partner been attacked by customer, advice please

lilsweetie

Hi all

my partner works for a very well known retail company, as a shift leader. he was on annual leave about a month ago and upon his return, was told he would be temporarily doing security work, as a customer had complained about lack of security (the company got rid of a security guard to cut costs) my partner has had NO training whatsoever in this field, and no idea how to protect himself if the worst happens. he was told this would only be for a few weeks until they employed a FT guard. Last night, a customer entered the store who was well known for shop lifting and had been banned from the store. my partner asked the man to kindly leave, and the man has turned around and attacked my partner, punching him to his face multiple times, temple,ear,all done his cheek, he has thrown a heavy object at him and kicked him multiple times before running into a vehicle. my partner has rang the police and reported this, and has CCTV and witnesses.

my partner now is very shook up, and I'm angry he has been put into this position as he has had no training at all. surely this is failure on the employers behalf?? should he speak to the union or just put it down to a bad incident and refuse to go back on security, no change of contract or anything, I'm just wondering really if this is a legit thing for the company to do.

Thanks

andygb

lilsweetie wrote: »

Hi all

my partner works for a very well known retail company, as a shift leader. he was on annual leave about a month ago and upon his return, was told he would be temporarily doing security work, as a customer had complained about lack of security (the company got rid of a security guard to cut costs) my partner has had NO training whatsoever in this field, and no idea how to protect himself if the worst happens. he was told this would only be for a few weeks until they employed a FT guard. Last night, a customer entered the store who was well known for shop lifting and had been banned from the store. my partner asked the man to kindly leave, and the man has turned around and attacked my partner, punching him to his face multiple times, temple,ear,all done his cheek, he has thrown a heavy object at him and kicked him multiple times before running into a vehicle. my partner has rang the police and reported this, and has CCTV and witnesses.

my partner now is very shook up, and I'm angry he has been put into this position as he has had no training at all. surely this is failure on the employers behalf?? should he speak to the union or just put it down to a bad incident and refuse to go back on security, no change of contract or anything, I'm just wondering really if this is a legit thing for the company to do.

Thanks

So sorry to hear about this, but it has happened to someone I knew ages ago who worked in a club in London.
Is your partner in a union?
Has he got a contract?
He should have some kind of training to be put on security - self defence being the obvious one.
He should have been given a choice.

Manxman_in_exile

Yes speak to his union.


Get his employer to press for the assailant to be prosecuted. (I used to work in the NHS where they applied "Zero tolerance" to attacks against staff.) You say he has clear CCTV and witnesses to the attack?


I don't know if he has any redress against the company (some sort of health and safety breach?) but I'm sure others here may know. I suspect you ought not to be required to work in a security role without sufficient training.

Geoff1963

Definitely speak to the union.
https://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-roles.aspx

What if instead your partner had got the upper hand, and the customer was suing for assault ?
It sounds as if the store is on a bad H & S footing, regardless.

powerful_Rogue

I'm guessing he doesn't have an SIA licence either.

Gram_Parsons

The company should have went to a company that supplies trained and accredited security to pubs, clubs etc and arranged cover that way. If it were me assaulted, I'd be seeking a substantial claim. Your partner could have been hospitalised or worse!

sangie595

If he is in a union, as you say, then you speak to the union. That is what they are being paid for. You do nothing else at all until he has.

lilsweetie

Thank you for all your replys, to answer your questions....

No he has had no training, no SIA licence, in the past he has managed to catch a few shop lifters in the act by chance, so I assume they thought he would be a good fill until they found a permanent solution, I wasn't happy with this arrangement from the start and did wonder if this was normal practice as I used to work in the civil service and see people needing SIA licences for security work.
He has a full time permanent contract as a shift leader, he has worked for the company for over 5 years.
Gram, that is exactly what has upset me, especially knowing he punched his temple, we all know one punch can kill, we have a young child and another on the way and i am so angry that something worse could have happened and how different the outcome could have been.
Yes he has clear CCTV as there is a camera down that particular aisle that the assault happened, he has a customers details as a witness and also a colleague who had tried to help my partner during the attack. My partner didn't do anything in return or even push him in any way as he didn't have a clue what he is or isn't allowed to do.
Yes he is in the union, the man who leads the union in his store is off for a week now but I will be telling my partner to ring the phone line this week, the police said they will take statement today or tomorrow.
Thanks again.

ohreally

lilsweetie wrote: »

Yes he has clear CCTV as there is a camera down that particular aisle that the assault happened, he has a customers details as a witness and also a colleague who had tried to help my partner during the attack.

Apart from anything else, he needs to ring-fence that recording before it becomes unavailable.

lilsweetie wrote: »

my partner works for a very well known retail company, as a shift leader.

Did it cross his mind to decline to undertake the security duties given he was neither trained or competent to do them?

Hope all works out well for him.

Crazy_Jamie

In terms of whether this was a 'legit' thing for the company to do, the short answer is probably 'no'. It's clearly a role that requires training that, based on what you've said, your partner didn't have. I have no doubt that people are asked to do these roles all the time without proper training, but that doesn't avoid the requirement for them to be properly trained.

Of course, the practical consequences of that could be one of a number of things. The facts as you've described them may give rise to a number of different claims, including personal injury (see below) and potentially constructive dismissal. But whilst it sounds easy to just say that you're going to bring a claim, in practice it is much more difficult. A personal injury claim may be well founded, but may also not be worth very much (again, see below), and in any event can cause tension with an employer. Equally, constructive dismissal requires your partner to actually resign, and therefore risk going for a period without employment with no absolute guarantee that the claim would succeed. And of course, no one here has the full facts, whilst your partner's union will be able to advise you based on full information. By far the best approach here is to seek advice from them first, as they can advise your partner both on his legal position and what his next steps might be.

Gram_Parsons wrote: »

The company should have went to a company that supplies trained and accredited security to pubs, clubs etc and arranged cover that way. If it were me assaulted, I'd be seeking a substantial claim. Your partner could have been hospitalised or worse!

Unfortunately this is not America, and you cannot just 'seek a substantial claim'. The OP's partner may well have a valid claim for personal injury here, but the value of that claim depends entirely on the injuries suffered and any losses flowing directly from those injuries. It may be that we have not been told everything in that respect, but from the tone and content of the OP's original post it does seem that their partner has fortunately only suffered minor injury. Equally, whilst I entirely understand the OP's anger at what could have happened, you don't get damages for what 'could have' happened either.

ohreally wrote:

Apart from anything else, he needs to ring-fence that recording before it becomes unavailable.

I agree with this. I hope that the police are involved and that the CCTV has therefore already been preserved, but your partner should certainly ensure that that is the case.

ohreally wrote:

Did it cross his mind to decline to undertake the security duties given he was neither trained or competent to do them?

I suspect in practice it is an awful lot harder to decline to undertake a role like that when you've been asked to do it. Shift leader is a management position, but there will still be plenty of people around with more authority than the OP's partner. In that sort of environment you generally do things that you're asked to do without question.

sangie595

The OP said in the first post that the individual is in the union - so the only advice that they need is to speak to the union. We don't know the circumstances of what was asked, or who by. Therefore we do not know how hard or ready any pretrial case may be. Although my first question would have been "where was the management?" Since they appear to be the only people who haven't been mentioned!