Slartibartfast wrote: If the employer could reasonably consider that training wasn't necessary because of the applicant's background, it would mitigate the risk a little.
Good point. I did wonder about that. Many employees have generic health and safety in the workplace qualifications. Often acquired years ago and as such are fairly meaningless. I wonder how an employer would fare if they said that when the employee applied for the job he produced a diploma in general health and safety that covered manual handling, ladder training and most other things.
I have myself relied on such a qualification to get a job. I know that a diploma in generic health and safety that I got ten years ago and can remember nothing about was the difference between me and another applicant. I did wonder at the time if it actually meant that it would mitigate any employers liability to take reasonable steps to ensure my safety.
The opening post does not refer to a situation I am in by the way. A colleague of mine has just received a 3.5k payment for a back injury because the employer did not give him manual handling training. A previous employee received 7k for having an accident on a ladder because the same employer did not provide him with ladder training.