Comments by Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

You are entirely correct.

In terms of s.4, the Court of Appeal has held that the duty is wide enough to include an obligation to provide information and instruction to the employees of others (see R. v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd).

In the context of construction operations where the employer should (under reg 11 of the CDM Regulations) be giving all relevant information to the planning supervisor, this is perhaps not as likely to have a direct impact, however, it highlights the point.

I hope this assists.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

Carol

I very much suspect that the answer to your question will be "Yes", the answer has to be qualified until the legislation is actually passed, however, I think it is inconceivable that smokers rooms will survive.

Hope this assists.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

The building regulations require that every toilet must be arranged so that the watercloset (or waterless closet) and washbasin are separated by a door from any room or space used wholly or partly for the preparation or consumption of food. There would appear to be no specific legal requirement for double doors.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

Abby

It is probably easiest to respond to your two questions together.

The ACoP minimum numbers of facilities require 6 waterclosets / 6 washstations, assuming you have in excess of 100 employees (but < 120 - which is how I read your question). Basic number is 5 of each (see para 201, table 1), additional numbers dealt with by para 203.

Those figures do not, however, provide in any way for a male / female split. Assuming a 50 / 50 split and no more than 25 disabled employees, your 4 / 4 / 2 designation (I assume that the 2 mixed use are would be OK, on the basis of the ACoP figures.

If the split is other than 50 / 50 you may have to re-visit to ensure compliance with the ACoP.

You should also bear in mind para 193 of the ACoP - if breaks are taken at set times you may need more facilities.

I hope that this assists.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

Whilst there is currently no direct obligation on employers to protect employees from the effects of tobacco smoke, the general duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees at work, in so far as is reasonably practicable, is almost certainly broad enough to include the effects of passive smoking.

HSC had originally intended to produce an Approved Code of Practice setting out various steps that an employer should adopt relative to passive smoking, however, this was scrapped in favour of an HSC guidance note on the subject.

Smoking in the workplace is an everyday issue for workplace managers in terms of protection of staff from passive smoking and the regulation of the working environment.

After a lengthy consultation process the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) were to publish an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) to deal with the problem of passive smoking in the workplace. However, due to perceived difficulties with the enforcement of such a code of practice this idea has been scrapped and instead of a general guidance document entitled "Passive Smoking at Work" has been published. The guidance note suggests a number of ways in which an employer may reasonably and practically control environmental tobacco smoke including:

? a total or partial ban on smoking in the workplace;

? the physical segregation of non smokers from tobacco smoke;

? providing adequate ventilation; and

? implementing a system of work that reduces the time an employee is exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

Hopefully this assists - the other parts of your question are probably best answered by an employment specialist.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

In terms of maintenance, you will require to ensure that the equipment is maintained to standard so as to ensure that it does not expose your employees / and those who are not employees are exposed to risks to their health and safety. I anticipate that the manufacturers will make recommendations in respect of maintenance - these should be adhered to.

A periodic inspection by an independent assessor would provide useful confirmation that you are properly maintaining the equipment. Any recommendations made by the assessor should be followed.

In respect of your employees (e.g the PTI you refer to), my view is that the equipment would be covered by the PUWER regs.

I hope this assists.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

The statutory "requirement" in respect of training is to be found in s.2(2) of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, it requires employers to provide such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees.

The wording is such that training is not mandatory, however, clearly it is preferable. To answer your question, there is no minimum legal requirement.

Some form of refresher course for employees who have had the training (at a suitable interval) may be the best way for you to take matters forwards. Separate provision would be necessary for new employees.

I hope this assists.

Craig Turnbull

Craig Turnbull - MacRoberts Solicitors
Online advisor - 9 posts

Bespoke contracts from employers are never particularly well received by contractors, however, coming from an employer of your standing, I expect that you may have a better chance than most in insisting upon your own terms.

If you go with a standard form, other than FIDIC, the JCT Intermediate Form is worth considering or, alternatively, the NEC (ECC) form is becoming increasingly popular.

It is impossible to be more specific than this in commenting on general circumstances, however, I hope that this helps.

Craig Turnbull