AIBU for thinking the company are liable for a workplace injury?

As someone who advises in this area, an earlier poster is right. Any civil claim will, to some extent, be successful due to him not being trained. However, there is “contributory negligence” on his part as he has twice been contacted about training and ignored it (he may well say he’s not seen it, but if the evidence of his colleagues is that they know where to find their training modules, that is unlikely to be accepted by the court).

Regarding his additional needs, those will only be relevant if he formally notified his employer of his condition and requested reasonable adjustments (eg needing additional reminders about training). It sounds like he may not have done that (did his employer perhaps have the impression he was shy with his mum in attendance, rather than there being a medical need?), in which case his employer is not on notice that he requires reasonable adjustments.

In any event, I’d echo the point that any claim won’t be worth much (loss of a few weeks’ earnings, maybe some physio appointments), and the cost will be his job and potentially any reference for future jobs.

Totally agree and this OP is arguing his case

If you want specific legal advice you should post on the legal board. You seem to be arguing this from a moral/ethical perspective and that’s hard to judge. It’s hard for you to be objective because you the person involved is a friend. It’s hard for people to give advice because you have, understandably, given limited information on the nature of this person’s disability. However, I will say that before you start a complaint or a grievance, be very clear about what you want to achieve from it, and whether it is a realistic expectation.

Probably not relevant but how many workers were there moving the furniture, was that piece of furniture a 2 person job, acas will have info and the hse if he's not in a union.

That's why he was supposed to do the manual handling training. They told him twice, but he decided he couldn't be arsed/knew better and then did something that the manual training would have told him how to do it safely (if at all). Now he's hurt himself from ignoring both the instruction to do the training and to not move things.

A job description wouldn't usually be in a contract.

That’s true. I’m banging on about the logic of it all but I know nothing about where the law actually stands on this stuff.

He should indeed join a union. As should everyone.

You’re just going to get a load of pointless uninformed opinions by posting on here, when you actually need qualified legal advice from a specialist.

I mean, we all kind of know that these e-learning things are frequently no more than a way for companies to cover their arses, don’t we? I suppose the question is did the training contain any instruction that could reasonably be expected to have prevented the accident from happening? I do think it’s a reasonable expectation for staff to do whatever training they’re asked (twice, in this case) to do, however dull and arbitrary. I also think it’s a reasonable expectation for the company to make sure it’s been done before letting them do the relevant kinds of work. But it sounds like humphing furniture isn’t in the job description anyway, so if the lad was told to do it by a senior colleague then I’d think the company needs to accept the Nuremberg defence on this one?

He should have done the training.

He should join a union

So he could be sacked for not following company procedures!
stupid to kick up a fuss when he is in the wrong.

Would posters have a different opinion if he had flipped through 10 slides on an e-module?

Very likely he would have still pulled a muscle, seems harsh for the boss to refuse sick pay for an injury at work.

As another poster said, I despair of this generation. Take some responsibility and complete the training that’s been sent twice.

He will be entitled to SSP

Of course it's your responsibility - youre an adult

Realistically what light duties could he do, what other duties would he be able to do. He can contact acas for advice.

He should be paid SSP after three days - they cannot not pay that. He needs a Fit note to be signed off.

You’re wrong there - it is BOTH you and your employers’ responsibility.

I’m surprised he was allowed to proceed with the work without having completed the training, to be honest. My partner works a safety critical role and if his certifications are allowed to time out he’s not allowed to work on site until they’re renewed. No exceptions, very simple, everyone knows where they stand. (It’s possible his industry is stricter than in OP’s example, of course.) If I were the employer I would want documentary evidence that safety training had been completed to avoid precisely this situation where I’m accused of being at fault for the misadventure of an untrained staff member. I think there’s blame on both sides here.

I feel like you’re maybe making a few too many excuses for him, but ultimately I think you’re right. If manual handling is part of his job, it’s the company’s responsibility to make sure the training is up to date. It’s not just a tickbox exercise where you fire out an e-module and leave it at that.

That said, wouldn’t it ultimately come down to what his contract says about sick pay?

I think if he pursues it he will be out of a job. bluntly. Is that what he wants? Is that in his best interest?
do you want to go down the disability discrimination route or an amicable agreement and a reasonable adjustment moving forward.

its a tough gig on you back and knees- a carpet fitter would reasonable expect to have a stiff back and a bad knees after a few years?

the question is what do you want? As sense of justice and what you perceive as the moral high ground or a reasonable compromise?

Did his mum know he didn't attend training

Why didn't he do the mandatory training, it's irrelevant that his colleagues haven't done it. Who told him to move the furniture? Is there a clause in his contract or training manual about not completing training. Can he claim ssp, how long has he worked there. It sounds like both are equally at fault.