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

[Iamanicelady]

Hi all 👋🏻

Just asking some advice for a friend.

So my friends 21 year old son - who has additional needs and is not great at speaking up (the company are aware of this) - has a job as a flooring fitter for a small local company. At the start of the week, her son had to go to a job where the furniture needed to be moved - it is not in his job description to move furniture. He was told to move the furniture and, as it was heavy, he pulled a muscle in his back; he’s been in a lot of pain and has been unable to go to work. The problem is, they are saying it’s his own fault and are refusing to pay him for the time off he’s had and may need to continue to have. He has seen a doctor who said he needs to be on amended duties for his job but that is impossible as it’s all bending and kneeling down.
The issue is, he hasn’t done the manual handling training. He was sent the online course to do in November 2023 and as he hadn’t done it, they sent it to him again in February 2024. Again, he didn’t do it but no one has chased him up on this and it’s just been forgotten about. Apparently, none of the other guys he works with have done it either.
Surely the company are liable for his injury as they’ve got him to do a job that he hasn’t been trained to do and he’s hurt himself.

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

He should have done the training.

He should join a union

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?

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.

He should indeed join a union. As should everyone.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Totally agree and this OP is arguing his case

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.