locking off

[Knobhead]

So due to avoiding safety talks he didn’t know the rules he subsequently broke.
Don’t give me the guff about not knowing about or being too busy to attend the safety talks. A reasonable company won’t let you miss the talks.

You mentioned joining a union, if you’re in the wrong, they won’t help. Not that they would if you joined after the event.
I spent a good few years as a steward and later a convenor and I’ve heard nearly every story going. I would interview the person and take legal advice from the union days before the enquiry. If needs be get the unions full time officials involved.

If the company was in the wrong, I’d fight tooth and nail.
But more than once I’ve gone in to an enquiry as “condemned mans friend”, purely to ensure things were done legally.

 

[wesaston]

No I didn't avoid them I never got told about them as I didn't have an electrical supervisor like the other Sparks on other teams, so that isn't my fault I only found out about them after they'd had them

 

[7029 dave]

Just read the whole thread, does seem an bit harsh, are you sure there isn't more to tell.? Anyway you have another job just move on and forget it. You know the world we live in today, I would isolate if working for an company, if on my own for that no.

 

[wesaston]

Ha I'm sure, I asked it just to see if what I did was wrong, as I couldn't find an answer myself

 

[Plonker 3]

The burning question though still needs answering.

Did you, read, understand and follow the RAMS?

 

[Breeze]

I was permenant, full time contract, I'd been there 4 years, yeah we are issued with kicking off kits, my compliance record was 100% for the last 12 months, but in the 4 years I'd been there I'd never been on the electricians tool box talks where they was told about the company policy off its gross misconduct to work on live circuits, which I never do, I wasn't aware that you'd have to be locked off to put a screw in as when your testing you'd unscrew and screw outlets while they are live ie zs at a cooker switch, we wasn't actually testing, they dismissed me sayin I let a unqualified person work on a energised circuit,

sorry to join so late, I agree it is overkill as you would remove the consumer unit in order to take Ze reading. But were I work you only take Zs readings on a circuit with a socket outlet, it is an agreed limitation that any circuit will be calculated Ze plus R1+R2.

i would possibly raise the issue of why you weren't at the toolbox talks,

 

[telectrix]

as you would remove the consumer unit in order to take Ze reading



???????

 

[Breeze]

sorry to join so late, I agree it is overkill as you would remove the consumer unit in order to take Ze reading. But were I work you only take Zs readings on a circuit with a socket outlet, it is an agreed limitation that any circuit will be calculated Ze plus R1+R2.

i would possibly raise the issue of why you weren't at the toolbox talks,

Sorry the lid of the consumer unit

 

[newtothis]

Please explain exactly where the risk was.
The accessory had one bolt in it which, from what I can make out was holding it back reasonably securely. As a temporary measure the OP decided to put another one in to hold it back properly. Anyone would have had to try really, really hard to get hold of any live parts.
Seems to me like they wanted rid of him and used this as the excuse.

What makes your case more serious is that you weren’t taking any risk yourself, you were telling someone else to do it.

I’m sorry for writing that. It’s basically what they’re saying to justify your dismissal.

Something doesn’t add up about your case.
You say you brought up the issue of lack of training during your appeal. Any grievance raised or that comes to light during the course of a disciplinary has to be investigated, if the company wants to adhere to best practice set out by ACAS.

Why did this not happen ?
Were you only accused of one thing are a few items ?

The peculiar thing is. if they could prove you skived the training, they be admitting the let someone without proper training - supervise an unqualified person.

Immediately they assigned this mate to you, you should have texted your line manager pointing out you’ve no experience supervising unqualified mates.

By dismissing you for the reason you’ve stated, they’ve opened the door for the “37 year old Electricians mate” to throw in a grievance - or just report the whole thing to the H&S executive.

If you’re concerned about the info they hold about you put in a subject access request - it will cost you a tenner and they will have 40days to comply

Go to the ICO website for pro forma letter and info.


Trev and Des 56
I don’t know what the risk is to be totally honest with you.
All I know is if I go the through safe isolation procedure it reduces risk.
In the work situation it’s as much to do with what the employers insurer will pay out on - pure common sense is not the sole factor.

I’ve read the EWR (just the PDF guide) and they say no live working unless unreasonable to isolate.
The company I’m temping for hammered that point home in no uncertain terms during the induction.

Live testing is only supposed to be carried out by a competent person or unqualified under the supervision of a competent person - have I got that one wrong too ?

Confused of Sussex

 

[newtothis]

I'm not even sure why you lads a talking about testing - it's about an unqualified mate instructed to work on an energised circuit with no safe isolation.

 

[trev]

I'm not even sure why you lads a talking about testing - it's about an unqualified mate instructed to work on an energised circuit with no safe isolation.

Let's get this in perspective. The guy was putting a retaining bolt in an accessory that already had one in.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Deleted.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Let's get this in perspective. The guy was putting a retaining bolt in an accessory that already had one in.

And the back box was plastic with white socket lol

 

[Midwest]

wesaston how did the appeal process go?

 

[Midwest]

My HR manager other half says that assuming the company has followed their disciplinary policy procedure to the letter, and wesaston has a face to face meeting (e.g. accompanied by another) and the company are not going to uphold his appeal, and in their opinion it still constitutes gross misconduct, there is no other option to but sack wesaston. They do have the descreation in the appeal to overturn that sanction, the appeal should be heard by someone else other than who carried out the initial investigation. You could go to an ET, but that should be carried out within 3 months of the appeal. What did your solicitor say? Have you informed your new employer of your gross misconduct, there is no requirement, but they would of taken a reference. Best to inform them up front, 'cos they might decided to finish your employment should they find out retrospectively, again seek advise from your solicitor, or seek advice from CAB or ACAS.