Royal Mail current health and safety policy.

Almighty1 · Post by **Almighty1** » 02 Feb 2017, 16:04

Hello, does anyone have a link to the Royal mails current health and safety policy with arrangements for carrying it out? the one on our Units wall is out of date and even has the old style HSG65 in the back of it which was updated in 2013, I would use the Units pc, however it keeps crashing,

Thanks.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 02 Feb 2017, 23:14

http://www.royalmailgroup.com/responsibility/policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2013 is the latest one.

Page 41 http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/def ... 015-16.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WOBBLY · Post by **WOBBLY** » 03 Feb 2017, 14:41

Lol, Royal Mail, health and safety?

they don't know the meaning of it!!

Almighty1 · Post by **Almighty1** » 03 Feb 2017, 15:13

Thanks for the reply and link,.

The out of date issue was with both the Policy and the HSG65 Management system which was updated in 2013 to (Plan, Do, Act, Check) we still have (POPIMAR) on our board which was- Policy, Organising & Arrangements,Planning & Implementation, Measure performance, Reviewing performance- underpinned by Auditing, which I'm not sure it honestly needed to be in there!

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference to the RM, I guess it's just another piece of wallpaper to go with the toilet paper in the Walk risk Assessments!

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 03 Feb 2017, 16:17

You may think it's no more than wallpaper etc,but step out of line and injure yourself, or worse, someone else, and see how hard RM will come down on you. It's a double-edged sword in that it's there for your safety but also a valuable tool for RM (and indeed, any other employer) to rule that you were wholly or partly blame-worthy, and any compo claim can be reduced considerably.
All those little work-arounds and problems that were largely ignored for years assume epic proportions when someone's been badly hurt and RM's in the dock.

Almighty1 · Post by **Almighty1** » 03 Feb 2017, 17:42

Tman wrote:You may think it's no more than wallpaper etc,but step out of line and injure yourself, or worse, someone else, and see how hard RM will come down on you. It's a double-edged sword in that it's there for your safety but also a valuable tool for RM (and indeed, any other employer) to rule that you were wholly or partly blame-worthy, and any compo claim can be reduced considerably.
All those little work-arounds and problems that were largely ignored for years assume epic proportions when someone's been badly hurt and RM's in the dock.

If what the policy states in it is not being carried out by the Royal Mail it offers the employee no protection, on the other hand it would be a "valuable tool" for the injured employee, so if the Postie is injured whilst carrying out his or her duty as instructed by RM then any amount of finger pointing by the RM would be worthless, I would be looking at claiming for full damages, both special and general in the event of an accident, with no risk assessments in place, no supervision, no training including induction, equipment, SSOW, accident reporting etc etc, I'd take my chances in court for the RM breach of statutory duty and negligence.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 03 Feb 2017, 18:09

The big problem with that is that you can't be "instructed" by anyone to carry out a stated unsafe act, so if your defence in court is that "I was told to" you'll be laughed out of court.
The defence would say, rightly or wrongly, that you knowingly did it anyway, and that if you were unwilling to carry out said task, where's the objection either verbally to your safety/union rep, or in writing to some higher-up Postal tosser?
You may well "take your chances" in court, but as has been shown many times, RM employs the best QC's from the City of London and virtually never lose. They make the average no-win no fee solicitor look like amateurs, so the best of luck if you think you'll win there.

Almighty1 · Post by **Almighty1** » 03 Feb 2017, 19:05

Tman wrote:The big problem with that is that you can't be "instructed" by anyone to carry out a stated unsafe act, so if your defence in court is that "I was told to" you'll be laughed out of court.
The defence would say, rightly or wrongly, that you knowingly did it anyway, and that if you were unwilling to carry out said task, where's the objection either verbally to your safety/union rep, or in writing to some higher-up Postal tosser?
You may well "take your chances" in court, but as has been shown many times, RM employs the best QC's from the City of London and virtually never lose. They make the average no-win no fee solicitor look like amateurs, so the best of luck if you think you'll win there.

You may find Section 36 of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 enlightening, Offenses due to the fault of other persons.

The last succesful case of an employer using "the Peson Willingly accepted the risk" or "Volenti Non Fit Injuria" was in 1951.

I'll leave you with some FACT based case law: Stark V The Post Office 2000

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 03 Feb 2017, 21:17

[You may find Section 36 of The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 enlightening, Offenses due to the fault of other persons.
The last succesful case of an employer using "the Peson Willingly accepted the risk" or "Volenti Non Fit etc etc

This is going around in circles; RM can and does argue that it's employees have ample opportunity to read the many and various safety notices on display in every office, and that it's employees have understood and adhere to those standards for the good of all concerned.
Why do you think so many WTL, safety etc briefings are now signed for by the employee?

Save the ancient legal cases for the courtroom. Employers usually have water-tight cases to protect themselves from financial risk,so you'll need more than those to succeed against RM.