WHAT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR…
Reportable Accidents in the Workplace
Prior to 1st November 2016, only Part X of the old Safety, Health and Welfare At Work (General Application) Regulations, 1993 was still in place with regard to Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences.
Since then the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2016 brought into being the collective Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 to 2016 which now has an added “Part 14, Reporting Of Accidents And Dangerous Occurrences”.
The essential parts are that of;
Accidents
‘Accident’ means an accident arising out of or in the course of employment which, in the case of a person carrying out work, results in personal injury.
Below are three examples of reportable accidents;
1. Arising in the course of employment resulting in personal injury to the person carrying out the work activity.
This could be an injury to an employee who is actually doing the work.
For example: an employee dislocates a shoulder while manually moving a heavy load or an employee dealing with the public is assaulted.
(b) arising in the course of employment which results in personal injury to an employee who was not doing the work that is the subject of the accident.
For example: a shelving system collapses and injures an employee who is passing by the scene at the time of the collapse.
(c) arising from a work activity which results in personal injury to a person outside of the course of employment.
This could be an injury to a non-employee or member of the public.
For example: a load falls from a truck that is being used for work purposes, and causes an injury to a member of the public who is not at work.
Examples of incidents that are not reportable include those where:
Dangerous Occurrences
The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 contains the following definition: ‘dangerous occurrence’ means an occurrence arising from work activities in a place of work that causes or results in:
(a) the collapse, overturning, failure, explosion, bursting, electrical short circuit discharge or overload, or malfunction of any work equipment,
(b) the collapse or partial collapse of any building or structure under construction or in use as a place of work,
(c) the uncontrolled or accidental release, the escape or the ignition of any substance,
(d) a fire involving any substance, or
(e) any unintentional ignition or explosion of explosives, as may be prescribed.
Schedule 15 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 to 2016 has a list of prescribed (by regulations made by the Minister) occurrences that must be reported to the Authority, e.g. collapse of scaffolding/building, failure of breathing apparatus etc.
Who is responsible for reporting?
Employers, self-employed, landlords, owners and tenants all have a duty to report accidents and dangerous occurrences to the Authority, we will stay with employers for the purposes of this article.
Fatal accidents in a workplace should be reported immediately to the Authority or the Gardaí so that the necessary action, including any investigation by the Authority, can take place. Subsequently, the formal accident report form should be submitted to the Authority within five working days of the death. Non-fatal accidents or dangerous occurrences should be formally reported within 10 working days of the event (Incident Report Form (IR1) or on line).
You must report the death of an employee if this is as a result of an accident at work.
The accident may have taken place either at your place of work or at another employer’s place of work, or in a location other than the normal place of work.
The following are examples of reportable fatalities:
- Your employee is fatally injured as a result of being hit by a delivery truck in your yard.
- Your employee is fatally injured while driving for work on a public road.
- Your employee is fatally injured while carrying out contract work for another employer at their site.
You must report the injury of any employee as a result of an accident while at work where the injury results in your employee being unable to carry out their normal work for more than three consecutive days, excluding the day of the accident.
In calculating the days, you should include weekends and other non-working days:
The following are examples of reportable accidents:
- An employee, which includes a trainee, who normally has Saturday and Sunday off work, is injured on Wednesday and returns to work the following Monday.
- A driver or a passenger is involved in a road traffic accident while driving or riding in the vehicle in the course of work and he is out of work for more than three days.
- An employee, while lifting boxes on Monday, hurts her back. She returns to work on Thursday but she can only do light duties for the next week. Even though she was not absent for more than three days, she could not perform her normal work for more than three days.
You must report any case where an employee dies as a result of an accident at work within one year of that accident, even if you had already reported the accident.
With Regard to Non-Employees
You must report the death of a person who is not your employee and who is not at work, but who dies from an accident caused by a work activity at the place of work. For example, if you are responsible for road works and a member of the public is injured by a reversing vehicle in the course of the work, and subsequently dies as a result of their injuries, then you must report that accident.
You must report the injury of a person who is not your employee and who is not at work but who is injured from a work activity if the injured person has had to be taken from the location of the accident to receive treatment in respect of that injury in a hospital or medical facility. For the purposes of these Regulations, a medical facility can include a primary care facility, a medical care clinic, or a medical facility at a work site that is staffed by a registered medical practitioner
The following are examples of accidents that must be reported:
- A member of the public slips on liquid that has been spilled in the process of shelf-stacking in your shop, and if the extent of the injury requires that they must be brought by ambulance or other vehicle to a hospital or medical facility for treatment by a registered medical practitioner.
- A visitor to a factory is overcome by fumes that escape accidentally from a process being carried on there. The person is removed to hospital and treated by a registered medical practitioner.
- A patient with limited mobility is admitted to hospital for routine tests. During the tests the patient slips from the sling of the patient hoist and suffers a back injury, which requires them to remain in hospital overnight for medical treatment.
- There is a road collision involving your employee driving for work and a member of the public driving a car. The member of the public is injured and required to be taken to and treated in hospital or medical facility.
