Advise about undertaking unqualified electrical works please.

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
armeg
TaoTech_ElectricianForum2
Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
L

Lordladeda

New member
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone.

I work for a holiday park as part of the maintenance team looking after 200 chalets.

For many years i have carried out electrical work for my company including mainly like for like items ie showers,sockets,hobs,ovens and heaters.

I have recently started to feel very uncomfortable about doing so as i have no electrical qualifications. I understand that should there be an incident occur whereby a guest may receive an electric shock or worse then i may very well be prosecuted. I want to tell my company that i will be withdrawing from any future electrical works but cannot find a single piece of literature that confirms that i would be wrong to continue.

Please could somebody let me know how i stand in this matter.

Many thanks indeed.

Kevin.

 
I would say that you are correct in having some reservations, and as a general rule should never carry out any task you aren't confident about. If you are operating as a member of a team, ie under instruction and supervision, then I think it unlikely that you personally would be prosecuted. I think the focus of any action following an incident would more likely be on your manager or the company as a whole, for failing to ensure competence or their employee, have adequate management procedures in place etc..

In this respect I doubt if electrical work is different to other tasks you may carry out. As example, if you construct something which collapses causing injury the same question could arise; your fault or your manager's?

Why not suggest the company sponsor you on a training course?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think to get the ultimate answer you  would need to speak to a legal expert .

There are worst case scenarios ....such as carrying out gas work when not Gas-Safe  registered,  I've read accounts of prison sentences.

 
There is also the basic standards of the Health & Safety at Work Act,  which puts a fundamental responsibility on everyone, employers and employees, to ensure they do not do anything that could endanger themselves or anyone else whilst at work.  Which means that in a very short time of becoming an employee of any company, you will normally have to go through some sort of Health and Safety awareness course or training to bring to your attention the basics of this law and any specialist requirements relating to the work you are employed to do. The longer you have been employed anywhere, the greater the expectation that you should be competent to assess any dangers or hazards to anyone, that may result from your daily work. As you have already flagged your own concerns about what you are doing, I suspect that in the event of a serious incident the H&S executive would also have reasonable grounds to assume you should have known better than to do electrical work without proper training, tools or supervision. If in doubt a quick phone call to your local Citizens Advice could probably confirm or dispel your concerns.
 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/section/7

7 General duties of employees at work.  It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and

(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.
Click to expand...


Doc H.

 
One point here that would concern me if things did go wrong is the potential for the company to try and shirk some responsibility by claiming that the OP had stated in the initial interview that he was competant to carry out electrical work! One company I worked for had advertised for an electrician, I applied and got the job, in the interview I was asked if I could do any plumbing, I replied that I was quite good at plumbing and had indeed been trained by my father who was a qualified plumber. Shortly after starting with the firm I was asked to replace a gas valve on an industrial cooker in a school canteen, I declined and was told that plumbing formed a part of my job, as and when required.This didn't go down very well with the bosses, however as I pointed out, they had advertised for an electrician, there was no mention of plumbing, or gas fitting in the advert and, although I was quite capable of and indeed did work on gas in my own home there was no way I was doing it for the firm. They had a gas fitter, send him to deal with it!

It's all to easy for someone when the brown smelly stuff hits the whirling blades, to start looking for a way out, lets be honest how could you prove you'd said or not said something? you couldn't, some people will say anything to get a job, we've all seen examples of this, so how do you prove you didn't say you could do something just to get the job. If the OP feels uncomfortable then perhaps he should put something in writing stating his concerns, keep a copy and email a copy to his bosses. But as we all know the best thing is to know your limitations and not be coerced into doing anything you are not comfortable with, ok nowadays they tend to go after management as well as staff in prosecutions, but it's small consolation if it all goes wrong knowing that your boss got done as well as you, better to not get done in the first place.

 
phil d said:
One point here that would concern me if things did go wrong is the potential for the company to try and shirk some responsibility by claiming that the OP had stated in the initial interview that he was competant to carry out electrical work!
Click to expand...


Still up to the employer to make sure the work is done to the relevant standards though no matter how "competent" the employee is.

I use competent in quotation marks as I'm not sure what that word means any more, like phase/live/line/whatever competent/skilled/trained/whatever may or may not mean that some is able to or should/shouldn't do the work.

 
Lurch said:
Still up to the employer to make sure the work is done to the relevant standards though no matter how "competent" the employee is.

I use competent in quotation marks as I'm not sure what that word means any more, like phase/live/line/whatever competent/skilled/trained/whatever may or may not mean that some is able to or should/shouldn't do the work.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely, trouble is these days everyone likes to try and blame someone else, I just wouldn't like to see someone get stung just because a firm is too tight to employ a qualified spark, which in this case I think they should do.

 
phil d said:
I agree entirely, trouble is these days everyone likes to try and blame someone else, I just wouldn't like to see someone get stung just because a firm is too tight to employ a qualified spark, which in this case I think they should do.
Click to expand...


