Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Near miss at work. What's the right thing to do?

57 replies

rocketman3 · 26/05/2017 10:41

My bf has a responsible job. the other day, he and his 'boss', who was ultimately responsible at the time had a 'near miss' type incident which sounds very much like it was a culmination of small errors on the part of the 'boss' and some external information sources. this could have been serious, people could have been injured/killed and there could have been environmental damage.

my bf has been asked to give a statement to his company and he is concerned about giving them fuel with which to fire the boss, should they wish to do so. I have told him he should tell the truth and left it at that. i don't think he will, i think he's trying to choose his words carefully. am sitting here watching him write his statement. is it immoral to lie to protect someone in this situation? i don't know the nuanced politics
of this place but he reckons they will use incidents like this to sack expensive people rather than make them redundant, so more will be made of it than should be. i personally think the truth should be told, always. AIBU/a square?

OP posts:
RB68 · 26/05/2017 12:39

I agree stick to rock solid FACTS, don't voice opinions, views or beliefs but keep it short follow the sequence, put timings, give information. Boss can't blame him for facts nor the workplace. He may well have to do an interview so keep a copy as well

woollychimp · 26/05/2017 12:43

as RB68 says, stick to the facts. If boss is sacked unfairly he can go through a tribunal.

The recent fatality at the theme park had happened before as a 'near miss' situation where an almost identical situation had occurred . The child's mother spoke about it on the radio - they had reported the incident but it sounded to have been swept under the carpet.

Ceic · 26/05/2017 13:01

Facts - the more verifiable, the better. BOFF can be a useful way to think things through (and maybe structure his response):

  • Behaviour
  • Outcome
  • Feelings
  • Future

Might not need either of the FFs in a final report but it's useful to identify them.

It is not your BF's role to protect his immediate boss. His responsibility is to the company and to the various legal bodies that govern the field where his company works.

Apairofsparklingeyes · 26/05/2017 13:05

It's important for your bf to tell the truth.

The boss is showing himself to be unreliable and dishonest by lying about an error. He's actually a horrible person to expect your bf to help cover up the mistake. Does your bf realise that he could lose his job if he doesn't tell the truth?

stopfuckingshoutingatme · 26/05/2017 13:07

truth truth 100%

any good company should not fire someone for a near miss

I find this fear element concerning, and the need for Unions

a serious accident occurred and they are legally charged to find out why, that's all

Becca19962014 · 26/05/2017 13:24

Facts are all that is needed.

Having said that, I totally understand where he is coming from having been in his position when I first started work in the NHS - my manager (who wasn't at fault) told me first to seriously consider repercussions (not only for me but everyone) and secondly to stick to plain facts and ignore pressure and politics - decisions to prevent the incident (in my case) reoccurring were not up to me but to the person appointed, all I needed to do was to relate what had happened in a factual way. It really helped me to do what I needed - it also helped that he read through it as a very non emotional type he knew what was needed.

It was difficult though as a popular member of staff was fired as a result of me reporting the incident, but it didn't happen again and my manager (who was fab) was really supportive. Keeping it factual helped when confronted by others with anger.

RaspberryOverloadsOnIcepops · 26/05/2017 13:41

I can see it might be hard for him, but he needs to tell the truth. Just let the facts speak for themselves.

As another poster mentioned, if it looks like he's trying to cover something up, then his card will also be marked. It's just not worth it.

LadySalmakia · 26/05/2017 13:58

Needs to be the truth - the whole point of near miss reporting is that it works when everyone tells the truth.

Massive strides in air safety happened because of a no blame culture over near miss reporting, and that technique is being adopted into hospitals for surgery for the same reasons. It's powerful in fixing systematic issues.

Allthewaves · 26/05/2017 13:59

Bullet point facts - one personal views

Allthewaves · 26/05/2017 13:59

One =no

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:02

We have to report 'near misses' (as well as 'missed') at work. But it tends to be short and factual - ie what happened and how it's going to be addressed. The idea is on solutions to the event and avoid recurrence.

Your BF's position sounds a little different though and more serious. That said, as other posters have said - tell the truth, and be factual and to the point.

I think

ChasedByBees · 26/05/2017 14:04

Definitely the truth.

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:08

We have to report 'near misses' (as well as 'missed') at work. But it tends to be short and factual - ie what happened and how it's going to be addressed. The idea is on solutions to the event and avoid recurrence.

Your BF's position sounds a little different though and more serious. That said, as other posters have said - tell the truth, and be factual and to the point.

I think

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:08

We have to report 'near misses' (as well as 'missed') at work. But it tends to be short and factual - ie what happened and how it's going to be addressed. The idea is on solutions to the event and avoid recurrence.

Your BF's position sounds a little different though and more serious. That said, as other posters have said - tell the truth, and be factual and to the point.

I think

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:08

We have to report 'near misses' (as well as 'missed') at work. But it tends to be short and factual - ie what happened and how it's going to be addressed. The idea is on solutions to the event and avoid recurrence.

Your BF's position sounds a little different though and more serious. That said, as other posters have said - tell the truth, and be factual and to the point.

I think

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:09

We have to report 'near misses' (as well as 'missed') at work. But it tends to be short and factual - ie what happened and how it's going to be addressed. The idea is on solutions to the event and avoid recurrence.

Your BF's position sounds a little different though and more serious. That said, as other posters have said - tell the truth, and be factual and to the point.