Preserving the Scene
All fatal accidents reported to the Health and Safety Authority are investigated by inspectors. When employers or others notify the Authority of a fatal accident in a workplace they should, if they have control of the scene of the accident, discuss with an inspector of the Authority the extent to which the scene is to be maintained. The Gardaí will ensure that the scene is left undisturbed until the inspector commences an investigation. Where appropriate, access should be restricted and items should not be removed. Employers may, however, take such steps as are necessary to make the scene safe.
Requirement to Keep Records
Those who are required to report accidents and dangerous occurrences under the Regulations are also required to keep records for a period of 10 years from the date of the incident. The records can be kept in the same format as the report made – that is, a copy of the report submitted to the Authority will suffice to meet the obligation
Tony McDonnell - Health and Safety Consultant
Adare Human Resource Management
With over 32 years as a Firefighter-Paramedic and Operational Fire Officer, a lot of experience has been acquired in all aspects of fire, rescue and medical emergencies. This has stood to Tony when delivering fire safety training or offering fire safety consultancy and first aid responder (workplace) courses.
Tony studied Health, Safety and Welfare in UCD. Tony is a Chartered Member status with IOSH. As a result, Tony is now a proficient safety consultant compiling safety statements, risk assessments and control measures.
Tony is also a trainer in key occupational related courses, including fire safety, first aid responders, manual handling, people handling, abrasive wheels, safety management, risk assessing, fire extinguishers, cardiac first responder, paediatric first aid.
Tony, Chartered Member of IOSH (CMIOSH) Member of IFE (MIFireE) P.Cert in Env.Man
Tony can deliver training on a range of topics including but not limited to;
Contact details:
Phone : 01 561 3594 / 086 011 5026
Email : tmcdonnell@adarehrm.ie
Since then the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2016 brought into being the collective Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 to 2016 which now has an added “Part 14, Reporting Of Accidents And Dangerous Occurrences”.
The essential parts are that of;
- Fatal and non-fatal injuries are reportable. Diseases, occupational illnesses or any impairments of mental condition are not reportable.
- Fatal accidents must be reported immediately to the Authority or Gardaí. Subsequently, the formal report should be submitted to the Authority within five working days of the death.
- Non-fatal accidents or dangerous occurrences should be reported to the Authority within ten working days of the event.
- Injuries to any employee as a result of an accident while at work where the injury results in the employee being unable to carry out their normal work duties for more than three consecutive days, excluding the day of the accident, must be reported to the Authority.
Accidents
‘Accident’ means an accident arising out of or in the course of employment which, in the case of a person carrying out work, results in personal injury.
Below are three examples of reportable accidents;
1. Arising in the course of employment resulting in personal injury to the person carrying out the work activity.
This could be an injury to an employee who is actually doing the work.
For example: an employee dislocates a shoulder while manually moving a heavy load or an employee dealing with the public is assaulted.
(b) arising in the course of employment which results in personal injury to an employee who was not doing the work that is the subject of the accident.
For example: a shelving system collapses and injures an employee who is passing by the scene at the time of the collapse.
(c) arising from a work activity which results in personal injury to a person outside of the course of employment.
This could be an injury to a non-employee or member of the public.
For example: a load falls from a truck that is being used for work purposes, and causes an injury to a member of the public who is not at work.
Examples of incidents that are not reportable include those where:
- an employee or a self-employed person is absent as a result of an accident for more than three days, but the absent days are not consecutive
- an employee is injured in a traffic collision while commuting to or from work, although that employee may be able to claim for occupational injury benefit from the Department of Social Protection.
Dangerous Occurrences
The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 contains the following definition: ‘dangerous occurrence’ means an occurrence arising from work activities in a place of work that causes or results in:
(a) the collapse, overturning, failure, explosion, bursting, electrical short circuit discharge or overload, or malfunction of any work equipment,
(b) the collapse or partial collapse of any building or structure under construction or in use as a place of work,
(c) the uncontrolled or accidental release, the escape or the ignition of any substance,
(d) a fire involving any substance, or
(e) any unintentional ignition or explosion of explosives, as may be prescribed.
Schedule 15 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007 to 2016 has a list of prescribed (by regulations made by the Minister) occurrences that must be reported to the Authority, e.g. collapse of scaffolding/building, failure of breathing apparatus etc.
Who is responsible for reporting?
Employers, self-employed, landlords, owners and tenants all have a duty to report accidents and dangerous occurrences to the Authority, we will stay with employers for the purposes of this article.
Fatal accidents in a workplace should be reported immediately to the Authority or the Gardaí so that the necessary action, including any investigation by the Authority, can take place. Subsequently, the formal accident report form should be submitted to the Authority within five working days of the death. Non-fatal accidents or dangerous occurrences should be formally reported within 10 working days of the event (Incident Report Form (IR1) or on line).
You must report the death of an employee if this is as a result of an accident at work.
The accident may have taken place either at your place of work or at another employer’s place of work, or in a location other than the normal place of work.
The following are examples of reportable fatalities:
- Your employee is fatally injured as a result of being hit by a delivery truck in your yard.
- Your employee is fatally injured while driving for work on a public road.
- Your employee is fatally injured while carrying out contract work for another employer at their site.
You must report the injury of any employee as a result of an accident while at work where the injury results in your employee being unable to carry out their normal work for more than three consecutive days, excluding the day of the accident.
In calculating the days, you should include weekends and other non-working days:
The following are examples of reportable accidents:
- An employee, which includes a trainee, who normally has Saturday and Sunday off work, is injured on Wednesday and returns to work the following Monday.
- A driver or a passenger is involved in a road traffic accident while driving or riding in the vehicle in the course of work and he is out of work for more than three days.
- An employee, while lifting boxes on Monday, hurts her back. She returns to work on Thursday but she can only do light duties for the next week. Even though she was not absent for more than three days, she could not perform her normal work for more than three days.
You must report any case where an employee dies as a result of an accident at work within one year of that accident, even if you had already reported the accident.
With Regard to Non-Employees
You must report the death of a person who is not your employee and who is not at work, but who dies from an accident caused by a work activity at the place of work. For example, if you are responsible for road works and a member of the public is injured by a reversing vehicle in the course of the work, and subsequently dies as a result of their injuries, then you must report that accident.
You must report the injury of a person who is not your employee and who is not at work but who is injured from a work activity if the injured person has had to be taken from the location of the accident to receive treatment in respect of that injury in a hospital or medical facility. For the purposes of these Regulations, a medical facility can include a primary care facility, a medical care clinic, or a medical facility at a work site that is staffed by a registered medical practitioner
The following are examples of accidents that must be reported:
- A member of the public slips on liquid that has been spilled in the process of shelf-stacking in your shop, and if the extent of the injury requires that they must be brought by ambulance or other vehicle to a hospital or medical facility for treatment by a registered medical practitioner.
- A visitor to a factory is overcome by fumes that escape accidentally from a process being carried on there. The person is removed to hospital and treated by a registered medical practitioner.
- A patient with limited mobility is admitted to hospital for routine tests. During the tests the patient slips from the sling of the patient hoist and suffers a back injury, which requires them to remain in hospital overnight for medical treatment.
- There is a road collision involving your employee driving for work and a member of the public driving a car. The member of the public is injured and required to be taken to and treated in hospital or medical facility.
Preserving the Scene
All fatal accidents reported to the Health and Safety Authority are investigated by inspectors. When employers or others notify the Authority of a fatal accident in a workplace they should, if they have control of the scene of the accident, discuss with an inspector of the Authority the extent to which the scene is to be maintained. The Gardaí will ensure that the scene is left undisturbed until the inspector commences an investigation. Where appropriate, access should be restricted and items should not be removed. Employers may, however, take such steps as are necessary to make the scene safe.
Requirement to Keep Records
Those who are required to report accidents and dangerous occurrences under the Regulations are also required to keep records for a period of 10 years from the date of the incident. The records can be kept in the same format as the report made – that is, a copy of the report submitted to the Authority will suffice to meet the obligation
Tony McDonnell - Health and Safety Consultant
Adare Human Resource Management
With over 32 years as a Firefighter-Paramedic and Operational Fire Officer, a lot of experience has been acquired in all aspects of fire, rescue and medical emergencies. This has stood to Tony when delivering fire safety training or offering fire safety consultancy and first aid responder (workplace) courses.
Tony studied Health, Safety and Welfare in UCD. Tony is a Chartered Member status with IOSH. As a result, Tony is now a proficient safety consultant compiling safety statements, risk assessments and control measures.
Tony is also a trainer in key occupational related courses, including fire safety, first aid responders, manual handling, people handling, abrasive wheels, safety management, risk assessing, fire extinguishers, cardiac first responder, paediatric first aid.
Tony, Chartered Member of IOSH (CMIOSH) Member of IFE (MIFireE) P.Cert in Env.Man
Tony can deliver training on a range of topics including but not limited to;
- Manual handling
- Patient/People handling
- First Aid Responder
- First Aid Responder Refresher
- Cardiac First Responder (AED)
- Fire Safety Management
- Fire Extinguisher training
- Evacuation Chair Training
- Abrasive Wheels Training
- Workplace Safety Representative Training
- Managing Safety Training
Contact details:
Phone : 01 561 3594 / 086 011 5026
Email : tmcdonnell@adarehrm.ie
New Scheme will give parents two weeks paid Parental Leave
Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe has announced that parents are to receive two extra weeks’ paid leave to every parent of a child in their first year.
The new paid leave scheme was announced in the Budget for 2019 and will take effect from November 2019.
Donohoe said that it is the government’s intention to “increase this to seven extra weeks over time”.
This new paid leave scheme is on top the maternity and paternity leave options already in place.
The new paid leave scheme was announced in the Budget for 2019 and will take effect from November 2019.
Donohoe said that it is the government’s intention to “increase this to seven extra weeks over time”.
This new paid leave scheme is on top the maternity and paternity leave options already in place.
Pay Restoration agreed for some Section 39 Worker
Several thousand workers in 50 HSE-funded health and social care bodies will get increases of up to €1,000 next April under a pay restoration proposal negotiated at the Workplace Relations Commission.
Many Employees in so-called Section 39 bodies had their incomes reduced to varying degrees when public service pay was cut during the economic crisis between 2010 and 2013.
However, the Government and the Health Service Executive have failed to increase funding allocations to these bodies to permit restoration in line with Government employees currently benefiting from increases provided for in the current Public Service Stability Agreement.
A recent pilot review of 50 of the 300 Section 39 bodies found the average pay cut had been 4.66%, but highlighted a variation in terms of what pay cuts and/or restoration had or had not occurred.
The review calculated that full pay restoration for Section 39 workers would cost €68 million.
It is understood these latest proposals will cost the State €7.7m next year.
Yesterday's proposal brokered by WRC Director of Conciliation Services Anna Perry sets out timelines and a payment structure to provide restoration in the first instance for the 50 agencies in the pilot review.
The first phase - an annual salary increase of up to €1,000 - will take effect on 30 April 2019.
Under this provision, no individual will receive an increase that exceeds the loss that was previously imposed.
From 1 October 2020, affected Section 39 staff will get half of the outstanding restoration due.
A year later, on 1 October 2021, they will receive the remaining balance to attain full restoration - placing them back on the salaries they were on before the original cuts.
Claims for restoration will be subject to a verification and audit process within the HSE.
The ability of individual agencies to pay within their existing resources will also be reviewed.
As regards the remaining 250 Section 39 bodies who were not included in the initial pilot review but may have restoration issues, the parties will "commence engagement on this issue during 2019".
Ms Perry says that the parties agree that this proposal is the best that can be achieved at present.
She also notes the position of the Department of Health and the HSE that the pay restoration outlined in this agreement does not encompass future pay progression in Section 39 funded organisations.
However, she also notes that unions disagree with the management side's position on this, and have reserved the right to pursue this matter through the "appropriate industrial relations machinery".
She concludes by saying that all parties agree to recommend the WRC proposal for acceptance, but cautions that if either party rejects it, it will be withdrawn "without status".
It remains to be seen whether union members will accept the proposal, given the three-year timeline for full restoration, and the lack of any back money.
Many Employees in so-called Section 39 bodies had their incomes reduced to varying degrees when public service pay was cut during the economic crisis between 2010 and 2013.
However, the Government and the Health Service Executive have failed to increase funding allocations to these bodies to permit restoration in line with Government employees currently benefiting from increases provided for in the current Public Service Stability Agreement.
A recent pilot review of 50 of the 300 Section 39 bodies found the average pay cut had been 4.66%, but highlighted a variation in terms of what pay cuts and/or restoration had or had not occurred.
The review calculated that full pay restoration for Section 39 workers would cost €68 million.
It is understood these latest proposals will cost the State €7.7m next year.
Yesterday's proposal brokered by WRC Director of Conciliation Services Anna Perry sets out timelines and a payment structure to provide restoration in the first instance for the 50 agencies in the pilot review.
The first phase - an annual salary increase of up to €1,000 - will take effect on 30 April 2019.
Under this provision, no individual will receive an increase that exceeds the loss that was previously imposed.
From 1 October 2020, affected Section 39 staff will get half of the outstanding restoration due.
A year later, on 1 October 2021, they will receive the remaining balance to attain full restoration - placing them back on the salaries they were on before the original cuts.
Claims for restoration will be subject to a verification and audit process within the HSE.
The ability of individual agencies to pay within their existing resources will also be reviewed.
As regards the remaining 250 Section 39 bodies who were not included in the initial pilot review but may have restoration issues, the parties will "commence engagement on this issue during 2019".
Ms Perry says that the parties agree that this proposal is the best that can be achieved at present.
She also notes the position of the Department of Health and the HSE that the pay restoration outlined in this agreement does not encompass future pay progression in Section 39 funded organisations.
However, she also notes that unions disagree with the management side's position on this, and have reserved the right to pursue this matter through the "appropriate industrial relations machinery".
She concludes by saying that all parties agree to recommend the WRC proposal for acceptance, but cautions that if either party rejects it, it will be withdrawn "without status".
It remains to be seen whether union members will accept the proposal, given the three-year timeline for full restoration, and the lack of any back money.
Government to Reform Employment Permits for Non-EEA Workers
The Employment Permits System for workers entering Ireland from outside the European Economic Area is to be reformed to better address skills shortages across the economy.
A review of Ireland's Economic Migration Policy published today aims to ensure that the system can respond rapidly when sectoral skills shortages arise.
Among its recommendations is the introduction of a Seasonal Employment Permit to facilitate short-term work visits.
Citizens from Ireland and the European Economic Area get priority for work here, but the Employment Permits System governs recruitment from elsewhere to plug skills shortages.
More than 11,000 citizens from outside the European Economic Area applied for work permits here in the first eight months of this year, which is up almost 30% on the same period in 2017.
Just over 8,000 permits were issued, an increase of 6% on last year.
The latest review aims to meet the demand for skills and workers without disrupting the labour market, and to respond quicker as sectoral skills shortages emerge.
Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation Heather Humphreys has said the reforms would enable Ireland to be keep pace with evolving enterprise requirements.
However, she cautioned that almost 210,000 people remain on the Live Register, with 16.8 million unemployed across the EU.
It remains to be seen what impact Brexit will have on the demand for work permits from workers who might otherwise have gone to the UK.
There are a number of categories qualifying for employment permits.
