Things that make you SAD thread.

[lemonjelly]

So why doesn't he asked for appropriate training?

He has, by enrolling on an APPRENTICESHIP!

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Agree with SLA.
The vast majority of employees are unfairly not in a position to refuse to carry out tasks.
The employer in a position of authority, instructs the lad to use a machine in the full knowledge the machine is unsafe and has no safety guard.
The lad is 16, and is learning. It is therefore unreasonable to expect him to know there should be a guard.

However, daily loads of unscrupulous employers will instruct their employees to carry out dangerous tasks. & they will threaten their employees with the sack if they don't do it.

Evan so, do you think a £3000 fine is appropriate, given the severity?

Pretty easy case for unfair dismissal i'd have thought.

No idea what the going rate is for an industrial accident.

 

[Parkins left foot]

So if someone at worked as you to do something you weren't trained to do or asked you to use a piece of equipment which didn't look safe you'd blindly do it anyway because someone has told/asked you to?

That's the utter bollocks.

Was he not trained? Doesn't say that, but clearly shown how to use the machine by an idiot of an employer

 

[So Long Architect]

So if someone at worked as you to do something you weren't trained to do or asked you to use a piece of equipment which didn't look safe you'd blindly do it anyway because someone has told/asked you to?

That's the utter bollocks.

Lemon and Parkin have covered it. It's the employer's responsibility to ensure safe working conditions, end of argument. You might expect an experienced employee to bring a deficiency to the employer's attention but not a young apprentice.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

He has, by enrolling on an APPRENTICESHIP!

So because he signed up for an apprenticeship he's done his bit of 'asking for training'? You don't think he should've perhaps asked for specific training/guidance/advice on that machine?

 

[lemonjelly]

Pretty easy case for unfair dismissal i'd have thought.

No idea what the going rate is for an industrial accident.

More bollocks. You cannot claim unfair dismissal unless employed for 2 years, unless you can prove discrimination, or breach of your statutory rights.

 

[lemonjelly]

So because he signed up for an apprenticeship he's done his bit of 'asking for training'? You don't think he should've perhaps asked for specific training/guidance/advice on that machine?

It shows he is untrained. He's there to learn, not point out how the machinery fails all aspects of H&S. An apprentice would not know, & the employer is responsible for training him properly. The employer duly failed in every single way.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

More bollocks. You cannot claim unfair dismissal unless employed for 2 years, unless you can prove discrimination, or breach of your statutory rights.

Well that's my bad.

Either way, this kid should've asked for proper training to fulfil his role, if he'd had proper training he'd be able to tell whether or not the machine was safe. Safety is everyone's responsibility.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

It shows he is untrained. He's there to learn, not point out how the machinery fails all aspects of H&S. An apprentice would not know, & the employer is responsible for training him properly. The employer duly failed in every single way.

So he shouldn't use it if he's not been properly trained.

 

[Parkins left foot]

So because he signed up for an apprenticeship he's done his bit of 'asking for training'? You don't think he should've perhaps asked for specific training/guidance/advice on that machine?

Not clear from the article whether he did ask to be shown how to use the machine or not so not sure why you think he didn't.

Having said that it would always be the employers responsibility to ensure that staff had appropriate training before using machinery & had checked that it was safe.

 

[So Long Architect]

Yes, because all 16 year olds are confident enough to front up to an employer and tell them that they refuse to work unless they're properly trained, assuming they know that they haven't been properly trained. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Not clear from the article whether he did ask to be shown how to use the machine or not so not sure why you think he didn't.

Having said that it would always be the employers responsibility to ensure that staff had appropriate training before using machinery & had checked that it was safe.

He may well have asked but think it's pretty safe to assume he didn't get it before this incident so he's still at fault for using something which he has not received training on. Pretty sure it's down to the operative to check the safety of their equipment before using it.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Mark - if you were a 16yr old in a butchers and were told to use this machine, asked for training which that employer gave you do you consider you would be in a position to question whether that training was adequate & the employer had covered all safety aspects.

Would suspect that most 16yr olds lads w3ould not have spent a great deal of time in a butchers buying meat & would be unlikely to know what safety features should be there.

 

[Paul]

To be fair, what Mark is saying (although coming across as flippant) is essentially correct, in an ideal world.
He has the right to refuse to operate a machine he considers to be dangerous, even the H&S poster states
"Tell someone if you think you or others are at risk at work. You should tell your employer, your boss, or the health and safety representative if there are any problems with health and safety at work."
I know this isn't an ideal world and the kid would be classed as a troublemaker if he raised concerns, bet we were always taught H&S is a mutual beneficial employer / employee agreement.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Mark - if you were a 16yr old in a butchers and were told to use this machine, asked for training which that employer gave you do you consider you would be in a position to question whether that training was adequate & the employer had covered all safety aspects.

Would suspect that most 16yr olds lads w3ould not have spent a great deal of time in a butchers buying meat & would be unlikely to know what safety features should be there.

Who said the employer had given him any training? If i hadn't had it pointed out to me how to tell if the machine was or wasn't safe then i wouldn't have considered it adequate training.

To be fair, what Mark is saying (although coming across as flippant) is essentially correct, in an ideal world.
He has the right to refuse to operate a machine he considers to be dangerous, even the H&S poster states
"Tell someone if you think you or others are at risk at work. You should tell your employer, your boss, or the health and safety representative if there are any problems with health and safety at work."
I know this isn't an ideal world and the kid would be classed as a troublemaker if he raised concerns, bet we were always taught H&S is a mutual beneficial employer / employee agreement.

BINGO!

 

[So Long Architect]

To be fair, what Mark is saying (although coming across as flippant) is essentially correct, in an ideal world.
He has the right to refuse to operate a machine he considers to be dangerous, even the H&S poster states
"Tell someone if you think you or others are at risk at work. You should tell your employer, your boss, or the health and safety representative if there are any problems with health and safety at work."
I know this isn't an ideal world and the kid would be classed as a troublemaker if he raised concerns, bet we were always taught H&S is a mutual beneficial employer / employee agreement.

Which is all fair enough, but nothing in the article says that the lad knew the machine was unsafe and said nothing.

 

[Langers]

Mark in 'being contrary' shocker.

 

[Parkins left foot]

He may well have asked but think it's pretty safe to assume he didn't get it before this incident so he's still at fault for using something which he has not received training on. Pretty sure it's down to the operative to check the safety of their equipment before using it.

Find that statement really odd - you come across a piece of equipment you have not seen before, ask for training & are given it by what appears to be an experienced member of staff (but who isn't & misses out important chunks of information) then its still your fault if he didn't tell you things you need to know that you have no way of knowing exist in the first place.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Which is all fair enough, but nothing in the article says that the lad knew the machine was unsafe and said nothing.

If he didn't know it was unsafe then he also wouldn't be able to know it was safe would he? If in doubt and all that.

Find that statement really odd - you come across a piece of equipment you have not seen before, ask for training & are given it by what appears to be an experienced member of staff (but who isn't & misses out important chunks of information) then its still your fault if he didn't tell you things you need to know that you have no way of knowing exist in the first place.

Bloke standing next to the machine for 5 minutes telling you how to turn it on/off and showing you where to chuck the meat doesn't constitute proper training.

 

[So Long Architect]

If he didn't know it was unsafe then he also wouldn't be able to know it was safe would he? If in doubt and all that.

Yeah, cos that's how a 16-year-old in a first job thinks. :facepalm: