Gillian Nightingale's newest comments

Stephen

I don't believe there is any exemption for public bodies within the security licencing system? The licence framework applies when a company/body contracts out various security activites to a private company/body. A public body, e.g. an nhs trust, or a local education authority, would still have to ensure that any contactors it used for wheel clamping for example had the required SAI licences.

If I have misunderstood your question, please let me know.

Hi Paul,

Workplace Law has published a white paper on fire doors, which contains lots of information on fire door maintenance. As a premium member, you will be able to download it instantly from here: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/11507 . Whilst it is not a checklist per se, it should help you to know what to look for when inspecting a fire door.

I hope that helps!

Paul
Minimum holiday entitlement has now risen by four days to 24 days (for full time employees) - this entitlement can still include bank holidays. Please see the following article on Workplace Law Network for more information: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/11555

Louis

As an employer you have the same health and safety liability in law to ensure the safety of all your employees while working, whether they are working at home, working remotely (e.g. visiting client’s premises), or flexible workers who may for example work partly on your premises and sometimes elsewhere. So the DSE Regulations, along with all other health and safety-related legislation, will apply, although the risk assessments you need to do will obviously need to take into account the different situations in which your staff are working.

Later this week, Workplace Law will be publishing a new Special Report that covers the issues you need to consider if your employees are working as ‘lone workers’, i.e. working by themselves.

Further information about homeworking can also be found at
http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10872

Hi Margaret

There is no legal requiment for defibrillators to be used in workplaces; the decision should be based on the risk within your particular workplace and whether as an employer you are happy that you can manage their use. If you have a defibrillator on site it does have to be used by trained members of staff. Companies who have decided to provide this equipment are intending that it is available for use in a situation where the emergency services have not yet arrived on scene with their own equipment.

Training some of your staff is relatively easy, and can be covered in an intial one-day course, but does need to be repeated every year by the staff involved (probably in a 4-hour refresher course.) Please give our Training department a call if you would like further information, 0871 777 8881.

If you do provide a defibrillator on site, it needs to be locked and appropriate signage and key arrangements put in place to ensure access is only for trained staff.

Keith

I spoke to Unilever's press office, who tell me that all their products' health and safety data sheets are available to business and consumers via their consumer care line 0800 7311597. http://www.unilever.co.uk/resources/contactus.asp

I hope this helps.

Martin

Both the issue of signage and policies regarding CCTV are covered in our online Fact Sheet at http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10751

Ian

Lone workers can be extremely vulnerable and you should make sure your risk assessment has addressed all the likely risks that you or your staff have identified with your particular premises and work activities.

The specific risks are numerous, but could include

1. assault

2. undiscovered accident

3. manual handling incidents

4. working at height (if undertaking maintenance outside office hours for example).

The precautions you put in place should address these issues, for example by making a clear policy that working at height activities should not be carried out outside normal working hours. Indeed, your risk assessment may conclude that there are some premises (due to their location, previous history type of work to be undertaken etc) where lone working is not acceptable and staff need to "double-up".

Other precautions can include

1. effective training of staff on the risks of lone working and the procedures to be followed

2. the provision of personal alarms and methods of communication (consideration should be given to alarms which automatically fire if they are horizontal for a given period of time)

3. medicals; are the staff fit to work alone?

4. effective monitoring of the staff during the working period; radio contact/mobile phone contact etc.

5. ensuring the employer has an effective emergency procedure in place should something go wrong

6. monitoring and auditing the above.

You should also check your insurance position. Does the policy cover all eventualities? Are there restrictions which may affect the choice of personnel who are sent to do the work?

For more information, see http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/12968

Hi Phil

There does seem to be some strong opinion against using thse as long-term seating option - take a look at http://www.ergoweb.com/news/detail.cfm?id=1091 for example, which raises some of the issues.

We've no direct experience of using these at Workplace Law (although it does sound a good idea to liven up our editorial meetings!)

We spoke to the SIA who gave us the following statement:

"The Private Security Industry Act 2001 does not require manned guards employed in-house to be licensed unless their activities are in relation to licensed premises. In 2004, we commissioned a review to explore the benefits and implications of extending the legislation to cover in-house manned guards.

Many of those consulted felt that in-house manned guarding should be regulated. This was because of:

- The variation and absence of enforceable standards of competence and vetting;
- The potential migration of staff away from the licensed contract sector (if they cannot reach the required standards) to an unlicensed in-house sector;
- The increased risk to public safety through confusion as to who is and is not licensed and possible misplaced trust and reliance by the public.

We appreciate the strong philosophical arguments for regulating in-house security. However, there are a considerable number of political, legislative and commercial considerations that must be taken into account, not least of which is the difficulty of defining security functions across many diverse business sectors. Overcoming this difficulty will require careful planning and the suitable allocation of resources.

All of this work will require collaboration between the SIA, the private security industry and interested stakeholders. Our Stakeholder Engagement Strategy includes a commitment to hold a 'think tank' to discuss this issue. We intend to hold this in December 2007: if you would like to be considered as a participant please let us know by 9 November 2007."

Stephen - although the deadline advertised for joining the consultation process has now passsed, my contact at the SIA said if you are interested in being part of this process she would be happy to add you to the list of participants - please let me know.

Stephen
I don't believe there is any exemption for public bodies within the security licencing system? The licence framework applies when a company/body contracts out various security activites to a private company/body. A public body, e.g. an nhs trust, or a local education authority, would still have to ensure that any contactors it used for wheel clamping for example had the required SIA licences.

If I have misunderstood your question, please let me know.

There are two key pieces of legislation in this area.
Section 2(6) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) imposes a general duty on every employer to consult with safety representatives of trade unions. (The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 set out details as to the appointment of safety representatives together with their functions and the employer's duty to consult.)

Where employees are not in groups covered by trade union safety representatives, an employer has a duty to consult those employees under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations).

As a consequence an employer might have to consult employees under both sets of Regulations where different employees have different representation in the workplace.

A number of other Regulations, such as the Quarries Regulations 1999 and the CDM Regulations 2007, also include specific requirements regarding consultation with employees.

For more detail on these regulations, there is an online Factsheet on the Workplace law Network at: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10856

In terms of how this legislation is linked to European Directives, the 1996 Regulations provide for further implementation, within Great Britain, of Articles 10, 11 and 12 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC ( “the Framework Directive", OJ No. L183, 29.6.89, p.1) on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the health and safety of employees at work. There have been a number of at the European Court of Justice that are also relevant, details of which can be found in the online Regulation Finder on the Workplace Law Network at: http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10584

Mark

The White papers on our website are part of the new expanded content available only to premium members of Workplace Law Network. The complete list of current white papers can be found at http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/whitepapers, and we will be publishing new ones each week.

If you would like a free 7-day trial of our premium membership package, you can apply for free using the link in the blue box on the left-hand side on our home page below the blue membership panel.

http://www.workplacelaw.net/freeTrial

Please take a look at the following article on the Workplace Law Network - which should clear up any confusion:
http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/11585

The short answer is no. The longer (and more helpful) answer is that there are guidelines but no exact legal minimum temperature for any particular type of building.

The legislation that covers this is the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. These Regulations came into force on 1 January 1993 for new buildings and on 1 January 1996 for existing buildings.

The Regulations apply to a wide range of workplaces – not only factories, shops and offices but also, for example, schools, hospitals, hotels and places of entertainment. The Regulations replaced several pieces of older law, including parts of the Factories Act 1961 and the Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963.

The Regulations do not go into detail, but the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) – Workplace Health, Safety and Welfare – gives further guidance on how to comply.

Regulation 7 requires that "during working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable".

The ACoP suggests that, in the typical workplace, the temperature should be at least 16°C unless much of the work involves severe physical effort, in which case the temperature should be at least 13°C.

These temperatures would be considered by most building occupants to be below comfort levels. However, the ACoP defines a reasonable temperature as one which should secure the thermal comfort of people at work, allowing for clothing, activity level, radiant heat, air movement and humidity.

For air-conditioned buildings in the UK, CIBSE Guide A recommends a dry resultant temperature of between 21°C and 23°C during winter and between 22°C and 24°C in summer for continuous sedentary occupancy.

It is recognised that room temperatures in buildings without artificial cooling will exceed the summer values for some of the time but should not exceed 25°C for more than 5% of the annual occupied period (typically 125 hours).

As the organisation responsible for the premises, you could be in breach of your statutory duty if you do not grit an icy area that you know people will walk on and where there is a known or suspected risk of slipping. This statutory duty extends to all users of the premises, which could for example include visitors as well as employees and occupiers.

It would be very unwise for you to try and avoid your legal duty by avoiding any visible sign that you are responsible for the area, as you suggest in this case by not providing gritting/salt bins. While it would not be reasonable for employers and premises managers to take on responsibility for the pavements outside the premises (which as you mention are the responsibility of local authorities) you would have a responsibility to make sure everyone has safe access and egress to your building and any outside areas that you are responsible for, such as car parks and walkways.

Where there are other parties involved, for example contractors, all parties have a duty to ensure that slip/trip hazards are eliminated or adequately controlled. For example, if a company informed a contractor that they wished their paths to be gritted following a heavy frost, it still remains that company's duty to protect both employees and non-employees. It is reasonable to expect that company to check the work of the contractor, to ensure paths have been gritted properly, and if they failed to do so, it may be the company who faces liability for breach of statutory duty.

Being held accountable for breaches of health and safety legislation is only one means by which either the company or the contractor may face liability.

Should a visitor slip on the ice and make a civil claim for, say, negligence, this claim may be brought in the first instance against the company owning or occupying those premises. The contractor could be joined into the proceedings if they fell below the standard reasonably to be expected from them, and as a result were somehow responsible for the injury.

Depending upon the terms agreed between the company and the contractor, there is also the possibility of a company attempting to recover losses from the contractor, where they have had to pay out in relation to an injury, and they believe that it was due to the fault of the contractor.

Workplace Law’s recent Guide to Working with Contractors covers the issue in more detail. http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/11528

Lorraine

This is covered by the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) that goes with this legislation. The ACOP gives details as to numbers of toilets, hand basins etc. required for the number of employees.

The minimum number of facilities required is:
• Up to five people – one toilet and one wash station.
• Six–25 people – two toilets and two wash stations.
• One extra toilet and wash station for every subsequent 25 people.
The ACOP also says that separate facilities for males and females may need to be provided, unless each toilet is in a separate room capable of being secured from the inside, in which case you can leave them ‘undesignated’.


You may also need to think about provision for disabled employees. If one of your toilets is already accessible, or perhaps more suitable for modification so it can be used by staff with access limitation, this may be another reason for you not designating them male/female?

Hi Ralph

As your employees currently get bank holidays in addition to the service-related holiday, you don't need to give them additional holiday.

The legislation is bringing the total minimum holiday up to 24 days per year, but this can include bank holidays.

However you may need to check the wording of your employment contracts. If these provide for statutory holiday under the Regulations plus bank holidays such contracts will, inadvertently, have the effect of providing workers with more holiday than you perhaps intend.

You might like to take a look at the following resources on the Workplace law Network:

http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10012
http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/11434
http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/8994

Hi Chez

Sorry for the delay in replying to you.


Any vehicle used in the course of employment (explicitly authorised or merely condoned) would be subject to health and safety law. In view of this it would also be subject to the requirements placed on organisations as covered by Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007

“An organisation to which this section applies is guilty of an offence if the way
in which its activities are managed or organised—
(a) causes a person’s death, and
(b) amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the
organisation to the deceased.”

In short full health and safety policy and procedures must be in place. Failure to do so could result in liability against the organisation or even a responsible manager. Minimum areas to be covered would be

• H&S Policy covering driving at work
• Specific policies re; mobile phones use etc.
• Responsibilities clearly set out
• Robust risk assessments
• Practical systems for checking
o Vehicle suitability
o Condition
o Safety equipment
Training/information of drivers
• Monitoring arrangements

These should be set out against duties under HSW 1974, MHSW 1999 and PUWER 1998.

Workplace Law produce a Driving at Work policy and management guide, which covers all these aspects. http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10509

Duty holders would also need to be aware of obligations under Road Traffic Act & Road Vehicle (Construction & Use) Regulations. These duties would be identified by conducting robust risk assessments and reference to key guidance such as (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf)

In short if the driving is work related then an employer is responsible to check things out. Case law makes clear that liability can be minimised even eliminated where they can demonstrate robust policies re: driving at work in place. Avoiding the situation, turning a blind eye or tolerating employees driving unfit vehicles exposes the organisation to serious potential liability.

The following links on the Workplace law Network may be of interest:

http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/8518

http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/8299

You might also like to know that Workplace Law will shortly be producing an updated Driving at Work Special Report 2008, due to be published this November.

Gillian Nightingale
Membership Services Manager
Workplace Law Group

The recording of personal information about employees is covered by the Data Protection Act, and the older style of accident book permits other people to view personal details that have been entered from previous accidents. When you consider that the accident book is often left in an open office where it is readily available for any employee, or even visitor, to view, you can see how this would not comply with the Data Protection Act’s requirement that personal information must not be disclosed.

Most business now use the new style accident book that work using 'tear-off sheets'.

The HSE decided to bring out the new design of Accident Book after consultation with employers, trade unions and legal experts.

For further information please see this article on the Workplace Law Network:

http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=3481