Those in highly skilled jobs such as medicine, ICT, sciences, finance and business may qualify for special fast track rules, with the family joining them immediately, and with the possibility of permanent residency after two years.
There is also an "Ineligible Jobs" list, such as home care and hospitality, where evidence suggests that more than enough Irish and EEA workers are available to fill vacancies.
Employers seeking to bring in overseas workers for other posts may have to carry out a 'Labour Market Needs Test' by advertising the post to ensure that no Irish/EEA citizen is available before a work permit will be granted.
Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Ms Humphreys said a scheme piloted in the agri-food sector in May saw 800 permits issued to deal with particular shortages in meat processing plants, on dairy farms and in the horticultural sector.
Ms Humphreys said permits can with conditions to ensure no workers are exploited by insisted employers provide a €22,000 minimum wage, ensure that accommodation is available as well as access to English language skills.
She said that the permits system is demand-led and depends on the needs of enterprise and industry in Ireland, while not replacing opportunities for Irish workers.
A review of Ireland's Economic Migration Policy published today aims to ensure that the system can respond rapidly when sectoral skills shortages arise.
Among its recommendations is the introduction of a Seasonal Employment Permit to facilitate short-term work visits.
Citizens from Ireland and the European Economic Area get priority for work here, but the Employment Permits System governs recruitment from elsewhere to plug skills shortages.
More than 11,000 citizens from outside the European Economic Area applied for work permits here in the first eight months of this year, which is up almost 30% on the same period in 2017.
Just over 8,000 permits were issued, an increase of 6% on last year.
The latest review aims to meet the demand for skills and workers without disrupting the labour market, and to respond quicker as sectoral skills shortages emerge.
Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation Heather Humphreys has said the reforms would enable Ireland to be keep pace with evolving enterprise requirements.
However, she cautioned that almost 210,000 people remain on the Live Register, with 16.8 million unemployed across the EU.
It remains to be seen what impact Brexit will have on the demand for work permits from workers who might otherwise have gone to the UK.
There are a number of categories qualifying for employment permits.
Those in highly skilled jobs such as medicine, ICT, sciences, finance and business may qualify for special fast track rules, with the family joining them immediately, and with the possibility of permanent residency after two years.
There is also an "Ineligible Jobs" list, such as home care and hospitality, where evidence suggests that more than enough Irish and EEA workers are available to fill vacancies.
Employers seeking to bring in overseas workers for other posts may have to carry out a 'Labour Market Needs Test' by advertising the post to ensure that no Irish/EEA citizen is available before a work permit will be granted.
Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Ms Humphreys said a scheme piloted in the agri-food sector in May saw 800 permits issued to deal with particular shortages in meat processing plants, on dairy farms and in the horticultural sector.
Ms Humphreys said permits can with conditions to ensure no workers are exploited by insisted employers provide a €22,000 minimum wage, ensure that accommodation is available as well as access to English language skills.
She said that the permits system is demand-led and depends on the needs of enterprise and industry in Ireland, while not replacing opportunities for Irish workers.
Shocking Job Advert posted by Dublin based Firm highlights Employer Discrimination
'Persons with young children need not apply' was the shocking directive in a recent job advert posted by a Dublin-based oil company on the recruitment search engine, Indeed.com.
This type of blatant discrimination is illegal and generally not widespread, but employers can inadvertently find themselves in trouble if they do not address bias in the selection process.
On paper, most employers have an 'equal opportunities' policy in place. But, in reality, many still slip up when it comes to actively implementing and adhering to it. Numerous complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that concern discrimination are in relation to employers' recruitment and selection practices.
The Equality Acts and numerous employment laws seek to outlaw discrimination in recruitment and in the workplace, and they apply to all employees and agency workers, full-time, part-time or contracting, in both the public and private sectors.
Nine grounds of discrimination are covered, namely age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, race, religion, and membership of the travelling community.
A claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998‐2015 can cost a company big time, if upheld by the WRC under any of these nine grounds.
So, ignorance of the law can be costly, in monetary terms, not to mention companies potentially losing out on the best candidate for the job, if bias goes undetected and unpunished.
Mind your Language!
The Dublin oil company looking for an office worker without young children showed a pretty blatant disregard for equality law that most people would be conscious of. Marital and family circumstances have no place in recruitment advertising or interviews, not even as an ‘ice breaker’ to open an interview.
Role titles in a job ad cannot be gender specific, so it is important to avoid terms like ‘waitress', ‘barmaid’, ‘salesman' or ‘manageress'.
There are other more subtle terms appearing in job searches that are equally judged to be unacceptable.
Looking for a ‘young and dynamic’ individual to join your team is out, and both the age reference and dynamism can be a problem! Equally, ‘mature candidates’ should not be highlighted.
Language relating to physical abilities, unless completely necessary for a job, can be judged as discriminating, such as seeking ‘active’ or ‘athletic’ applicants. Putting candidates through reasoning and ability tests which do not related to the job specification are not necessary to performing in the role, could be construed as discriminating against those who don’t speak English as their first language.
No Experience Needed!
While it can be acceptable to advertise a role that demands a minimum level of skills or training for operational purposes, job adverts for candidates with ‘no more than 2-3 years’ experience’ have fallen foul of the standards.
