Disciplinary advice

dickydonkin

Rebecca01 wrote: »

A chemical was found at her work that is dangerous that she had been subject to for two months. The employer knew but didnt tell her. Further tests were done and more was found.
She asked why she wasnt informed and tester said she should have been given this certain document. She wasnt given it.

Anyway the chemical was dug out covered over , so the risk has prived negligible in the end.

Again - based on what has been posted.

Was the chemical 'discovered' or had it been introduced by the employer to be used in some process?

Either way - your employer is required to provide all of their employees and those who may be affected by their operations any relevant information on hazards and associated risks they may encounter.

If it was a substance that was intentionally introduced, then a COSHH assessment should have been carried out for the product and its use and also training and information on the substance should be provided to relevant personnel.

If it was a chemical that was discovered, then again, the substance should have been analysed and suitably disposed of.

It sounds like the former has occurred where a 'dangerous chemical' was introduced.

The employer has no argument if an employee expresses concerns over using a substance that they have not been provided any information on it.

It is important as well that such concerns are expressed in an appropriate manner.

Even if it turns out that the chemical was indeed innocuous, then the employer still cannot complain as they should have communicated information to their staff about the substance as soon as it was introduced to prevent any subsequent concerns.

My sister spoke to a manager in passing said she was worrying and that she should have been informed about exposure to the chemical

And she was absolutely right!

KiKi

Can I clarify, please, Rebecca:

They are disciplining her *because* she made an accusation that the company (and one of its employees) covered up a risk to her health?

Ie, there was a risk which was hushed up, she should have been informed and wasn't, she complained to her manager that she should have been informed, and now they're disciplining her for that??!

How long has she worked there, please?

KiKi

Rebecca01

Thank you.

I just spoke to my sister she said it was asbestos and another carcinogenic . A phase 1 desk study highlighted the need for soil testing prior to building. She never recieved this document and only found out about any such contamination when later tests proved positive.

Rebecca01

Kiki , yes exactly. She has worked there nearly 9 years.

KiKi

Rebecca01 wrote: »

Kiki , yes exactly. She has worked there nearly 9 years.

Okay. I can't help you on the detail as I don't know enough, but when someone who does have a legal take on it comes along, they will want to know:

*How* did your sister go about making an accusation or complaining? Did she speak to her boss? Write a letter? Formal grievance? Whinge on Facebook?

Can you please tell us the exact wording from the letter of why she has to attend the hearing?

If you can provide this, hopefully someone with legal and H&S knowledge will know what her rights are, what's likely to happen and what rights of redress she may have over the safety issue.

Thanks
KiKi

Rebecca01

Thanks Kiki.

Well this sounds unreal but she bumped into a manager outside the office and he asked how it was going etc. she said she hadnt been happy and explained the situation.

The letter states

I am writing to invite you to a disciplinary hearing to allow you to explain the following matters.

You have been forced to work on a site contaminated in the full knowledge of the health and safety manager.

We review this matter as potentially serious misconduct.

You have the right to be accompanied by a trade union rep.

Etc

She never said once she was forced, just that she worked without knowledge of it.

dickydonkin

Rebecca01 wrote: »

Thank you.

I just spoke to my sister she said it was asbestos and another carcinogenic . A phase 1 desk study highlighted the need for soil testing prior to building. She never recieved this document and only found out about any such contamination when later tests proved positive.

Forget COSHH unless the other carcinogen you referred to comes under the auspices of those regs.

Asbestos has its own regulations due to the serious nature of the material.

What is relevent to both regulations is that you should have been made aware of any potential harmful materials.

It is very important to stress that asbestos only becomes dangerous when it deteriorates or is damaged and fibres become airborne.

Many of us still have garage roofs and even artex that contain asbestos, but provided it is in good condition and is not disturbed, it should not prevent any serious risk - although not ideal.

What worried me about your post was when you stated that it was 'dug out and covered over'.

I am hoping you meant all of the asbestos locations were recorded and the material was safely 'encapsulated' by a professional company.

I hope you comments did not mean they actually 'dug out' and 'covered over'- i.e. buried!

Rebecca01

The area was disturbed with diggers and could possibly have been airborne. The testers said the rain that we had been having would have limited this.

In the end further tests were done and the fibre content was deemed low level. So no risk.

Grabber lorries took it to a hazardous waste site.

The other chemical was benzo 'a' pyrene. High levels were found, which they took away.

KiKi

Rebecca01 wrote: »

Thanks Kiki.

Well this sounds unreal but she bumped into a manager outside the office and he asked how it was going etc. she said she hadnt been happy and explained the situation.

The letter states

I am writing to invite you to a disciplinary hearing to allow you to explain the following matters.

You have been forced to work on a site contaminated in the full knowledge of the health and safety manager.

We review this matter as potentially serious misconduct.

You have the right to be accompanied by a trade union rep.

Etc

She never said once she was forced, just that she worked without knowledge of it.

I'm unclear now, then, of the accusation they're making.

Are you absolutely sure that they're accusing her?! It sounds like they are accusing the H&S manager who forced her to work there, and that they are inviting her to an investigation meeting to learn more about it. But then they refer to it as a disciplinary, and allow her to have a rep with her.

My recommendation to your sister is that FIRST THING on Monday she speaks to the person involved to clarify whether or not she is being accused or part of an investigation into someone else.

They cannot discipline her for what they are claiming - that SHE was FORCED to work on an unsafe site. That's ludicrous.

They are also NOT disciplining her for complaining, they are (if this is true) disciplining her for doing the work there.

She needs clarification on this ASAP. If they are disciplining her for the ridiculous statement they have made on the letter, then she needs representation, although it sounds to me like the company doesn't know its a*se from its elbow.

KiKi

Rebecca01

KiKi wrote: »

I'm unclear now, then, of the accusation they're making.

Are you absolutely sure that they're accusing her?! It sounds like they are accusing the H&S manager who forced her to work there, and that they are inviting her to an investigation meeting to learn more about it. But then they refer to it as a disciplinary, and allow her to have a rep with her.

My recommendation to your sister is that FIRST THING on Monday she speaks to the person involved to clarify whether or not she is being accused or part of an investigation into someone else.

They cannot discipline her for what they are claiming - that SHE was FORCED to work on an unsafe site. That's ludicrous.

They are also NOT disciplining her for complaining, they are (if this is true) disciplining her for doing the work there.

She needs clarification on this ASAP. If they are disciplining her for the ridiculous statement they have made on the letter, then she needs representation, although it sounds to me like the company doesn't know its a*se from its elbow.

KiKi

Thanks Kiki, Thanks everyone for your advice.

She wasnt even asked to put her grievances in writing, nor did she directly accuse the H and s person, only that she should have been informed.

She said she will do that Monday morning , but she cant think of anyone she can take in with her , except maybe a fellow employee but they know nothing about this as yet.

We still think its against her, she feels they want rid of her.