Accident at work

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 29 Dec 2007, 15:40

Can an accident at work be used towards issuing someone with a stage?
This is assuming that it was reported and any relevant forms filled out.
Does having dealings with or without the EHS concerning the accident have any bearing on this?

DirtyHarry · Post by **DirtyHarry** » 29 Dec 2007, 16:13

It's my understanding that absences due to accidents whilst on duty, cannot be used towards the issuing of a stage warning by management. In fact,
I'm damn sure they can't. Your rep should be able to put you straight on that one.

Post by **baldrick** » 29 Dec 2007, 16:22

I also think DH is right in saying that Accidents on Duty (AOD) and Incidents on Duty (IOD) - eg absence due to result of robberies, are not counted towards the issue of Stages.
However thw HR computer will send your Manager a notification if the AOD or IOD takes you over the Stage limits. He will then have to notify you that he will hold a Stage hearing, which is supposed to be within 48 hours.
You MUST take a Rep in with you to ensure that the Stage is not issued, and that your Manager notifies HR that the absence is due to an AOD, and that this is recorded on the computer.

Post by **Carnoustie** » 29 Dec 2007, 16:55

Surely the HR records / computer should already have the AOD-related absence recorded as an AOD, if all the relevant forms were completed ?
I am in exactly the same situation myself. Had an AOD earlier in the year which resulted in me needing a week off, then was off after being ill over Christmas. This latest absence takes me up to 14 days, yet the geezer doing my RTW reckons AODs aren't necessarily ignored when it comes to the Stage 1 interview. I was so enraged that I said 'so, if someone gets hit by a forklift and needed three months of hospital treatment, you can sack them for having the temerity to get themselves injured ?'. I warned him that I'll get my Rep involved ahead of the meeting and will fight this every step of the way if it's issued. (Yeah, I know there's no right of appeal for Stage 1, but that won't stop me putting in a Grievance against the manager or reporting him to the Bullying & Harrassment hotline for blatant victimisation)

Post by **baldrick** » 29 Dec 2007, 17:09

Apparently not. When I had an absence due to an IOD the HR computer issued the Stage warning. I saw a Rep who told me that they are automatically issued. The computer showed the absence as being due sickness. I don't know why AODs and IODs are not initially notified as such, but apparently they aren't. The Rep said it was to ensure my Manager was aware of what had happened, so that he could ensure I got appropriate counselling/support if required.
It is then down to the Manager to ensure that the records are amended, but apparently if I then have a further period of sickness within the Stage triggerpoints, the computer will issue the Stage warning again, and I will have to go through the whole Stage procedure again.

curly1975 · Post by **curly1975** » 29 Dec 2007, 17:56

Accidents at work should not count towards the attendance procedure, unless that accident is caused by the individual breaching health and safety rules/guidelines.

Example of this would be somebody using an ALT or York container as a go kart in the workplace and they fell off or out and injured themselves then it would be their own fault.

Post by **Carnoustie** » 29 Dec 2007, 20:18

baldrick wrote:It is then down to the Manager to ensure that the records are amended, but apparently if I then have a further period of sickness within the Stage triggerpoints, the computer will issue the Stage warning again, and I will have to go through the whole Stage procedure again.

OK baldrick, humour me. Let's take a hypothetical scenario, where Joe Bloggs has the following sick record....

No time off sick for nine months, then
7 days sick (after fully documented AOD) Aug 2007
7 days sick Dec 2007

A Stage letter is generated (I won't use the word issued because a Stage warning can only be issued when the manager conducts the Stage interview) automatically from the HR computer, because their records show Joe Bloggs has had 14 days sick, in breach of Royal Mail attendance standards. Correct ?

So, let's say after the CWU Rep reads the manager the riot act, the Stage warning is not issued at the Stage interview, but Joe Bloggs then gets ill again and is off sick for 2 days in - for example - June 2008.

So, if I understand you correctly, in the above scenario, the HR computer will again spit out a Stage letter, on the basis that JB has now incurred a total of 16 days sick in 3 absences in just under 12 months ? BUT ....

If the manager did not issue a formal Stage warning on the first occasion, he can't issue it when the second letter arrives, either. My argument being that an AOD either counts towards the Attendance Procedure or it doesn't, and having accepted the principle that it cannot be counted towards the total number of sick days when the first interview was conducted, the manager cannot count the AOD-related days in the interview after the June absence either. Which would mean Joe Bloggs is in the clear because the only sick absences that 'tot-up' are 7 days in December and 2 days in June, well under the criteria for a breach of the attendance standards.

So even though it would be a pain to again be dragged in the office for a Stage interview, a good rep should be able to ensure that JB cannot be issued a Stage warning in the scenario I describe ? Unless he then has 2 further absences (or 5 days sick) before December 2008

Post by **Carnoustie** » 29 Dec 2007, 20:32

actually, having just read that again after posting it, another tactic a rep could use ...

Manager: Well, I didn't count the AOD-related days last time, but now I am going to count them due to JB having had another sickie
Rep: So what you're saying is that you should have issued a Stage 1 last time, but you didn't adhere to Royal Mail procedure. If anything, Joe should now be in front of you for a Stage 2 attendance interview. But as he has only had ONE absence of less than ten days since the previous Stage interview, he has not breached that attendance standard. In any case, you cannot issue a Stage 2 warning if no Stage 1 warning has ever been issued

If that doesn't completely bamboozle even the brightest (?) DOM, my name's ... errrrr... Joe Bloggs

Post by **baldrick** » 29 Dec 2007, 21:39

I think you got it right first time.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 29 Dec 2007, 22:02

Carnoustie has it spot on

Also summin to note and what i've learnt on here.
If the accident IS NOT investigated within the specific time frame..........