Rather than asking for a certain amount of experience or years spent in a position as a pre-requisite, employers should focus on the required skills.
Aside from needing to be over 18 to sell certain products like alcohol, an individual’s age shouldn’t affect their ability to do a job effectively.
On race, it’s fine to look for a Spanish-speaking account manager, for example, but restricting the position to a ‘Spanish manager’, or ‘a native speaker of Spanish’ can be frowned on. A requirement to speak a language fluently is all that can be asked, not that English, or any other language, be your first language.
Publish and be Damned!
With discriminatory adverts, it's not only the person who wrote the offending copy that can be in trouble, but also those who publish it. So organisations or groups allowing a job advert to be placed online or in any other media they publish can equally be held responsible.
Check and double-check all ad copy beforehand, and have it reviewed by a couple of people, because mistakes can be inadvertently made. Phrasing may be used that others might interpret differently. So, have a failsafe in place, ideally a recruitment agency that can check to ensure regulations are adhered to.
Unbiased Interviewing
The interview process, in particular, demands experienced HR or recruitment personnel who are properly trained and conscious of questioning that might be termed discriminatory. While a manager to whom the recruit will report may sit in on interviews, it is not advisable that anyone untrained conducts a job interview, certainly not alone.
Managing an interview is a specialist skill, and untrained personnel risk inadvertently causing offence which may even constitute discrimination.
When it comes to potential pitfalls to avoid, any mention of a woman being capable or confident in a male-dominated role or business is ill-advised, and vice versa.
How an individual would cope with having a younger boss or being the oldest person in the department is also off-limits.
Questions about sickness, health, or disabilities, like how many sick-days you had last year, should be avoided at interview.
Essentially, questions relating to marriage plans, family intentions, children, age, physical ability, and even distance from work or access to transport should not be asked.
Where personal circumstances may affect performance or the ability to carry out a role, relevant questions should be asked equally of all candidates, and the answers evaluated on the same basis.
Try to use a ‘statement‐question’ approach, such as ‘this role can require working into the evening; do you have a problem with that?’ but never ‘do you have kids to take care of?’
Or ‘this job requires light lifting; would that be a problem?’, rather than ‘are you thinking of getting pregnant?’
Noted!
Key to transparency in the interview process is making detailed notes on why each candidate was either successful or unsuccessful. The grounds on which a selection decision was reached, and how different candidates rated under the same criteria related to the role, must be outlined. And these should be kept for at least a year after the recruitment process.
Addressing the same pre-determined questions to each candidate is a good starting point, to ensure questions are both appropriate to the role, and fair to candidates.
With the interview candidates’ permission, interviews can also be recorded, but this would generally be to facilitate review by company personnel unable to attend the interview.
But the importance of keeping detailed notes and marking schemes in relation to the appointment cannot be overstated. If an organisation fails to keep records, it will be more difficult for them to prove the selection process was not discriminatory. Stating that a candidate ‘did a better interview’ is not sufficient!
Also good advice is to give clear well-explained reasons to unsuccessful candidates as to why they were not selected. Make sure feedback is constructive and covers ability as well as performance in the selection process, so there is doubt why the position wasn’t offered.
A good selection procedure should be driven by the demands and requirements of the role alone; judging candidates based only on their skills and abilities in relation to the job.
That precondition, alone, is crucial to avoiding discrimination in recruitment.
This type of blatant discrimination is illegal and generally not widespread, but employers can inadvertently find themselves in trouble if they do not address bias in the selection process.
On paper, most employers have an 'equal opportunities' policy in place. But, in reality, many still slip up when it comes to actively implementing and adhering to it. Numerous complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that concern discrimination are in relation to employers' recruitment and selection practices.
The Equality Acts and numerous employment laws seek to outlaw discrimination in recruitment and in the workplace, and they apply to all employees and agency workers, full-time, part-time or contracting, in both the public and private sectors.
Nine grounds of discrimination are covered, namely age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, family status, marital status, race, religion, and membership of the travelling community.
A claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998‐2015 can cost a company big time, if upheld by the WRC under any of these nine grounds.
So, ignorance of the law can be costly, in monetary terms, not to mention companies potentially losing out on the best candidate for the job, if bias goes undetected and unpunished.
Mind your Language!
The Dublin oil company looking for an office worker without young children showed a pretty blatant disregard for equality law that most people would be conscious of. Marital and family circumstances have no place in recruitment advertising or interviews, not even as an ‘ice breaker’ to open an interview.
Role titles in a job ad cannot be gender specific, so it is important to avoid terms like ‘waitress', ‘barmaid’, ‘salesman' or ‘manageress'.
There are other more subtle terms appearing in job searches that are equally judged to be unacceptable.
Looking for a ‘young and dynamic’ individual to join your team is out, and both the age reference and dynamism can be a problem! Equally, ‘mature candidates’ should not be highlighted.
Language relating to physical abilities, unless completely necessary for a job, can be judged as discriminating, such as seeking ‘active’ or ‘athletic’ applicants. Putting candidates through reasoning and ability tests which do not related to the job specification are not necessary to performing in the role, could be construed as discriminating against those who don’t speak English as their first language.
No Experience Needed!
