, but also the loss of employment just when the worse seems to be over - certainly a double whammy.

Hopefully everything works out well for both of them.

DVardysShadow

dmg24 wrote: »

... I'd be careful following dpassmore's advice, his understanding of H&S law is vague to say the least.

I have always found dpassmore sound on H&S and its application in the workplace.

The legal aspects which are most of concern here are mainly to do with Court [or ET] procedure. A competent workplace H&S practitioner will not get much exposure to legal proceedings ....

dickydonkin

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I have always found dpassmore sound on H&S and its application in the workplace.

The legal aspects which are most of concern here are mainly to do with Court [or ET] procedure. A competent workplace H&S practitioner will not get much exposure to legal proceedings ....

Very much appreciated DVardysShadow - thank you.

All I have asked is to what aspect of my posting(s) has caused dmg24 to doubt my competence and to provide at least one example to allow me the opportunity to respond. For someone who seems to be on these forums on a regular basis - (over 28,000 posts confirms that point) the silence is deafening.

Flame me by all means - but justify it!

I have no issues whatsoever in posters asking specific questions relating to my postings as this gives me the opportunity to attempt to explain - indeed, I find that there are many situations on here that I just would not encounter on a regular basis and I still never cease to be amazed at some of the situations people find themselves in at work - usually through no fault of their own.

I appreciate those posters who take the time to explain their predicaments and hopefully I have offered at least a modicum of assistance.

Again, I apologise to the OP for hogging the thread but hopefully there is something posted that helps - including the advice from dmg24 which seems sound - the criticism of my competence aside of course!:)

celinepatricia

dpassmore wrote: »

I am still awaiting a response from dmg24 so I can be given the opportunity to respond to any aspect of my postings that s/he has perceived that my knowledge of H&S law is 'at least' 'vague'.

I apologise for hogging your thread, but if accusations are being made against me by a poster, I hope I am given the chance to respond and defend myself.

Anyone can question a posters competence but at least provide a VALID argument as to why there are doubts.

dmg24 Doubt my competence by all means - but at least give me some clue as to which aspect(s) of my post(s) you believe are not legally/factually correct rather than post a blanket statement doubting my competence because it does not conform to your way of thinking - or certainly we could debate the issue(s).

Having reviewed my posts on this thread, I am confident that I am correct and I await your response with interest.

Have you still not had a reply?

dickydonkin

celinepatricia wrote: »

Have you still not had a reply?

Unsurprisingly no - but hopefully your new thread may prompt a response.

All I am asking is to what part of my past or previous postings are doubted - however I may have rattled the wasps nest with the 'HSE' question.

My response was in the context of the question - I was not attempting to be pedantic.

There is no HSE (Health & Safety Executive) legislation.

There are however numerous pieces of HSE legislation (Health Safety & Environmental).

But until I know where my competence is perceived by dmg24 to be lacking - I just cannot fathom out what the 'issues' are.

BodyElectric

I think posting on these forums is the greater part of dmgs' life given the quantity, she is also bipolar which probably contributes to the unnecessarily spiteful nature of many of her posts.

She appears to have good days and bad days. I honestly think she does not always realise what she has said before she speeds along to the next thread.

dickydonkin

BodyElectric wrote: »

I think posting on these forums is the greater part of dmgs' life given the quantity, she is also bipolar which probably contributes to the unnecessarily spiteful nature of many of her posts.

She appears to have good days and bad days. I honestly think she does not always realise what she has said before she speeds along to the next thread.

Thanks BodyElectric - that certainly explains a lot.

Good signature BTW - Perhaps relevant to me!

when_will_it_end

hi all dpassmore i have found some of your information to be helpfull

can you explain the section 3 of the HSA to me please or provide a post i am interested for my own benifit

op i do think a risk assesment should have been documented in your OH case, good luck