AOD are normally discounted unless blame can be aportioned to you.

AOD is not an AOD if it was investigated within 48 hours and you were correctly informed it was not an AOD. If the AOD was not disputed then it is an AOD regardless.

Postman, that is correct, the managers have a letter they must issue to you that they don't believe it was an AOD. If this letter is not issued it is an AOD by default.

From the managers absence management guidelines..

"When it is disputed that an absence was related to an AOD, the line manager should write to the individual to advise them"

(Letter Appendix 8a).."This is just to inform you that I am seeking advice on whether or not this particular absence should be counted"

They must then seek advice from the EHS and the area safety rep.

This is the important bit..

"Line managers should aim to resolve any dispute within two working weeks of the persons return to work"

"If after a further period of two weeks the matter is still unresolved it should be brought to a conclusion in the individuals favour"

I should have put "area safety advisor" and it's theirs. The reason for this is to make sure they are doing their "duty of care"

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/forum/vi ... c&start=15

Post by **Carnoustie** » 30 Dec 2007, 00:13

POSTMAN wrote:From the managers absence management guidelines..

"When it is disputed that an absence was related to an AOD, the line manager should write to the individual to advise them"

and

"If after a further period of two weeks the matter is still unresolved it should be brought to a conclusion in the individuals favour

Postman, baldrick, DH and curly1975 .... THANKS TO ALL OF YOU !!!

I won't even need my own union rep in there with me when they pull me in for that Stage interview. They never wrote to me to dispute that my 1st absence was related to my AOD. They did refer me to couldn't give A-TOSS, and made me sign an 'informed consent' thing for permission to contact my doctor. I had a telephone consultation with someone at A-TOSS and informed them that in my opinion, the poor design of the machinery I was using made a recurrence of the same injury a strong possibility if I used it in future. They advised me (and my manager) that I should not be put on said machine again until a risk assessment had been carried out.

To my knowledge, no such assessment has been done.
I have not been on that machine or any of it's type since the accident.
And they didn't dispute my time off being AOD-related.

So, to paraphrase the old song :

YOU DON'T GET ME, I'M PART OF THE RMC

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 30 Dec 2007, 06:31

http://www.cwu.org.uk/default.asp?Step=4&pid=127

Attendance Agreement

AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROYAL MAIL AND THE CWU ON ATTENDANCE PROCEDURE

1. Royal Mail and the CWU agree to the following changes to the current Attendance Procedure which has been operating since 1 July 1992 against the backdrop of a major pilot of a new Attendance Procedure being run in the Midlands and North East Divisions.

2. The key elements to this Agreement are as follows:

Â· The focus of this Procedure is on Capability and not Conduct.

Â· The Procedure is intended to encourage Attendance.

Â· Introduction of return to work discussions.

Â· The approach remains through 3 Progressive Formal Stages.

Â· A measurement and review process will be established nationally.

Â· A separate process for rehabilitation from long term sickness absence is appended.

Â· Absences resulting from accidents at work or an employee's disability are normally discounted.

Â· EHS support/advice should be available at any time.

Â· Requests by employees to be interviewed at stages 1 and 2 by a manager of the same sex, where this is practical within the local unit concerned, will be treated sympathetically.

Â· Representation at all formal stages.

3. This agreement supersedes the Royal Mail Attendance Procedure (1993 and 1996). It applies to all Royal Mail employees, except for those in the nominated Attendance Pilot area for the duration of the agreed Pilot.

4. The operation of this Agreement will be reviewed nationally in 12 months.

Bob Peaple
Royal Mail

Derek Hodgson
CWU

Terry Deegan
CMA

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 30 Dec 2007, 06:37

Quotes taken from: http://www.cwu.org.uk/default.asp?step=4&pid=128

At every stage of the procedure there is an opportunity for employees to provide an explanation for their absence(s) and for mitigating factors to be fully taken into account. Accidents which happen in the course of Royal Mail work would normally be discounted.

2. APPROACH TO INDIVIDUALS
Â· Each case must be treated on its merits, taking into account issues such as length of service and nature of work.

3. RETURN TO WORK DISCUSSIONS
When someone returns to work from absence the line manager must aim as soon as possible to speak privately and out of earshot of others with the person in a non-threatening and supportive way outside formal procedures with the following objectives:

Absences due to sickness are assumed to be genuine.

A return to work discussion will take place but employees will not be required to disclose information of a personal or sensitive nature if they choose not to do so.

borderscot · Post by **borderscot** » 30 Dec 2007, 15:13

the relevant word is normally given the understanding of many Dum's they will do as they like

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 30 Dec 2007, 15:17

borderscot wrote:the relevant word is normally given the understanding of many Dum's they will do as they like

but with the freedom of information act you might be able to prove that they "normally" violate/ignore this part of the agreement. However, if anyone actually wanted to go down this line they would have to have a lot of patience as RM would make the processes last as long as possible going on previous history such as the suspensions at Burslem.