in my construction site two engineers had fight in yesterday, my H.O asking the incident report. pls help me.
From Saudi Arabia, Jeddah
From Saudi Arabia, Jeddah
Hi,
Please find the below how to write incident report
1. Mentioned employee details with employee id, name, department, their reporting boss
2. reason for fighting
3. Get the evidence names
mentioned their mental abilities also
From India, Hyderabad
169Please find the below how to write incident report
1. Mentioned employee details with employee id, name, department, their reporting boss
2. reason for fighting
3. Get the evidence names
mentioned their mental abilities also
From India, Hyderabad
Dear Shajidivya,
This is in addition what Ashok has said. While reporting concentrate on the conflict rather than person. Conflict occurs due to (a) lack of resources (b) lack of requisite skills (c) lack of job or role clarity (d) conflicting processes (e) professional differences (f) personality conflict (g) different reporting authorities have given different instructions (h) personal differences or personal likes or dislikes owing differences in caste, creed , race etc.
Your report should be able to able to pinpoint the exact cause of conflict rather than either party's reaction.
Secondly, obtain the statement from both the parties. Call both the parties in front of you and give chance to speak to senior first. Later junior or other person can contradict if required. However, keep on noting as the investigation progresses. Take signature on your report by both the parties (optional but important too).
If required, then you may visit the actual place of visit and verify the veracity of the information furnished by the either party. Make sure that there is evidence for everything that is being told to you. if there is no evidence, make sure that you include that in your report.
Ashok has said include the names of witnesses too. However, make sure than witnesses do not give some contradictory statements. If contradiction is coming then question the witness immediately and seek clarification.
In the course of your investigation, if you happen to come across with some non-compliance or non-adherence of rules or regulations by some third party, you may include it in the Appendix of the report. It may or may not be connected with the conflict in any way.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
This is in addition what Ashok has said. While reporting concentrate on the conflict rather than person. Conflict occurs due to (a) lack of resources (b) lack of requisite skills (c) lack of job or role clarity (d) conflicting processes (e) professional differences (f) personality conflict (g) different reporting authorities have given different instructions (h) personal differences or personal likes or dislikes owing differences in caste, creed , race etc.
Your report should be able to able to pinpoint the exact cause of conflict rather than either party's reaction.
Secondly, obtain the statement from both the parties. Call both the parties in front of you and give chance to speak to senior first. Later junior or other person can contradict if required. However, keep on noting as the investigation progresses. Take signature on your report by both the parties (optional but important too).
If required, then you may visit the actual place of visit and verify the veracity of the information furnished by the either party. Make sure that there is evidence for everything that is being told to you. if there is no evidence, make sure that you include that in your report.
Ashok has said include the names of witnesses too. However, make sure than witnesses do not give some contradictory statements. If contradiction is coming then question the witness immediately and seek clarification.
In the course of your investigation, if you happen to come across with some non-compliance or non-adherence of rules or regulations by some third party, you may include it in the Appendix of the report. It may or may not be connected with the conflict in any way.
Ok...
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Dear All;
An incidence rerport means the reportee wants to know the true facts. Facts are different from opinion. Reporter must visit the place if possible, get the written reports of the concerned witnesses, get the say of the involved persons and then make a report.
Report must include the time, date, place of the incident then how it happened, then what the witnesses say, then what the involved persons say, finally what he opines and what action he suggests. This will be a complete report. Reportee will not have any questions to alk. A self explanatory report.
This incident or any incident that may occur.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar
SVR Associates
HR Consultant
From India, Pune
An incidence rerport means the reportee wants to know the true facts. Facts are different from opinion. Reporter must visit the place if possible, get the written reports of the concerned witnesses, get the say of the involved persons and then make a report.
Report must include the time, date, place of the incident then how it happened, then what the witnesses say, then what the involved persons say, finally what he opines and what action he suggests. This will be a complete report. Reportee will not have any questions to alk. A self explanatory report.
This incident or any incident that may occur.
Vibhakar Ramtirthkar
SVR Associates
HR Consultant
From India, Pune
Dear Member,
I wish to suggest to take written / verbal record from both fellows with the cause and intention to do so and compare with the witnesses and than you may be able to make a good report factually.
From India, Delhi
I wish to suggest to take written / verbal record from both fellows with the cause and intention to do so and compare with the witnesses and than you may be able to make a good report factually.
From India, Delhi
Dear All,
I second Mr.Dinesh V.Divekar and I have a reason for it. In one of my past employments there was an incident that was reported from one of the group company and my colleague was overall incharge for all the manufacturing units of the company. The incident was
A worker had sought leave from a line incharge and when he refused he offered him a bribe of Rs.50/- (this was almost 20 years back) to humilate him in front of co workers. He had also accused him of taking bribe for doing favours in the shop floor. Incidentally the worker happened to be an office bearer of the union. The incident sparked a wordy duel and the matter was reported to my colleague.
Immediately he went to the site and was promptly handed over a complaint letter by both the parties. A domestic enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry proceedings the enquiry officer asked the worker "Did you offer Rs.50/- to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?" As the incident happened in the shopfloor and there were workers who stood witness supporting the line incharge (loyal workers ofcourse). The worker admitted "Yes I offered Rs.50/-". The enquiry officer then recorded his observations and presented it to the Management.
The Management initiated action against the worker. The case went up for hearing before the statutory authorities. There was an unexpected turn in the event.
When the statutory officer asked him "Did you offer Rs.50/- as bribe to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?". The worker said "No, I did not offer Rs.50/- as bribe to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?."
