Fell down stairs at work

Hmm71

Leaving aside all the Health and Safety arguments for a moment I still think anyone with a grain of common sense or intelligence would have made sure the dangling straps of the rucksack were gathered up out of the way before carrying it anywhere.
I really don't see why you would need manual handling training or any other sort of training to realise that.

BobQ

Hmm71 wrote: »

Leaving aside all the Health and Safety arguments for a moment I still think anyone with a grain of common sense or intelligence would have made sure the dangling straps of the rucksack were gathered up out of the way before carrying it anywhere.
I really don't see why you would need manual handling training or any other sort of training to realise that.

I agree that common sense should have prevented this accident, but common sense is not that common and rarely tested in job interviews.:)

Googlewhacker

And lets face it...the OP ain't coming back.

marybelle01

BobQ wrote: »

As you say an employer does have a duty of care and the employee has a responsibility to behave responsibly.

There is a requirement for an employer to consider all risks that an employee may reasonably encounter in the workplace. The facts in this case seem a little vague, but a responsible employer should have reviewed the risks involved and produced a risk assessment for the OP's workplace that defined the risks involved. We do not seem to be clear whether this was in fact done.

If the workplace risk assessment (which seems from the OP to be a food processing environment) did not consider the manual handling issues, the employer may be vulnerable to a claim. We do not know if it did or did not.



I agree with you on this matter although not all employers do their assessments thoroghly.



True but we cannot possibly say that this is a low risk environment or whether the employee was properly trained to do the tasks he was asked to undertake. If his job included carrying around boxes, rucksacks, particularly while negotiating difficult/steep stairs, manual handling training should have been provided. If it was and and he ignored the advice given then the employer could reasonably argue it had taken all reasonable steps.

Manual handling training? For a "small rucksack"? What exactly is the appropriate training for the risk "employee too stupid to tie up dangling ties and may trip over them"? And is it a level 2 or level 3 qualification?

Hmm71

BobQ wrote: »

I agree that common sense should have prevented this accident, but common sense is not that common and rarely tested in job interviews.:)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

dickydonkin

Hmm71 wrote: »

Leaving aside all the Health and Safety arguments for a moment I still think anyone with a grain of common sense or intelligence would have made sure the dangling straps of the rucksack were gathered up out of the way before carrying it anywhere.
I really don't see why you would need manual handling training or any other sort of training to realise that.

Absolutely - and isn't a rucksack designed to be carried on ones back?

That would certainly remove the risk of trailing straps and enable the user to grasp the hand rails on the stairs.

I will need to see if there is a training manual for implementing that difficult operation.

Sambucus_Nigra

Aw - I was just writing out a schedule for a rucksack training course.

9:00 Welcome, coffee, the schedule for the day
9:15 Rucksack training course
9:16 Action plan writing for future rucksack useage
9:30 Evaluation and close.

hr_money

An injured person's employers only report an accident to HSE Riddor if they are off work for more than 3 days or taken to hospital. Otherwise its just an internal accident form.

Any concerns about an employer's health & safety practices should be notified to the local authority's Environmental Health dept and speak to an Environmental Health Officer who is qualified (NEBOSH) to discuss further.

dickydonkin

hr_money wrote: »

An injured person's employers only report an accident to HSE Riddor if they are off work for more than 3 days or taken to hospital. Otherwise its just an internal accident form.

Any concerns about an employer's health & safety practices should be notified to the local authority's Environmental Health dept and speak to an Environmental Health Officer who is qualified (NEBOSH) to discuss further.

The 'over three day injury' under RIDDOR was changed last month to an 'over 7 day injury'.

You are now required to report injuries where the injured person has been unable to continue normal duties for 7 consecutive days - the days the injured person would not normally have worked i.e.weekends would still be counted - the day the injury occurred is not.

Another change to RIDDOR is that previously, the reportable incident had to be reported within 10 days - that has now been increased to 15 days.

There are many injuries/incidents/diseases that come under RIDDOR regulations and will need to be reported. Attending hospital may not necessarily require the injury to be automatically reported.

For example, you could fracture a couple of fingers that may require hospital attendance - this injury would not automatically need to be reported - unless the injured person was off work for over 7 days. You could also dislocate your shoulder but this would require reporting - irrespective of how long the injured person is off work. The shoulder injury would trigger the reporting procedure - not the hospital attendance.

I frequently have to refer to the regulations as to what type of incident/injury needs reporting as it can be a bit complicated at times.

As for reporting issues of concern in the workplace, it depends on what type of facility you are working in. For example, the enforcing body for a shop would likely be the local environmental office, however, a factory would be generally covered by the HSE.

It is a legal requirement for a workplace to display a health and safety poster (recently updated) or provide an approved health and safety leaflet that will provide basic safety information and contact details for that particular workplace's enforcing body. (see below)

real1314

withabix wrote: »

The employer's duty of care is greater than the employee's. That is laid down in HASAWA1974.

Was there a method statement and risk assessment in place for carrying the rucksack on the stairs? This is the employer's responsibility.

I sometimes carry some sheets of paper, but I haven't had "carrying a few sheets of paper" training, should I be concerned? Nor have I had training in: carrying a folder, clipboard, box of pens, stapler, hole punch, ream of paper, pair of scissors etc etc. There has been no briefing, no manual handling assessment, no fitness for purpose assessment. Should I quit and claim constructive dismissal on the grounds of an unsafe working environment?

Have you been briefed on this? Can the employer prove this with a document signed by you?

Was the rucksack fit for purpose? Has it been maintained? This is the employer's responsibility. (PUWER)

Has a Manual Handling Assessment being carried out? (Manual Handling Operations Regs)

Are the stair treads suitable? Are they non-slip? This is the employer's responsibility.

Are the pallets supposed to be stacked there? Does the risk assessment refer to those pallets being there? This is the employer's responsibility.

Was the Accident Book completed? This is the employer's responsibility. (Social Security [Claims and Payments] Regulations 1979)

etc

Does this help you see how mis-application of the law can be a hindrance to good advice? :cool: