Employment Tribunal Help

Undervalued

Steampowered will be better able to advise you but one question....

Is there a legal requirement for them to hold this insurance (like car insurance for example)? Or is it just good practice but not obligatory?

The reason I ask is that I can't immediately see how a lack of insurance makes it unsafe for you to do the work. Any resulting claim would presumably have been against the company and not you personally?

Insurance, however comprehensive and sensible, doesn't prevent a "near fatal accident" all it does is protect the insured person / company from the financial consequences.

dj9911

I'm not 100% sure if you have to specific insurance to use the equipment (such as car insurance). I don't think so from my research. But I'm 99% sure an insurance policy would stipulate that the person who was using it had to have had some training by a separate approved company. Which I did not. Think forklift, crane, dumper truck on the company's property which is also accessed by the public. I also doubt their insurance covers them for using the equipment in an area accessed by the the public. From my reading this seems to be a big health and safety issue and is advised against in nearly all situations.

The use of the piece of equipment was to be added to my duties. The use of the equipment was a separate full time job before. Basically I was being bullied by a manager. Adding this previous full time job to my already full time job was a way of bullying me out of my job. I didn't have two years service at the company.

My genuine fear was having an accident and injuring/killing somebody. The chance of which would have greatly increased due to doing two peoples work in a busy work area with members of the public. If that happened the company could say I shouldn't have been the using equipment because I wasn’t authorised to do so. Therefore my assumption (rightly or wrongly) was I would have become liable. I had no contract of employment. Nothing at all in writing from the company. Hence I asked for proof or a letter confirming I was insured to use the equipment. Upon which point I was sacked.


Edit: I should also say that I also wasn't happy with the way the equipment was being used. A number of the operations carried out by the company with it were 'old school' for want of a better phrase. If the job was to become my responsibilty I would have been responsible for carrying out those duties. Basically I wanted to know that they had safe systems/practices in place and should anything go wrong I wasn't going to get dropped in it.

Undervalued

Lack of proper training and obviously being asked to do something that is unsafe may well be relevant to your claim. However it seems to me the insurance aspect is a red herring, but maybe I am wrong?

This is the problem with bringing your claim yourself. It is very easy to get bogged down with issues that maybe are "important" in a wider sense but are completely irrelevant to an unfair dismissal claim.

Have you received any proper legal advice about your claim? You may well have a very valid claim but you have got to focus on what is relevant to an employment tribunal.

The firm's wider H&S failings can be addressed to the proper authorities if appropriate.

Adding this previous full time job to my already full time job was a way of bullying me out of my job. I didn't have two years service at the company.

With less than two year's service they didn't need to "bully you out of your job" they could simply dismiss you for no reason at all. Obviously the two year rule doesn't apply if the dismissal was actually for a protected reason, as you claim, but claiming you were being "bullied out of you job" when they had no need to do that isn't going to help.

dj9911

However, in all Tribunal situations, it is crucial to focus on what really matters to your case. Work out what you would need to prove to the Tribunal to win your claim - and focus on proving that. Don't get drawn into rabbit holes.

I think the penny has finally dropped. I’ve been drawn into the rabbit hole here trying to explain to you all why the insurance is so important. Just like in the case.

I knew the equipment wasn’t being used safely. I thought if I could prove I wasn’t insured that it would prove that I shouldn’t have been doing it. It is more important to firstly prove that health and safety was the reason I was sacked. Secondly, how and why was the equipment being used unsafely. Thirdly, how did I know that.

Is that the point I’m not getting?

dj9911

Undervalued - I was typing as you replied. Thank you for the replies.



I did go to see an employment lawyer. He advised I did have an arguable case on health and safety grounds. But not strong enough for no win no fee. He also said with two years service he could have brought a different claim which I would have won.


I didn't explain that very well. The lack of two years wasn't the reason for the bullying. I meant I didn't have two years service and as such I wasn't able to bring an easier claim. The bullying was to do with company politics. The person doing it didn't have the authority to sack anybody.

Savvy_Sue

I'd be surprised if an insurance policy included specifications such as what training those using particular equipment should receive. I've been looking quite carefully at our work policy, and it says nothing about training.

While we don't have anything like fork lift trucks or cherry pickers, we do have some specialised kitchen equipment, and we prepare food for clients. Our insurance policy is silent on the training which those involved in preparing food should have had. That's covered in our risk assessments and H&S policies: people who work in the kitchen need Food Hygiene training, and to be shown how everything works.

We do have a work van, for which we obviously have a separate insurance policy. The cover is for any driver over 25, but we provide details of all drivers to the company, and they will decline anyone with more than 6 points on their licence or a record of 'fault' claims on their personal insurance. But that's because the van is driven on the public highway: AFAIK there's no such requirement for vehicles which are NOT driven on the public highway.

So I'd agree that the insurance is a red herring.

Cross-posted with your more recent posts.

Undervalued

dj9911 wrote: »

I think the penny has finally dropped. I’ve been drawn into the rabbit hole here trying to explain to you all why the insurance is so important. Just like in the case.

I knew the equipment wasn’t being used safely. I thought if I could prove I wasn’t insured that it would prove that I shouldn’t have been doing it. It is more important to firstly prove that health and safety was the reason I was sacked. Secondly, how and why was the equipment being used unsafely. Thirdly, how did I know that.

Is that the point I’m not getting?

Sorry but I don't think the insurance aspect proves anything unless there was a legal obligation for them to have this specific insurance.

If there an obligation for them to have it insured and you knew it wasn't, then you would be quite entitled to refuse to use it for that reason.

Your other points are potentially valid. If you reasonably believed that what you were instructed to do put people at risk of injury (or worse) then again you were entitled to refuse and can claim unfair dismissal if you were sacked because of your refusal.

dj9911

I should explain that I have difficulty explaining in words or writing what I’m trying to say. If the detail is important as it is here. I need to re-read it a few times to make sure I’m explaining myself correctly. Added to my poor spelling and grammar I know it isn’t great in this situation. But it is what it is.

“Our insurance policy is silent on the training which those involved in preparing food should have had. That's covered in our risk assessments and H&S policies: people who work in the kitchen need Food Hygiene training, and to be shown how everything works”.

I think this explains my situation well. In my ignorance I thought the insurance would stipulate as in your example food hygiene training. You say that it’s covered by your risk assessments and H&S policies. In my case I have a couple of documents that give a general policy. But they are refusing to supply the risk assessments, training records etc mentioned in the documents. If they won’t how do I prove in the tribunal what is the accepted code of practice or guidelines? As in Savvy_Sue’s example and this is where I am struggling. Where does it say all people dealing with food must have food hygiene training and how do I go about finding it?

Undervalued

I fully understand your reluctance to put full details on here but I don't think we are going to get a great deal further.

It seems to me that to have any chance of winning you will have convince the tribunal that you had good reason to believe that what you were being told to do was dangerous, you refused for that reason and because of your refusal they dismissed you.

Unless there is a legal requirement to have insurance for a company to undertake this particular work then, as I have said, I think it is a red herring. IF there is (and only if) then it could be relevant to see the full policy to ensure it fully covered you to carry out this work as part of your job. Otherwise it is, with respect, none of your business. The company, not you, would be liable for any injury. I would be stupid not to insure my house but I am allowed to be stupid! On the other hand deciding not to insure, say, a £1000 camera is a risk I can perfectly well afford to take.

As a final point, there are remarkedly few jobs in the UK for which there is a legal requirement to hold a particular qualification (physician, vet, pilot, solicitor, driver, jockey(!!) etc etc). Then there are protected titles like architect (but generally nothing to stop a non architect designing houses) etc. Finally there are quite a few more occupations where it is almost universal to hold certain qualifications but not technically obligatory. Nothing stops you, me or anybody else setting up business offering these services or almost any other.

Similarly with insurance. You must have it to drive a vehicle on the road plus, for example, a solicitor must have insurance to be allowed to sign off a settlement agreement. There are a few others but not that many.

dj9911

Thank you for your help and everybody else's. It has helped me re-focus the direction of my claim.

There are HSE ACoP’s for the equipment. The company has no HSE to speak of and doesn’t apply with basically all of the guidelines in the ACoP. This I now realise is far more important than having no insurance. To me it was as important. But as you explained you are allowed to be stupid.