When the officer asked him then why did he state that he offered Rs.50/- for sanctioning leave during the enquiry proceedings. The worker promptly replied, the questions of the enquiry officer and the statutory officer were different. While the enquiry officer asked him whether he offered Rs.50/-, the statutory officer asked him whether he offered Rs.50/- as BRIBE
Further he added that he only repaid a loan of Rs.50/- he got from the line incharge and this cannot be considered as bribe and the second incident (sanctioning leave) was independent.
He also cited that he only answered to the first part of the enquiry officer's query. Did you offer Rs.50/- (Yes I offered Rs.50/-), so technically he did not answer the second part of the enquiry officer's query "for sanctioning leave". However, after cross examination the statutory officer upheld the Management's decision.
Hence, it should not be mere reporting it should be a First Hand Information as cited by Mr.Dinesh V.Divekar.
M.V.Kannan
From India, Madras
I second Mr.Dinesh V.Divekar and I have a reason for it. In one of my past employments there was an incident that was reported from one of the group company and my colleague was overall incharge for all the manufacturing units of the company. The incident was
A worker had sought leave from a line incharge and when he refused he offered him a bribe of Rs.50/- (this was almost 20 years back) to humilate him in front of co workers. He had also accused him of taking bribe for doing favours in the shop floor. Incidentally the worker happened to be an office bearer of the union. The incident sparked a wordy duel and the matter was reported to my colleague.
Immediately he went to the site and was promptly handed over a complaint letter by both the parties. A domestic enquiry was initiated. During the enquiry proceedings the enquiry officer asked the worker "Did you offer Rs.50/- to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?" As the incident happened in the shopfloor and there were workers who stood witness supporting the line incharge (loyal workers ofcourse). The worker admitted "Yes I offered Rs.50/-". The enquiry officer then recorded his observations and presented it to the Management.
The Management initiated action against the worker. The case went up for hearing before the statutory authorities. There was an unexpected turn in the event.
When the statutory officer asked him "Did you offer Rs.50/- as bribe to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?". The worker said "No, I did not offer Rs.50/- as bribe to the line incharge for sanctioning leave?."
When the officer asked him then why did he state that he offered Rs.50/- for sanctioning leave during the enquiry proceedings. The worker promptly replied, the questions of the enquiry officer and the statutory officer were different. While the enquiry officer asked him whether he offered Rs.50/-, the statutory officer asked him whether he offered Rs.50/- as BRIBE
Further he added that he only repaid a loan of Rs.50/- he got from the line incharge and this cannot be considered as bribe and the second incident (sanctioning leave) was independent.
He also cited that he only answered to the first part of the enquiry officer's query. Did you offer Rs.50/- (Yes I offered Rs.50/-), so technically he did not answer the second part of the enquiry officer's query "for sanctioning leave". However, after cross examination the statutory officer upheld the Management's decision.
Hence, it should not be mere reporting it should be a First Hand Information as cited by Mr.Dinesh V.Divekar.
M.V.Kannan
From India, Madras
Dear Kannan
I appreciate your input; as always - a value addition.
Your anecdote, too, is interesting !!
However, I wish to point out a fact; notwithstanding whether the quasi-judicial procedure, as cited above, has been stated truly or not.
This may kindly be noted that during any Enquiry Process; the Enquiry Officer or the presiding officer should not ask any "leading questions", else there is a chance that later a court may strike out the proceedings as vitiated.
Leading questions are allowed only during the Cross-examination of witnesses; and it is by either side.
An Enquiry Officer is expecting to be (or at least, act) NEUTRAL. Thus, such questions are not expected from him; as this would question the Principles of Natural Justice.
If a senior officer is appointed for such role, and he acts PARTIAL in this manner by asking Leading Questions; can a subordinate lower level employee say NO to his questions ??
No wonder, the employee said Yes at that point of time.
Later on, may be due to the guidance from his TU colleagues/co-worker, he was able to REFUTE his earlier admission.
As HR professionals we must take care of such proceedings and procedures; so that the Enquiry process is not declared a sham later on by the judicial courts.
Such Kangaroo courts where the "Judge" himself takes on the roles of Prosecution are not considered fair in Law.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
I appreciate your input; as always - a value addition.
Your anecdote, too, is interesting !!
However, I wish to point out a fact; notwithstanding whether the quasi-judicial procedure, as cited above, has been stated truly or not.
This may kindly be noted that during any Enquiry Process; the Enquiry Officer or the presiding officer should not ask any "leading questions", else there is a chance that later a court may strike out the proceedings as vitiated.
Leading questions are allowed only during the Cross-examination of witnesses; and it is by either side.
An Enquiry Officer is expecting to be (or at least, act) NEUTRAL. Thus, such questions are not expected from him; as this would question the Principles of Natural Justice.
If a senior officer is appointed for such role, and he acts PARTIAL in this manner by asking Leading Questions; can a subordinate lower level employee say NO to his questions ??
No wonder, the employee said Yes at that point of time.
Later on, may be due to the guidance from his TU colleagues/co-worker, he was able to REFUTE his earlier admission.
As HR professionals we must take care of such proceedings and procedures; so that the Enquiry process is not declared a sham later on by the judicial courts.
Such Kangaroo courts where the "Judge" himself takes on the roles of Prosecution are not considered fair in Law.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Dear Shajidivya,
After raising the query, you had sufficient number of responses. Now sufficient number of days also have passed. Would you mind to confirm how did you handle the situation? How did you make a report? What happened further?
We will be thankful to you if you could keep us in the loop of information.
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
After raising the query, you had sufficient number of responses. Now sufficient number of days also have passed. Would you mind to confirm how did you handle the situation? How did you make a report? What happened further?
We will be thankful to you if you could keep us in the loop of information.
Dinesh V Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
ESI - Construction site workers.pdf
Construction Site Safety.ppt