Injury at work - work not convinced

getmore4less

Falling objects should be taken very seriously, they KILL people.

This stock room has issues that need addressing.

I wonder if local management are trying to hide this from head office.

Also check that the person who drove to the walk in center had business cover on their insurance.

dickydonkin

getmore4less wrote: »

Falling objects should be taken very seriously, they KILL people.

This stock room has issues that need addressing.

I wonder if local management are trying to hide this from head office.

Also check that the person who drove to the walk in center had business cover on their insurance.

Valid points on all counts - in particular the reference about the local management and moreso about falling objects - they do indeed kill people.

SarEl

dickydonkin wrote: »

You are absolutely right of course.

What is galling about this (for me anyway) is that the OP's daughter seems to be a very conscientious worker and obviously likes her employer, who (probably through no fault of her own) has suffered an injury at work.

It is a shame that the employer does not show the same committment and duty of care to the OP's daughter as it seems they have gone into denial.

I don't agree with the previous poster in respect of refusing to answer questions on the matter - indeed, she would arguably have a legal obligation to 'cooperate with her employer to comply with their statutory requirements'. By not providing details in any subsequent investigation or RIDDOR information would not help her cause IMO.

Furthermore, not providing information would not allow the employer to rectify the problem - although I have to concede that in this situation, they probably won't do anything anyway - and it seems the employer is going to get off lightly.

It is refreshing to see that someone who potentially may have a genuine claim for an injury sustained at work is not popping down to their local 'No win No Fee' office and to be quite frank OP - Your daughters employer do not deserve her!

But as I mentioned earlier, make sure she fills in the accident book - as I suspect that this will also be a requirement of this lousy employer's T&C's and who knows how she may feel in the future in respect of claiming? - or indeed (hopefully not) there me be a lasting consequence of her injury.

I agree entirely. But we both know the real world doesn't work as it ought, and if telling them she has no intention of taking it further diplomatically gets her back to a job she loves then that's probably the better part of valour. It isn't exactly a verbal contract anyway - it doesn't commit her to do nothing if they do sack her or if there are lasting reperciussions. But if it calms the situation and gets her back to work, then job done. It would be nice if such trade-offs were not necessary, but if wishes were horses...

Acc72

To the OP - although your daughters approach is very noble in that she does not want to claim any compensation at this current time, she needs to ensure that this is recorded in the company accident book (and that she gets a photocopy - just in case it goes missing in the future), and also keeps a copy of all sick notes, doctors notes, pay slips, any correspondence etc.

An employee used to have 3 years (I think ? - would need to check?) in order to bring a claim - a lot can happen in 3 years and she needs to get all her ducks in a row just in case she changes her mind in the future.

Just because she doesn't want to claim (for now) doesn't mean that this should go unrecorded.

As she works for a "well known retailer" she may enjoy her job, but these guys are ruthless.

I would also recommend that she joins the union if she is not a member already.

christineperseus

I think you'll find that that most major retailers have CCTV in their stockrooms (for theft purposes).

jonnyd281

I think everyone needs to calm down and stop jumping to conclussions, like the stock room has a problem that needs addressing, it could be OPs daughter pulled something down on herself we don't know, there is only one side to the story here, and it is second hand at that. OP your daughter needs to ensure she sends in her sick notes, and that the accident is recorded. Then takes stock of things and take advice as required.

dickydonkin

jonnyd281 wrote: »

I think everyone needs to calm down and stop jumping to conclussions, like the stock room has a problem that needs addressing, it could be OPs daughter pulled something down on herself we don't know, there is only one side to the story here, and it is second hand at that. OP your daughter needs to ensure she sends in her sick notes, and that the accident is recorded. Then takes stock of things and take advice as required.

Nobody is jumping to conclusions in respect of HOW the accident occurred and I am very calm.

How the OP's daughter sustained her injury is irrelevent in respect of the duty of the employer to report this incident as such an injury the OP's daughter sustained would need to be reported under RIDDOR in the first instance.

If the stock room has 'a problem' then it is the employers duty to ensure that there is no foreseeable problem. As an accident has occurred, then an accident investigation will (or should) determine any immediate and underlying cause and put procedures in place to ensure it does not occur again.

You alluded to that the OP's daughter may have contributed to her injury by 'pulling something down on herself'.

If indeed that was the case, then I would be asking why she would need to 'pull something down' off a shelf.

Such an incident would suggest to me that items were not stored correctly, shelving was in poor condition or unsuitable, items were stored out of reach, or there was no suitable and safe access equipment available to reach the item safely.

Procedures and training for safe storage and manual handling may also need to be addressed - all of which has to be provided by the employer.

You are correct of course in stating that we are only getting one side of the story in respect of the aftermath of the accident, however, what cannot be disputed is that the OP's daughter was injured during the course of her work - and by virtue of that fact, the employer has obligations in respect of H&S legislation - something which they seems to be avoiding!

jonnyd281

getmore4less wrote: »

This stock room has issues that need addressing.

And this is not jumping to conclussions?

jonnyd281

dickydonkin wrote: »

You alluded to that the OP's daughter may have contributed to her injury by 'pulling something down on herself'.

If indeed that was the case, then I would be asking why would she need to 'pull something down on herself'.

I was trying to give a converse argument, having stopped someone in a store at work from doing something stupid, even though the correct tools are available (stood on the very top of a step ladder, and yes I did report it to the safety officer). I only pointed out that someone had stated the stockroom had issues, and since we only have one side of the storey there could be an alternative explaination, such as not using tools even though they are provided, instead of everyone shouting that the OP's daughter's employer has lots of duties under the HSA lets calm down a bit.

SarEl

jonnyd281 wrote: »

I think everyone needs to calm down and stop jumping to conclussions, .

And one line out of one post is everyone?

The OP has said what happened - something fell from a high shelf and hit her. Falling from a shelf is not pulling down something on top of her. Suggesting it is could be construed as jumping to conclusions not in evidence.