There was an accident at work and the investigation ended with a payment order by the Authority Department of the competent Government Office. In our article below, we describe a work accident and the subsequent official investigation and its results.

The basic situation is as follows: A container in a hall building, next to a conveyor belt (application belt) sunk into the floor, had to be moved about 5 centimeters away. The worker covering the container (later injured) was told by the workplace manager to leave. Then the operator of the forklift moved the container without a sound signal, verbally saying "Watch out, I'm pushing the container away!". The person in the space behind the container (later injured) jumped onto the lowered conveyor belt next to him when the container moved and, according to his claim, hit his chest (the medical examinations did not establish any injuries, "only" the complaint is recorded as an injury).  

The following irregularities can be identified:

• the injured person did not carry out the instructions of his workplace manager (according to his statement, he did not even hear what they told him) Ergo, an assertion and a denial regarding the same, where the authority only took the injured person's statement as a basis and ignored the workplace manager's statement;
• the workplace manager did not check whether the worker behind the container carried out his order;
• the operator of the forklift did not give an audible signal according to the regulations, he "only" warned his surroundings verbally, and he did not make sure in any other way that it was safe before starting the work.

All three workers took part in occupational safety training, before the accident and in connection with the three irregularities listed above, they were aware that they were breaking the rules.

The occupational health and safety inspectorate will not make any additions, amendments, sanctions, etc. in relation to the sent test material. he did not initiate, he accepted it as submitted.

The Authority Department of the Government Office substantiated the legal basis for the payment order with the following reasons:

The violations listed above were followed through with a similar logical explanation as the description of the work accident report sent and practically reached the same conclusion with the stipulation that the three workers were not jointly responsible for the occurrence of the accident (In the event that the injured person, when asked to come out from behind the container, executes the instruction, the accident no longer occurs), but the employer:

"The liability of the employer is established by the failure of its agents."

He then explained this highlighted sentence in his decision with a usual "failure to check obligation can be seen in the act" line of thought.  

It is unimaginable to have organized work where, if the employer legally employs the employee, he does not do so on the basis of an assignment (employee contract; ad hoc assignment, etc.).

In light of the spirit of the justification described above, there is practically no sense (from the point of view of the payment obligation) of investigating the work accident:

• it doesn't matter if the employee made a mistake (e.g. was careless) and that's why the accident occurred,
• or he was injured due to his illegal behavior (e.g.: he had an accident while holding the belt by hand, not with the V-belt turning key according to the manual)
• According to the justification cited, the employer's responsibility will be based on the fact that the employee performs his work with an order (he cannot do it without it), so the T. Authority will certainly send the payment order to the employer

In relation to the case, it is also interesting that the competent labor safety inspectorate accepted the accident investigation (the professional control), while the health care provider made a payment order.

Author: József Szendrődi