partner been attacked by customer, advice please

Crazy_Jamie

sangie595 wrote: »

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!

Somehow I managed to miss that on my first read through the thread. I've edited my post accordingly.

cr1mson

Has he sought medical assistance? Am thinking both from the point of view of his welfare and also for evidencing the injuries caused.

Is he likely to be off work following incident?

dickydonkin

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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.

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.

My interpretation of the OP's post is that based on the information available, the retailer/employer has been negligent.

The reality is that they had - but removed, a competent and trained security officer, but in their wisdom - or more likely to save money, they not only removed a deterrent to people with sinister intent, but also someone who would be trained to deal with the situation the OP's partner encountered.

The perpetrator of the attack was known to the employer and had 'previous', so if you are going to ban someone from a store, that retailer should ensure that if such a person who is likely to be violent and could return to the store, that staff are trained and able to deal with such a situation.

What they did was remove a significant control measure and also failed in their duty of care to protect their employees and indeed other customers.

The focus of the OP's partners injuries seem to be the physical nature of them, or 'minor injury' as described above, however, from experience, the long term psychological harm cannot be determined so soon after the event. Cuts and bruises will heal in time, but nobody on here can know how this attack will affect the victim over a prolonged period of time.

Workplace violence is now a serious concern for retailers and is actually defined as "Any incident in which a person is abused, threatened, or assaulted in circumstances related to their work"

So you don't have to be physically assaulted and suffer physical injury to become a victim of workplace violence.

The reality is that the employer has potentially breached their requirement to provide a safe place of work, provide relevant training and to undertake a risk assessment - if the latter aspect had indeed been carried out, it would have had to be reviewed after the original security officer was removed.

I doubt this would have happened as the employer would have had to determine that the risk of violence did not justify a full time security guard, but surprisingly decided they then needed one following a customers observation.

A specialist lawyer would indeed ascertain if there are grounds for a personal injury claim and a major factor would be the requirement to prove the employers negligence.

Based on what the OP has submitted, there seems little doubt that the employer failed in their duty of care.

[Deleted User]

Your partner needs to be very careful.

He could be fined, or even imprisoned, if he admits working as a security guard, without an S.I.A. badge.

I wouldn't rock the boat.

Don't attempt any claim, but make it clear to the employer that no more security work will be undertaken.

https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/what-happens-if-you-work-without-an-sia-licence

elsien

ilikethesimpsons wrote: »

Your partner needs to be very careful.

He could be fined, or even imprisoned, if he admits working as a security guard, without an S.I.A. badge.

I wouldn't rock the boat.

Don't attempt any claim, but make it clear to the employer that no more security work will be undertaken.

https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/what-happens-if-you-work-without-an-sia-licence

Is that not scaremongering?
I thought that inhouse security did not need an SIA license, its only needed if the service is contracted out. Anyway, imprisonment for a one off occurrence when insisted upon by the employer seems unlikely.

dickydonkin

ilikethesimpsons wrote: »

Your partner needs to be very careful.

He could be fined, or even imprisoned, if he admits working as a security guard, without an S.I.A. badge.

I wouldn't rock the boat.

Don't attempt any claim, but make it clear to the employer that no more security work will be undertaken.

https://www.thetrainingcircle.co.uk/articles/security/what-happens-if-you-work-without-an-sia-licence

Wouldn't the duty holder of the premises be more culpable than the OP's partner who was acting under instructions without any form of training, let alone the knowledge of any SIA requirements?.......assuming an SIA was required for the role undertaken.

Jonmenzies

Hi. Just to add my point. For the last 16 years I worked in a Social Security office. On Halloween I got into a situation at the bus stop outside the office. The person at the bus stop knew my face and kicked off. I got assaulted and went off sick. After 5 months I was sacked by DWP as I could not give a return date. DO NOT trust any employer or the Trade Union.

wesleyad

Regarding the SIA license,he almost certainly wouldn't require one as he is directly employed by the company and (I assume) does not do this security work for another client. He comes under "in-house" the same way certain supermarkets do it.

alwaysready

Okay. First you need to find a lawyer that can help you to get the best result. You have to accuse the customer and the company. Company is responsible for lack of training and customer is responsible for attacking

Takeaway_Addict

Jonmenzies wrote: »

Hi. Just to add my point. For the last 16 years I worked in a Social Security office. On Halloween I got into a situation at the bus stop outside the office. The person at the bus stop knew my face and kicked off. I got assaulted and went off sick. After 5 months I was sacked by DWP as I could not give a return date. DO NOT trust any employer or the Trade Union.

You went off sick for an incident outside of work and then were surprised you got sacked....