The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

Direct Report Injured at work then Sacked.

14567810»

Comments

  • Savvy_Sue
    Savvy_Sue Posts: 45,936
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:
    To all readers of this thread, do not consider gospel anything that you read on public forums. Take qualified advice, do your own research and make a judgement call. Shouting the loudest or having lots of posts on a forum does not make one correct or a legal expert.
    But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...
    Signature removed for peace of mind
  • sangie595
    sangie595 Posts: 6,092 Forumite
    Savvy_Sue wrote: »
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...
    I would agree about forum advice, and frequently say the same thing. But more often than not, I'd tell people to join a union so they aren't depending on the dubious advice of a bunch of strangers! And if they won't do that, take our legal insurance.
  • ohreally
    ohreally Posts: 7,525
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Savvy_Sue wrote: »
    There's one piece of excellent advice in all this:But if dickydonkin and sangie say something, I'd listen ...

    DD, Little Voice and Crazy Jamie comments,I would hold in high esteem.
    Don’t be a can’t, be a can.
  • Smellyonion
    Smellyonion Posts: 258
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    mariefab wrote: »
    Smellyonion you are not alone.

    A great number of other people 'know' that it's unfair to dismiss someone for health and safety.
    However, what a lot of them don't realise is that this is only true if the health and safety claim fits within a handful of sets of criteria.(as Sangie said, giving examples)

    Automatically unfair dismissal health and safety claims can only be raised by:
    1. A health and safety rep, appointed by the employer or by the workforce, who was sacked for simply carrying out his job.
    2. An employee who was sacked for raising a currently harmful, or potentially harmful, health and safety matter when no health and safety rep was available.
    3. An employee who was sacked for leaving (or saying they would leave) the workplace when they believed that they were in serious, imminent danger that they couldn't avert themself or refused to return until the danger was averted.
    4. An employee who was sacked for taking reasonable steps to protect himself and/or others from serious imminent danger.


    I do agree with your points but there are other iterpretations that may apply in this instance.


    My point has been that it may be able to fit into conditions 2 or 3. We don't have any access to any evidence so it is purely speculation but she could argue that by taking time off due to the psychological fear caused by the injury, she was dismissed. Why was she deemed immediately unsuitable following the accident? Should could also argue that her falling highlighted the H&S failings so her employer fired her to avoid the issue.
  • Smellyonion
    Smellyonion Posts: 258
    First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    sangie595 wrote: »
    but I would strongly advise anyone listening to the advice from Smellyonion to (a) take it with a ton of salt, because they won't be picking up the pieces if you make things worse, and


    We should all listen to your impeccable advice:
    "She has less than two years service, so no, she can't claim unfair dismissal."

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



    I think that the evidence is here in thread. You provide a lot of advice to people and quite often very helpful (from what I here) so you have a certain credibility and image to maintain. You are therefore extremely defensive and paranoid in when you feel your credibility is at risk to pass the buck from your own errors.


    Are you going to be picking up the pieces after what you said was incorrect? Are you suggesting that you are 100% liable for any comments you make on a public forum? Arrogance is a horrible trait.
  • mariefab
    mariefab Posts: 320 Forumite
    Head......Wall.......Ouch!...... I give up.
  • dickydonkin
    dickydonkin Posts: 3,055
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    Should could also argue that her falling highlighted the H&S failings so her employer fired her to avoid the issue.

    But the reality is that by firing the injured person, does not eliminate an employers liability should safety failings become apparent.

    A fracture of the arm would automatically trigger the requirement to report the incident under RIDDOR within 10 days.....if that has not been done, then that is a breach - irrespective of whether the worker is still employed or has been dismissed.

    Due to the HSE’s fund cutting, a report (if submitted) would not necessarily result in an inspection, however, a report directly to the local HSE (or EHO- depending on the industry) possibly might. There are a few injuries that automatically result in an inspection such as amputations, however, both enforcement agencies take falls from height- particularly from ladders - very seriously.

    Due to data protection laws, it is now a bit of a pain to check that a RIDDOR report has been submitted, but it can be done.

    I shouldn’t speculate, but based on what has been posted, it would seem the employer in question seems to have a very cavalier attitude to the safety of employees and if he thinks that by getting rid of the worker also evaporates his shortcomings, then he may be in for a shock, particularly if any subsequent inspection triggers a fee for intervention (FFE) which at around £125 per hour will soon add up.

    Incidentally, there is nothing legally wrong for a shop worker to use ladders to clean windows....provided proportionate ladder and work at height training has been provided and risk assessments have been carried out, however, again, I suspect these have not been provided which are potentially breaches of safety legislation.

    It shouldn’t be like this in this day and age, however, there are still unscrupulous employers who have total disregard for their staff and I hope the injured person pursues this.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards