Duty of care priorities
Discussion
Another one of those minimal details thread, so apologies in advance!
A company obviously has duty of care towards it's staff and any clients on site, but how do you decide who gets the benefits of your duty of care if there is an incident between parties?
Sorry for the ambiguity, thanking you in advance
A company obviously has duty of care towards it's staff and any clients on site, but how do you decide who gets the benefits of your duty of care if there is an incident between parties?
Sorry for the ambiguity, thanking you in advance
vx220 said:
Another one of those minimal details thread, so apologies in advance!
A company obviously has duty of care towards it's staff and any clients on site, but how do you decide who gets the benefits of your duty of care if there is an incident between parties?
Sorry for the ambiguity, thanking you in advance
That is ambiguous! A company obviously has duty of care towards it's staff and any clients on site, but how do you decide who gets the benefits of your duty of care if there is an incident between parties?
Sorry for the ambiguity, thanking you in advance
If I’m honest, I can’t work out your scenario for sure.
Are you saying that an incident has already occurred and this is about potential compensation?
rog007 said:
That is ambiguous!
If I’m honest, I can’t work out your scenario for sure.
Are you saying that an incident has already occurred and this is about potential compensation?
Has already happened (hence ambiguity) but not about compensation. An incident occurred between client and staff member, police involved and a trip to A&E for the member of staff. If I’m honest, I can’t work out your scenario for sure.
Are you saying that an incident has already occurred and this is about potential compensation?
Member of staff doesn't feel safe to return to work while client is still there, company appears happy to keep paying MOS but isn't prepared to move client to another service provider.
MOS would just like to return to work!
vx220 said:
Has already happened (hence ambiguity) but not about compensation. An incident occurred between client and staff member, police involved and a trip to A&E for the member of staff.
Member of staff doesn't feel safe to return to work while client is still there, company appears happy to keep paying MOS but isn't prepared to move client to another service provider.
MOS would just like to return to work!
My guess - a scrap between Member of staff and client...am i right?Member of staff doesn't feel safe to return to work while client is still there, company appears happy to keep paying MOS but isn't prepared to move client to another service provider.
MOS would just like to return to work!
DOC would be to ensure that any risk to the MOS is removed. That can be by keeping them separate. As long as there is no detriment to the MOS I'm not sure why they would be unhappy. Do they want the Company to take their side and sack off the client?
Sounds like a job for HR under whatever Policy covers required site behaviour and violence.
Carry out full investigation, document details and statements from all concerned, agree and implement suitable course of action to prevent recurrence.
Monitor actions and report.
What was the extent of Police involvement? Charges laid?
Carry out full investigation, document details and statements from all concerned, agree and implement suitable course of action to prevent recurrence.
Monitor actions and report.
What was the extent of Police involvement? Charges laid?
From an outsiders view, I think MOS is worried the rest of the team think she's milking it, but I can see the whole thing is having a negative impact on her and she'd prefer to be back working.
I believe the site is short staffed anyway, not helped by her absence.
Thanks again for all inputs. Any recommendations for an employment lawyer who might do a cheap or even FOC consultation?
I believe the site is short staffed anyway, not helped by her absence.
Thanks again for all inputs. Any recommendations for an employment lawyer who might do a cheap or even FOC consultation?
If the client is staying at the workplace(unless they're a serial recidivist even thumping someone isn't likely to get gaol time) then the MOS is going to stay at home as coming to work will place them in fear of their physical safety, IANAL but it's hard to see how it's not constructive dismissal.
I'm assuming these are small companies & the client individual is probably more than just a member of the clients staff.
I know in the facility I run if a member of the clients team assaulted one of my employees, charged by the police or not, the client would be expelled from the office so quick his/her feet wouldn't touch the ground. They also would not be permitted back. We would then expect the clients organisation to take appropriate action (dismissal).
I know in the facility I run if a member of the clients team assaulted one of my employees, charged by the police or not, the client would be expelled from the office so quick his/her feet wouldn't touch the ground. They also would not be permitted back. We would then expect the clients organisation to take appropriate action (dismissal).
GT03ROB said:
I'm assuming these are small companies & the client individual is probably more than just a member of the clients staff.
I know in the facility I run if a member of the clients team assaulted one of my employees, charged by the police or not, the client would be expelled from the office so quick his/her feet wouldn't touch the ground. They also would not be permitted back. We would then expect the clients organisation to take appropriate action (dismissal).
Yes, if this is as clear cut as it seems then I don't know why we're having this conversation.I know in the facility I run if a member of the clients team assaulted one of my employees, charged by the police or not, the client would be expelled from the office so quick his/her feet wouldn't touch the ground. They also would not be permitted back. We would then expect the clients organisation to take appropriate action (dismissal).
DP14 said:
Is this a "client" like how the job centre and drug rehab have clients or a proper client paying for goods or services?
I wonder if this is why the Employer can’t get rid of the client. My guess is that it’s Public Sector and that’s why MOS’s colleagues think she’s milking it.Having one of your MOS assaulted (which is an assumption) by a client?
Then your companies responsibility is, IMO, with your employee, the client should be moved to another service provider, or refused further service by your company, no if's, no buts.
Your MOS, and other employees need to know you have their backs and a zero tolerance policy if they're assaulted. Sends a good message to your employees and a 'don't do it' message to the clients.
Then your companies responsibility is, IMO, with your employee, the client should be moved to another service provider, or refused further service by your company, no if's, no buts.
Your MOS, and other employees need to know you have their backs and a zero tolerance policy if they're assaulted. Sends a good message to your employees and a 'don't do it' message to the clients.
This - why are they still your client?
We had an issue where a colleague was badly bullied by a major client at their site leading to nervous breakdown. We pointed out to the responsible director that they were on the hook to provide a safe workplace- even if that workplace is a customer. He dragged his feet over dealing with it, so we unofficially blacklisted the customer ourselves until he did. Colleague was moved to another role, as never wanted to deal with that client again.
We had an issue where a colleague was badly bullied by a major client at their site leading to nervous breakdown. We pointed out to the responsible director that they were on the hook to provide a safe workplace- even if that workplace is a customer. He dragged his feet over dealing with it, so we unofficially blacklisted the customer ourselves until he did. Colleague was moved to another role, as never wanted to deal with that client again.
The duty of the company is towards the employee. If there is a client/employee issue then there is no question as to whom the duty of care is owed.
Client should now be prevented from being on site IMHO and I am shocked the company has not immediately done this and/or gone so far as terminating the client agreement.
Client should now be prevented from being on site IMHO and I am shocked the company has not immediately done this and/or gone so far as terminating the client agreement.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff