Direct Report Injured at work then Sacked.

Cotta wrote: »

What part?

See my responses in red!

Undervalued wrote: »

This is mostly nonsense!

sangie595 wrote: »

She wasn't dismissed for health and safety; and "health and safety" isn't one of the reasons for being able to bring a claim before two years anyway!

Wrong. Don't shout. Shouting a pig is a cat does not make it a cat.


https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/problems-at-work/employment-tribunals-from-29-july-2013/making-an-employment-tribunal-claim-is-it-worth-it/employment-tribunals-automatic-unfair-dismissal/employment-tribunals-automatic-unfair-dismissal-health-and-safety/

Cotta wrote: »

I agree my boss has not behaved great, however isn't a broken bone at work always a possibility without the employer being to blame.

Yes, but the issue is how it was caused. Compensation is based on whether or not anyone was negligent. Negligence can be complicated but in very broad, general terms, is based on
1, Whether there is a duty of care (and there is no question at all that an empolyer owes a duty of care to their employees)
2, whether it would have been reasonably foreseeable to a reasonable person that the type of accident / harm which occurred might occur. (i.e. it is reasonably foreseeable that if you make/let someone climb ladders, there is a risk they may fall, and that a person who falls off may be injured)
3, Whether the person responsible (the employer, in the case) knew or ought to have known of the risk.

If your colleague had tripped over her own untied shoelace and broken her arm, then it is unlikely that she would have a claim.

However, in this case:

- Your boss told her to clean the windows, so he had direct knowledge of the activity.
- your boss knew, or ought reasonably have known, that this was an activity which created a risk of falling. He ought to have ensured that she was given appropriate training, have done a proper risk assessment, and (probably) have not asked an office worked to do window cleaning.
- It was reasonably foreseeable that someone might fall
- it was foreseeable that anyone who did fall, might be injured including injuries such as a broken arm.

I don't think he will get very far arguing that she was careless and responsible for her own injury, unless of course he is able to show that there was a proper risk assessment and she was given specific training / instructions about working on a ladder and she disregarded those instructions.

Of course, at the time of the accident, it should have been noted in the firm's accident book and your boss should also have informed his insurers. If he didn't do those things, he may find that the insurers get awkward about covering the claim.

I doubt that she has a claim for her dismissal - however, her personal injury claim is likely to include loss of earnings and depending on her role, that may include the time until the arm is healed - she may find it more difficult to quickly get a new job if she is incapacitated by a broken arm, although she would, of course, have to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.

OP, in your position I would be actively looking for a new job as your current employer seems casual in the extreme, and if they are as ignorant as this about their responsibilities for health and safety, who knows what else they are cutting corners on?

You may be contacted by your employer's insurer (r their legal representative) for a statement -if so, keep it very brief and factual - e.g. that you were away on the day of the accident so have no direct knowledge of it, and that you have not (assuming that to be the case) at any time carried out a risk assessment for cleaning the windows or given your direct report any training about working at heights, or been instructed by your Boss to do so.

(this type of thing is why, in our office,it's a always me, or my co-owner, who does things like standing on chair to change a light-bulb, or open the loft hatch, not any of our employees.)

Undervalued wrote: »

No, not wrong!

I suggest you read the information you have quoted carefully.

He is the most relevant bit.....




Had the OP's colleague refused to do something that they were instructed to do because it might reasonably have been considered dangerous and therefor an unlawful instruction and, as a result, was dismissed then they may have been able to have brought an unfair dismissal claim without two year's service.

However that is not (apparently) what happened here.

They had an accident maybe as a result of the employer failing to act correctly. As I said, they may have a valid personal injury claim.

She has been dismissed as "unsuitable" to quote the OP but in any case with less than two years service the employer is not obliged to give any reason at all (an indeed would be well advised not to).

Do you therefore retract your statement that


"Only if she can show that her dismissal was actually because of a protected characteristic (not "health and safety" as you simplistically call it). Otherwise, with less than two years service she can't."


or your colleagues:



“She wasn't dismissed for health and safety; and "health and safety" isn't one of the reasons for being able to bring a claim before two years anyway!"


Because its clearly false? The point being that you were not correct to automatically dismiss the point since she was not there 2 years?


You now going into the intricate details of the H&S clause prove that its less clear cut than you assumed. So yes, still wrong. Get over it and move it.




And on your other point, that is indeed very valid and I agree that this point is more debatable. But I would argue that yes, she could very well have a claim around unfair dismissal. She could relate the absence to taking actions against the H&S risk and the employers motives to dismiss her as reprimand for the absence. Very easy to do. Infact, if she wins the personal injury, then I would expect any reasonable judge to link the two.