While it can be acceptable to advertise a role that demands a minimum level of skills or training for operational purposes, job adverts for candidates with ‘no more than 2-3 years’ experience’ have fallen foul of the standards.
Rather than asking for a certain amount of experience or years spent in a position as a pre-requisite, employers should focus on the required skills.
Aside from needing to be over 18 to sell certain products like alcohol, an individual’s age shouldn’t affect their ability to do a job effectively.
On race, it’s fine to look for a Spanish-speaking account manager, for example, but restricting the position to a ‘Spanish manager’, or ‘a native speaker of Spanish’ can be frowned on. A requirement to speak a language fluently is all that can be asked, not that English, or any other language, be your first language.
Publish and be Damned!
With discriminatory adverts, it's not only the person who wrote the offending copy that can be in trouble, but also those who publish it. So organisations or groups allowing a job advert to be placed online or in any other media they publish can equally be held responsible.
Check and double-check all ad copy beforehand, and have it reviewed by a couple of people, because mistakes can be inadvertently made. Phrasing may be used that others might interpret differently. So, have a failsafe in place, ideally a recruitment agency that can check to ensure regulations are adhered to.
Unbiased Interviewing
The interview process, in particular, demands experienced HR or recruitment personnel who are properly trained and conscious of questioning that might be termed discriminatory. While a manager to whom the recruit will report may sit in on interviews, it is not advisable that anyone untrained conducts a job interview, certainly not alone.
Managing an interview is a specialist skill, and untrained personnel risk inadvertently causing offence which may even constitute discrimination.
When it comes to potential pitfalls to avoid, any mention of a woman being capable or confident in a male-dominated role or business is ill-advised, and vice versa.
How an individual would cope with having a younger boss or being the oldest person in the department is also off-limits.
Questions about sickness, health, or disabilities, like how many sick-days you had last year, should be avoided at interview.
Essentially, questions relating to marriage plans, family intentions, children, age, physical ability, and even distance from work or access to transport should not be asked.
Where personal circumstances may affect performance or the ability to carry out a role, relevant questions should be asked equally of all candidates, and the answers evaluated on the same basis.
Try to use a ‘statement‐question’ approach, such as ‘this role can require working into the evening; do you have a problem with that?’ but never ‘do you have kids to take care of?’
Or ‘this job requires light lifting; would that be a problem?’, rather than ‘are you thinking of getting pregnant?’
Noted!
Key to transparency in the interview process is making detailed notes on why each candidate was either successful or unsuccessful. The grounds on which a selection decision was reached, and how different candidates rated under the same criteria related to the role, must be outlined. And these should be kept for at least a year after the recruitment process.
Addressing the same pre-determined questions to each candidate is a good starting point, to ensure questions are both appropriate to the role, and fair to candidates.
With the interview candidates’ permission, interviews can also be recorded, but this would generally be to facilitate review by company personnel unable to attend the interview.
But the importance of keeping detailed notes and marking schemes in relation to the appointment cannot be overstated. If an organisation fails to keep records, it will be more difficult for them to prove the selection process was not discriminatory. Stating that a candidate ‘did a better interview’ is not sufficient!
Also good advice is to give clear well-explained reasons to unsuccessful candidates as to why they were not selected. Make sure feedback is constructive and covers ability as well as performance in the selection process, so there is doubt why the position wasn’t offered.
A good selection procedure should be driven by the demands and requirements of the role alone; judging candidates based only on their skills and abilities in relation to the job.
That precondition, alone, is crucial to avoiding discrimination in recruitment.
Postman’s refusal to deliver 406MM-Long Packet on his bike leads to three days of state agency hearings
A postman with An Post fell out with his bosses over his refusal to take on his delivery round a packet measuring just over 40cm in length over his belief that it was too big for his bike.
The falling out between Robert Brennan and his bosses has now led to two State agencies employed in workplace relations machinery holding three days of hearings over the disputed packet and the decision by An Post to issue the Mr Brennan with a written warning over his refusal to deliver the packet.
Earlier this year after one day of evidence, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing threw out Mr Brennan’s claim for being penalised by An Post under Safety, Work and Welfare legislation over his refusal to take the package.
Mr Brennan appealed that ruling to the Labour Court and the court has now upheld the WRC’s earlier ruling after hearing a further two days evidence.
The flash-point between Mr Brennan and his superiors emerged on July 20, 2017, over his refusal to take the 406mm-long packet on the back of his bike.
Mr Brennan refused to deliver the packet from the back of his bike saying it “could not be safely delivered on his bicycle without infringing An Post’s safety and health rules".
Mr Brennan said that the parcel was long and narrow and he was unable to load it on his bicycle without it sticking out.
An Post said that the item was comfortably within the maximum dimensions for a packet just being 406mm in length.
They facilitated Mr Brennan by making arrangements to have the packet carried to a drop box 200 yards from the customer’s home.
Mr Brennan would then be able to carry that packet by hand by walking to the customer’s home from the drop box.
In its findings, the Labour Court stated that the offer by An Post to have Mr Brennan drop the packet by hand to the customer’s home from the drop box addressed any safety concerns Mr Brennan may have had.
The court found that Mr Brennan’s refusal to deliver the packet “was an industrial relations matter masquerading as a health and safety issue”.
The court said: “Whatever merit there was in the Complainant’s initial refusal to carry the packet on his bicycle, it evaporated when the Respondent arranged to have it carried to and deposited in a drop-box close to the customer’s home.
"At that point, any safety concerns had been addressed.”
The falling out between Robert Brennan and his bosses has now led to two State agencies employed in workplace relations machinery holding three days of hearings over the disputed packet and the decision by An Post to issue the Mr Brennan with a written warning over his refusal to deliver the packet.
Earlier this year after one day of evidence, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing threw out Mr Brennan’s claim for being penalised by An Post under Safety, Work and Welfare legislation over his refusal to take the package.
Mr Brennan appealed that ruling to the Labour Court and the court has now upheld the WRC’s earlier ruling after hearing a further two days evidence.
The flash-point between Mr Brennan and his superiors emerged on July 20, 2017, over his refusal to take the 406mm-long packet on the back of his bike.
Mr Brennan refused to deliver the packet from the back of his bike saying it “could not be safely delivered on his bicycle without infringing An Post’s safety and health rules".
Mr Brennan said that the parcel was long and narrow and he was unable to load it on his bicycle without it sticking out.
An Post said that the item was comfortably within the maximum dimensions for a packet just being 406mm in length.
They facilitated Mr Brennan by making arrangements to have the packet carried to a drop box 200 yards from the customer’s home.
Mr Brennan would then be able to carry that packet by hand by walking to the customer’s home from the drop box.
In its findings, the Labour Court stated that the offer by An Post to have Mr Brennan drop the packet by hand to the customer’s home from the drop box addressed any safety concerns Mr Brennan may have had.
The court found that Mr Brennan’s refusal to deliver the packet “was an industrial relations matter masquerading as a health and safety issue”.
The court said: “Whatever merit there was in the Complainant’s initial refusal to carry the packet on his bicycle, it evaporated when the Respondent arranged to have it carried to and deposited in a drop-box close to the customer’s home.
"At that point, any safety concerns had been addressed.”
Ministerial Driver sacked over expense claims has Unfair Dismissal case rejected by WRC
A Ministerial Driver who alleged that he was unfairly dismissed after not providing sufficient proof for his expenses has had his claim rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission.
The driver, who worked for a number of departments on fixed-term contracts for six years, brought the case after his most recent contract was terminated in November 2017.
The termination of his contract came after the department said he had not complied with rules on travel and subsistence by providing insufficient information to support his expense claims.
However, the driver alleged that he was treated in an unfavourable manner compared to permanent employees when he was dismissed, while also claiming that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.
In October 2017, the driver was invited to attend a meeting with department officials, after being warned that his contract contained a six-month probationary period.
Two days later, he was informed by the department that his contract was being terminated, effective three weeks later, based on his insufficient expense claims.
The decision was questioned by the driver’s union, who claimed he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration, but also said he would adhere to all regulations and procedures regarding his expenses in future.
However, these claims were dismissed by the department, who said it would uphold its decision to terminate the driver’s contract.
In response to the driver’s claims, the department also told the WRC that it was under no obligation to give him a permanent contract.
It quoted the driver’s contract of employment, dated June 2017, which said that his appointment was to “a temporary, unestablished position in the civil service”, which would have ended on the day that the Minster was no longer in office.
The department also said that the driver had a “unique position” in the civil service, and as there was no permanent employee to whom he could be compared, it had no case to answer regarding the driver’s claim that he was treated unfairly.
In its findings, the WRC said the driver failed to establish an employee to whom he could be compared, and that his complaint that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration was not well founded.
It also said the driver accepted that no complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015 had been lodged with the WRC at the hearing, and dismissed his claims.
The driver, who worked for a number of departments on fixed-term contracts for six years, brought the case after his most recent contract was terminated in November 2017.
The termination of his contract came after the department said he had not complied with rules on travel and subsistence by providing insufficient information to support his expense claims.
However, the driver alleged that he was treated in an unfavourable manner compared to permanent employees when he was dismissed, while also claiming that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.
In October 2017, the driver was invited to attend a meeting with department officials, after being warned that his contract contained a six-month probationary period.
Two days later, he was informed by the department that his contract was being terminated, effective three weeks later, based on his insufficient expense claims.
The decision was questioned by the driver’s union, who claimed he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration, but also said he would adhere to all regulations and procedures regarding his expenses in future.
However, these claims were dismissed by the department, who said it would uphold its decision to terminate the driver’s contract.
In response to the driver’s claims, the department also told the WRC that it was under no obligation to give him a permanent contract.
It quoted the driver’s contract of employment, dated June 2017, which said that his appointment was to “a temporary, unestablished position in the civil service”, which would have ended on the day that the Minster was no longer in office.
The department also said that the driver had a “unique position” in the civil service, and as there was no permanent employee to whom he could be compared, it had no case to answer regarding the driver’s claim that he was treated unfairly.
In its findings, the WRC said the driver failed to establish an employee to whom he could be compared, and that his complaint that he was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration was not well founded.
It also said the driver accepted that no complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015 had been lodged with the WRC at the hearing, and dismissed his claims.
