HRD forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

‘Lollygate’ the latest incident plaguing the CSIRO

Notify me of new replies via email
HC Online | 14 Mar 2013, 12:00 AM Agree 0
The latest incident in a string of industrial claims plaguing the CSIRO – after an office-supplied hard boiled candy led to a tooth breakage, the organisation enacted a flat ban of candies at meetings and training sessions.
  • Juliana | 14 Mar 2013, 04:44 PM Agree 0
    This is a classic example of someone who takes a company 'for a ride' and ruins the good natured people who have genuine claims. His personality seems to be the only problem at the company.
  • Josh | 15 Mar 2013, 07:25 AM Agree 0
    On the limited information reported here, the story sounds like the employer have reacted in a knee jerk fashion.
    The story might be viewed as being less about one man 'ruining' the system for others, and more about an employer taking immediate action that may not have been required in the circumstances and considered unecessarily risk averse.
  • Paula Kloosterman | 15 Mar 2013, 08:34 AM Agree 0
    What is this adjustment disorder? I have dealt with a claim citing this and it seems to me to be the term used when they can't find anything really wrong except the worker/employer relationship is broken.
  • SNJ | 15 Mar 2013, 10:02 AM Agree 0
    Compo pay on broken tooth, Yes for me.
    Completely banning lollies? That's bound to raise more than just a few eyebrows and rightly or wrongly it would be towards Jack.

    CSIRO is lucky this claim was not lodged under Work Cover SA.The outcome could've been very different.
  • Jack Hoffman | 17 Mar 2013, 10:57 AM Agree 0
    I would like to set the record straight as far as my tooth injury is concerned.

    I was placed in a situation by my employer that I needed to attend a certification course that lasted three days. The requirement of my position at the Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex is that I was officially certified to NASA soldering standards. This required compulsory re-certification including examination every two years which involved a written exam every two hours after presented lectures. The requirement was that I was to attain a minimum of 80% pass mark in each test. I believe there was around 10 tests. Failure of this re-certification process would have resulted in the loss of my job, in a similar way that if your job required a valid driver's or pilots licence.

    Placed in a position of high stress where I needed to be very focused on the subject at hand. During this re-certification process I didn't have the luxury to grab a cup of coffee or stop for 2 minutes to take a breather.

    Personally I never buy lollies when I go shopping or stop at a petrol station. I have never been a "sweets" person even as a child. I prefer savory food snacks like cheese, chips, nuts, olives, etc, but not lollies.

    Now I was forced to endure this stressful re-certification course and my employer (the internal training instructor) placed a bowl of SOFT lollies such as "Minties", "Redskins",etc in front of me in a well intentioned a genuinely friendly gesture to make the students (two of us) feel comfortable during the process. Due to the stress I was under because of the situation I was in (three day training with compulsory exams) I was consuming the lollies in a very similar fashion to a smoker who is under stress - one after the other. The injury developed over several hours and not as most people assume by a single incident by biting onto a hard lolly. This was existing dental work that I had done six years ago and the constant separation of teeth from a sticky substance pulled the fillings apart. Consider that if your employer exposed you to asbestos fibers and you developed an injury they would be responsible and in a similar light lollies are not always safe (for example an infant can choke on one and a mother should never give one to her newborn child). In a similar vein you would not feed "Minties" to a brain surgeon who is performing a complex operation on a patient or a pilot who is landing a A380 Airbus with over 500 people on board. There are simply times when you working that you are 100% focused on a task that you are not thinking about the environment around you.I cannot imagine an air hostess would hand a boiling cup of hot black tea to an A380 Airbus pilot who was thirsty. If the pilot burnt his mouth it would be the air hostesses fault (therefore the employer) and not the pilot's. The pilot is so preoccupied with landing a plane safely that he cannot afford to consider if his cup of tea is too hot. Comcare was 100% informed of the circumstances of my injury and had no hesitation to award the compensation. Unfortunately the media and some people who naturally judge other people harshly automatically assume that I was a lazy layabout stuffing his face with hard candies seeking a free handout is far from the truth. In fact I was under severe financial stress due to a mortgage and could not afford to see a dentist, so is it reasonable for people to expect that I deny myself a legitimate opportunity to have my tooth repaired and let my tooth naturally decay in order to satisfy their false assumption that someone who claims over such an incident is dishonest.
  • serious? | 18 Mar 2013, 11:16 AM Agree 0
    You ate a lollie, you broke a tooth...get over it and move on....when did australia become such a whinging litigious society
Post a reply