Southwark Crown Court heard he was known to have a history of standing in the path of moving vehicles, an issue known to both duty holders which they failed to address adequately.
By finding him other work, perchance?
The court also heard both the council and Veolia failed to take into account the specific capabilities of this vulnerable worker and to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure his safety working within a high-risk environment.
One has to ask why they took him on in the first place. Was it because his value as a tick in the 'diversity' box outweighed his other capabilities?
Speaking after the hearing, Health and Safety inspector Megan Carr said: “This serious workplace transport incident could have been avoided if both duty holders had taken the appropriate safety precautions when planning this activity.
“Failing to identify the risks led to this man suffering serious life changing injuries.”
Perhaps it's not just the council & Veolia you should be looking at here, Megan?
Reminds me of that black ex-con employed as a driver by Highways England who had not passed driving test and had no, not even provisional, licence.
ReplyDeleteTicking diversity/inclusivity boxes in public sector more important than capability. As for Veolia - sup with the devil...
When he runs out of his compo he can get the council to take him on as a lollipop man.
ReplyDeleteAnd they wonder why people don't take on disabled people.
ReplyDelete"Ticking diversity/inclusivity boxes in public sector more important than capability."
ReplyDeleteSpot on!
"When he runs out of his compo he can get the council to take him on as a lollipop man."
Don't give them ideas!
"And they wonder why people don't take on disabled people."
The risk assessment for this one must have been a great work of fiction!