What grounds can I appeal this warning?

[JasonP]

Hello. Yesterday I had a disciplinary hearing and was given a written warning for putting health and safety at risk because I left the premises for half an hour without a fire warden.

Employer’s argument was that if there was a fire then any evacuation would not run efficiently which would then put the health and safety of other workers at risk.

My argument was that if there was a fire, then the health and safety of the other workers is already at risk from the fire and, an inefficient evacuation is still an evacuation which removes the other workers from the danger. Everyone has been trained to leave the building in the event of a fire so the lack of a fire warden would not stop workers from leaving the building, it would not be the cause of the fire and it would not increase the risk from the fire.

Employer then argued that a fire warden helps reduce the risk to workers health and safety in an evacuation so by not having one on site during an evacuation the risk wouldn’t get reduced which would put the health and safety of other workers at risk.

I then argued that if there was an evacuation the other workers would already be at risk from the fire and that leaving the building as they had been trained to do would reduce the risk to their health and safety. A fire warden may help reduce the risk quicker by getting them out quicker, but not having a fire warden doesn’t cause the risk or increase the risk.

They wouldn’t accept my reasoning and gave me a written warning.

How can I appeal the warning. They carried out an investigation but it just confirmed how long the premises were left without a fire warden. It didn’t support that health and safety was put at risk, that was just employer’s opinion which they admitted to. I always understood that sanctions had to be based on evidence not on opinions. There is no rule to say a fire warden has to be on premises, and the warning was not for leaving premises without a fire warden. A fire warden is the excuse they used to issue the warning for putting health and safety at risk so surely they had to prove there was a risk.

[paulajayne]

What are the Duties of a fire warden in respect of your company?

Do they include that one of the fire wardens must be on site at all times? and if so is it the duty of the fire warden currently on duty to ensure that a warden is on site before they leave?

[JasonP]

What are the Duties of a fire warden in respect of your company?

Do they include that one of the fire wardens must be on site at all times? and if so is it the duty of the fire warden currently on duty to ensure that a warden is on site before they leave?

The fire warden directs workers to the nearest fire exit from where ever he happens to be if a fire alarm goes off, just in case workers forgot where the fire exit was or cant read the many signs pointing the way. Thats about it in relation to an evacuation. The thing is its a big building with several floors and several fire exits, the fire warden will only be in one place directing one group of workers, the other workers are left to fend for themselves. There are no rules that a fire warden has to be on site all the time, they dont have one through the night for night shift.

[ULA]

On a certain level I can understand your employers arguments.

Given that my view would be that they should have made it very clear about what they expect from their fire wardens to ensure these health and safety issues are mitigated in the event of a fire and the need to evacuate the building. Part of that would be to make it incorporated into the duties of a fire warden that their is always one fire warden on site during "day-time" office hours and that each fire warden needs to check with the other before leaving site. This may be the way in which you could argue an appeal.

[MIKE770]

fortunately no fire took place and you did not extend cover to another, you had responsibility and failed, lives could of been lost (Woolworth's fire decades ago), so understand employers response!

[KIP1]

Hello JasonP, as far as getting the warning withdrawn, this may rest on what your company's procedures state about the duties of a fire warden and whether you have in fact breached those duties or not, also on whether you have been made fully aware of the scope of those duties; what training you have received and whether the cover is in fact adequate. Unless you have specifically breached clearly communicated procedures I would argue that the warning should be withdrawn. Either way, it sounds like there is a gap either in the procedures, your training or your understanding of your role and this is a conversation you definitely need to have with your employer, preferably with your safety rep present.

[JasonP]

I understand the employers arguments, my objections are that their arguments were just opinions, they even admit to that. My arguments were just as valid as their arguments, but the point is if the investigation didnt disprove my arguments and didnt support their arguments, then what grounds made their arguments more reasonable than mine, or just reasonable to sanction? My responsibilities were not established, it wasnt established that I failed in my responsibilities, and it wasnt established that lives were put at risk.

[KIP1]

In that case I think your course of action is clear - appeal the warning on that basis

[ULA]

Given what you have said in your post #7 and the fact that it has not been made clear that the company requires that included in the duties of a fire warden that their is always one fire warden on site during "day-time" office hours and that each fire warden needs to check with the other before leaving site. These factors should be the basis upon which you appeal the warning.

[JasonP]

Sanction upheld. They admit there are no rules or guidance about a fire warden. They admit they hadnt explained my duties and responsibilities to me. They couldnt say how the health and safety of workers leaving a building in an evacuation was put at more risk than if they didnt leave. But they said I should have known there was a risk with no fire warden and i should have known there needed to be a fire warden. There you have it.

[MIKE770]

Well you were lucky no fire. Serious. Event could cost lives. Could if Ben different if there had been a fire. You had and failed how many yes I informed new employee's decades ago. Sorry but you have to take things seriously

[MIKE770]

Put it down as you learnt something serious

[JasonP]

Well you were lucky no fire. Serious. Event could cost lives. Could if Ben different if there had been a fire. You had and failed how many yes I informed new employee's decades ago. Sorry but you have to take things seriously

In an evacuation the fire warden would only deal with the workers on the floor he was on. If he was on the 4th floor, then floors 1 to 3 wouldnt have a fire warden and would have to fend for themselves. If he was on the 2nd floor, then floors 1, 3 and 4 wouldnt have a fire warden and would have to fend for themselves. As the floors without a fire warden were not seen as being at risk without one, and as you couldnt possibly know which floor the fire warden would be on if there was a fire, which lives were put at risk, those on floor 1, 2, 3 or 4? Employer couldnt answer that question, maybe you can.

How did i fail in duties i was never made aware of?

[JasonP]

Put it down as you learnt something serious

I learnt that employer can make it up as they want and dont need evidence to give me a sanction.

[MIKE770]

you learnt a mistake accept it you are well aware of the needs, this floor idea does not stand in reality! fire warden work way through building to ensure people are exiting then once fire brigade arrives report any adverse needs i.e. missing persons on certain floors.