I think

Aridane · 26/05/2017 14:10

SORRY for duplicate posts - demented laptop and poor wifi connection

confusedat23 · 26/05/2017 14:15

It has to be the truth OP, they might not even act upon it but they must follow the correct health and safety procedures.

EmilyBiscuit · 26/05/2017 14:25

Truth.

The purpose of most "near miss" investigations is to prevent a repeat of the chain of events so as to avoid an actual incident in future. It is about learning from the mistakes. If the mistakes aren't known nobody can learn from them. By failing to tell the complete truth you bf would be derailing this process and so increasing the likelihood of someone actually being injured / killed.

GwenStaceyRocks · 26/05/2017 14:26

He has to tell the truth. The boss may try to mitigate his responsibility by blaming your bf. If your bf then tries to change his story, it won't reflect well on him and he could lose his job.

Benedikte2 · 26/05/2017 14:28

Your BF needs to tell the truth but do Es not need to give his option regarding whose fault the incident was. That way he is not responsible foe assigning guilt. The bosses will decide who did or didn't act as they should. If there was another incident and someone was injured etc a Government agency would investigate all previous incidents and your BF could be held accountable for conspiring in a cover up. The bosses should be able to count on you BFs honesty.

PUGaLUGS · 26/05/2017 14:33

We have to report near misses and walk on by's.

He needs to tell the truth.

stuntcamel · 26/05/2017 14:44

Agree with others - the truth. No doubt the boss will be busily trying to divert the blame from himself onto your bf.

If this is as serious as it sounds, then the boss deserves the sack, actually.

RhythmAndStealth · 26/05/2017 15:10

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I'll use an example from my working life to illustrate what I mean.

Two guys I worked in an office with got in a physical altercation. A lot of us where in the same open plan office at the time. Lots of corners, partitions, white boards etc used to break up the space though, so no-one had a clear view of the whole situation.

We were interviewed about this and had to sign our statement.

The truth- I heard a noise, looked up and saw J and G physically fighting.

The whole truth- I had seen resentment simmer between the two for a while now. Lots of verbal confrontations and practical "jokes" designed to cause embarrassment/discomfort.

I had also recently witnessed J use G's disability (deafness) against him- mock G behind his back when he couldn't lip read, turn up a radio loud to cause feedback on G's hearing aid and I had both challenged J in this and spoken to B (J and G's manager) about it.

I had heard from B the previous day that there had been a big verbal confrontation between J and G whilst I was out of the office. B had chosen to speak to me about it as the senior manager was out of the office all week on a training course. I was on the same level as B in a different branch of the org chart, so we were both the most senior in absence of the overall manager. The disagreement was over a seating reorganization- J and G both wanted to sit in the same seat. J came in at 5am on the morning of the reorganization to "bag" the preferred seat, even though the team and management decision had been that that seat should remain empty (as J and G couldn't decide between themselves about it, it had been obviously causing resentment and there was a need for a "spare" desk for visitors from another office). So B and I decided to enforce that decision, with the addition of separating J and G as far away from one another as operationally possible. This designed to be a temporary thing. We emailed the senior manager and HR about it saying this was our temporary solution, but the situation needed to be better addressed on the manager's return. HR and manager both fine with this.

The next day, J kept going up behind G and tapping him on the shoulder to startle him- both B and I had told G to stop doing this and made it clear that it was unacceptable to harrass a disabled person on the basis of the disability. He was told if he did it again he would be sent home immediately. HR were consulted and said they were happy with that.

Later I saw G walk past my desk carrying a glass of iced water. A few moments later I heard a yell, looked up and saw basically a fist fight.

Nothing but the truth- I had my back to the incident and had to turn round to witness it after I heard the noise. As a result I have no idea who threw the first punch.

To be honest, I'd be very surprised if it wasn't G who threw the first punch. J admitted walking up behind him and tipped a glass of iced water over G.

But I didn't see G throw a punch, and to be honest, even if he did, I thought J had physically assaulted him first and scared him out of his skin to the extent it wasn't fair to expect hI'm to know he wasn't under attack. So I kept all my opinions to myself.

Both were suspended during the investigation. After the investigation, a workplace audit was conducted to see if we could better meet G's additional workplace needs. The upshot of that was that our employer contributed to upgrading his hearing aid to one that was with background noise and which had less whiny feedback (he had to switch off his old one a lot as a result of the latter, and it was recognised that this was hugely unfair to him to have to give up his hearing like that). A workplace champion was also appointed to G outside his line management structure (it was me). So I sat in on a lot of meetings with him, went to see occupational health with him whilst he was choosing a new hearing aid etc. J wasn't sacked- there wasn't enough conclusive evidence from all the witness statements to do that. But he was on a temporary contract and it wasn't renewed when it was finished (about 6 weeks later).

Unsurprisingly, G was pretty shaken/upset by the whole thing. We used to go for a coffee after his occupational health/audiology appointments and we spoke about it a lot. He decided he was underemployed in his office role and decided to retrain. Whilst he was getting a new hearing aid, he got really interested in the different types of hearing aid. He also met a deaf audiologist and a light went on- he'd be really good at being an audiologist because he understood what it's like to be deaf. So he decided to retrain as an audiologist in the NHS. He asked me to help him with his application outside work, so I did, on the hush hush. I left around the same time to take up a role elsewhere, as I thought the situation should have been handled better earlier.

RhythmAndStealth · 26/05/2017 15:11

I meant we told J to stop doing this and I saw J with a glass of iced water!

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread