Accident at work

getmore4less

saz88 wrote: »

He isn't the type to mess about and was following all the correct procedure. The health & safety officer who saw the cctv confirmed from what she saw that he was.

That's more serious.

Clearly the correct proceedures are not good enough an acident has happened and they should be taking steps to improve the procedures to make sure it does not happen again.

dickydonkin

fleesaurus wrote: »

I recall a worker losing his hand to a drill because he lost concentration, busy chatting away to his friends. Then he blamed the employer for lack of protection gloves. As if they'll give him chainmail gloves capable of withstanding a drill meant to drill large holes in metal plates. Lol.

It is very unwise to wear gloves when using any rotating tools.

=getmore4less;54716577]That's more serious.
Clearly the correct proceedures are not good enough an acident has happened
and they should be taking steps to improve the procedures to make sure it does not happen again.

Absolutely.

It certainly suggests that the system of work in place for such a task is not fit for purpose. The company should now review any risk assesments and adopt new procedures to prevent a repetition.

The next time, furniture may fall onto a child in the shop with more serious consequences.

mildred1978

saz88 wrote: »

The loss of bonus will be for the whole year not just the two weeks he was off.
What is probably the most annoying about all of this is that he works really hard. The manager who is disciplining him even admitted that he is the most hard working out of the whole team. He isn't the type to mess about and was following all the correct procedure. The health & safety officer who saw the cctv confirmed from what she saw that he was.
At the time of the accident he wasn't in a union, but he has since applied.
The doctor signed him off for up to 6 weeks but he went back to work after 2.

I hope he went back to the doctor for a new fit note first!!

patman99

He needs to obtain a copy of the CCTV footage for his own records. It will back up any claim he should now be making for personal injury.

Speaking as a former H&S team member, I would state that the employer is liable for a gross failure to ensure that the equipment used for the task was unsuitable and that the training in manual handling has not been correctly carried-out.

Even i the role I now occupy, I had to undergo a series of H&S training modules just to start my (office-based) job. Training is continuous as rules and regulations change.

getmore4less

dickydonkin wrote: »

It certainly suggests that the system of work in place for such a task is not fit for purpose. The company should now review any risk assesments and adopt new procedures to prevent a repetition.

The next time, furniture may fall onto a child in the shop with more serious consequences.

There should be a corporate policy where all accidents get reported to central H&S to review the process across the group for systematic problems.

Might be worth checking with the top H&S person for the company what actuon the company is taking if any.

dickydonkin

getmore4less wrote: »

There should be a corporate policy where all accidents get reported to central H&S to review the process across the group for systematic problems.

Might be worth checking with the top H&S person for the company what actuon the company is taking if any.

There may be - but as there are apparently 5 outstanding claims for injury at this outlet alone, it suggests that there may be serious failings in the organisations health and safety management system and it may be a futile exercise in asking.

I would however, ask the person on site for reporting incidents if form F2508 has been submitted to the HSE contact centre in respect of the incident - which is a legal requirement under RIDDOR regulations.

getmore4less

dickydonkin wrote: »

There may be - but as there are apparently 5 outstanding claims for injury at this outlet alone, it suggests that there may be serious failings in the organisations health and safety management system and it may be a futile exercise in asking.

I would however, ask the person on site for reporting incidents if form F2508 has been submitted to the HSE contact centre in respect of the incident - which is a legal requirement under RIDDOR regulations.

I suspect you are right the place is a H&S shambles,

How much cooperation is there between the regional HSE centers to look for wider issues with in uk wide organizations.

thegirlintheattic

What is the bonus actually for? Some companies pay bonuses if you take no absence during the year - if this is the case with the OP it may not be fair, but would be policy to remove the bonus.

Has your OH had other time off during the year? A lot of companies use a formula as to when to start disciplinary for time off. It may be this latest absence (if there has been previous absences) has pushed him over this threshold and on to a warning.

*Scarlett

Check your home insurance policy to see if you have legal cover. These policies normally cover employment disputes - the loss would need to be over a certain amount and have a reasonable chance of success but they may be able to give you some advice.

If you don't have this, you might have a free legal helpline associated with the policy.

dickydonkin

getmore4less wrote: »

I suspect you are right the place is a H&S shambles,

How much cooperation is there between the regional HSE centers to look for wider issues with in uk wide organizations.

There actually is to a degree.

When the HSE issues statistics on accidents, injury types and the industry they occurred in etc. much of this information is obtained from the submissions under RIDDOR regulations.

The submitted reports are processed at the HSE contact centre in Wales.

If there appears to be a trend of increased incidents at an organisation or a serious accident occurs, then the local HSE/authority will likely be alerted which could subsequently instigate an inspection.

As I alluded to earlier, this is why many companies are reluctant to report an incident/occurrence under this legislation in case it initiates a visit which could potentially result in enforcement.

With cuts now even affecting the HSE, it is argued that inspections will become less frequent - however, where a safety failing has occurred, once the new fee for intervention scheme is fully implemented (FFI - a cost recovery scheme), it could end up being a costly exercise if an organisation continuously shows disregard to their employees safety.

FFI: Source - HSE

HSE proposes to introduce a fee for intervention cost recovery scheme with effect from 1 October 2012, subject to Parliamentary approval of the proposed Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012.

These Regulations will put a duty on HSE to recover its costs for carrying out its regulatory functions from those found to be in material breach of health and safety law.

A material breach is, when in the opinion of the HSE inspector, there has been a contravention of health and safety law that is serious enough to require them to notify the person in material breach of that opinion in writing.

HSE and the government believe it is right that businesses and organisations that break health and safety laws should pay for HSE’s time in putting matters right, investigating and taking enforcement action. Without FFI, this is paid for from the public purse.

The proposed Fee for Intervention hourly rate for 2012/13 is £124.

FFI will also encourage businesses and organisations to comply in the first place or put matters right quickly when they don't. It will also discourage those who undercut their competitors by not complying with the law and putting people at risk