I'm sure the company could/would try and say it was the employees fault, but it wouldn't get far. The responsibility is with the employer, no matter what the potential employee said in an interview. How many times do you see a news article where an employee has C***** something up big time and the firm is charged for health and safety breaches/procedural errors? Same here, in the worst case if someone was killed because of something the OP did then the company could say "well, he said he was good with electrics" no court in the land is going to say "oh, OK then, must be his fault".

 
Lurch said:
I'm sure the company could/would try and say it was the employees fault, but it wouldn't get far. The responsibility is with the employer, no matter what the potential employee said in an interview. How many times do you see a news article where an employee has C***** something up big time and the firm is charged for health and safety breaches/procedural errors? Same here, in the worst case if someone was killed because of something the OP did then the company could say "well, he said he was good with electrics" no court in the land is going to say "oh, OK then, must be his fault".
Click to expand...
Very true, but I was thinking along the lines of someone getting done unnecessarily, if I ask you to do something that you aren't trained/competant to do and you refuse then you have no issue if it goes wrong, however if you decide to do it to keep me happy and it goes wrong then you get dragged into the mess as well. If the op isn't happy doing something then he's probably better just saying no.

 
So far as i am aware, an employer assumes "Vicarious liability" for the actions of their staff.... In other words, it is the employer that is in the **** when things go wrong...

A quick google finds this..

"Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment').[2] To determine whether the employer is liable, the difference between an independent contractor and an employee is to be drawn. In order to be vicariously liable, there must be a requisite relationship between the defendant the tortfeasor,which could be examined by three tests: Control test, Organisation test and Sufficient relationship test.Since Hollis v Vabu [2001] 207 CLR 21, the 'sufficient relationship' test, which entails the balancing of several factors such as skill levels required in the job, pay schemes, and degree of control granted to the worker,has been favoured approach.[3] For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.[4]

Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "a frolic of their own". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability.[5] The employer will be held liable if an employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized way.

Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another."

So there we are then....

But, what would happen if an employee carried out, or performed tasks that he KNEW to be wrong, merely because he was ordered to.. Hmmm.. I am a welder.. If my employer instructed me, whilst building a bridge, say, to use silicone bathroom sealant and then paint over it, as, "it is much faster than welding" and the bridge collapses, then what???

I would tape record them [secretly] or do it recorded delivery, [the tape would be better] whilst you informed them that you will not be doing any more electrical work. Any ****tyness, and i would tell them that you were going to the HSE, cannot see that they would care really though. [the HSE that is] [no money to be made see]

john...

 
apprentice87 said:
So far as i am aware, an employer assumes "Vicarious liability" for the actions of their staff.... In other words, it is the employer that is in the **** when things go wrong...

A quick google finds this..

"Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment (sometimes referred to as 'scope of employment').[2] To determine whether the employer is liable, the difference between an independent contractor and an employee is to be drawn. In order to be vicariously liable, there must be a requisite relationship between the defendant the tortfeasor,which could be examined by three tests: Control test, Organisation test and Sufficient relationship test.Since Hollis v Vabu [2001] 207 CLR 21, the 'sufficient relationship' test, which entails the balancing of several factors such as skill levels required in the job, pay schemes, and degree of control granted to the worker,has been favoured approach.[3] For an act to be considered within the course of employment, it must either be authorized or be so connected with an authorized act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it.[4]

Courts sometimes distinguish between an employee's "detour" vs. "a frolic of their own". For instance, an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability.[5] The employer will be held liable if an employee does an authorized act in an unauthorized way.

Employers are also liable under the common law principle represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium facit per se (one who acts through another acts in one's own interests). That is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability, in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another."

So there we are then....

But, what would happen if an employee carried out, or performed tasks that he KNEW to be wrong, merely because he was ordered to.. Hmmm.. I am a welder.. If my employer instructed me, whilst building a bridge, say, to use silicone bathroom sealant and then paint over it, as, "it is much faster than welding" and the bridge collapses, then what???

I would tape record them [secretly] or do it recorded delivery, [the tape would be better] whilst you informed them that you will not be doing any more electrical work. Any ****tyness, and i would tell them that you were going to the HSE, cannot see that they would care really though. [the HSE that is] [no money to be made see]

john...
Click to expand...
Exactly John, personally I'd just rather not go there, there have only been 2 incidents in my working life that have gone pear shaped, neither of them were my fault, one in the electrical industry and one in another field. In both instances my employers did everything they could to try and avoid any blame, talk about pass the buck, I've seen hot lumps of metal passed between bare hands more slowly.

 
I would put any concerns you have to your employer in writing, so there is a hard record of your concerns. Should this happen :Hitsthefan: the responsibilty will lie with your employer for not providing suitable training.

 
Just to say a big thanks to everyone that has taken the time to reply to my post. All the comments and info have been extremely helpful to me.

Many thanks indeed.

Kevin.

 

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Advice about CCTV DVR/NVR
Replies
0
Views
803
neon
N
Social Integrator
Voltimum - Builder Fined Following NAPIT’s Intervention
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Murdoch
Murdoch
Barx
Options after being made redundant (kind of)
Replies
16
Views
1K
Murdoch
Murdoch
K
Help please
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Kevin1234
K
Tony S
Ufer earth:
Replies
5
Views
2K
Tony S
Tony S

Latest posts

Top