Comments by Bill Scholes

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

It would be useful to know more about the reason for the question but there is no reason in principle for it to be a conflict of interest. In practice, is someone likely to be administering first aid in a building that is being evacuated? Clearly the priority would be to get the person to a place of safety first. The caveat is of course that for either role, any workplace has to have sufficient coverage to deal with reasonably foreseeable risks.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

I hope I understand what lies behind this question. I'll start the ball rolling by stating that HSWA places responsibilities for managing health and safety upon employers, i.e. they are responsible for their employees. Someone acting in the role of "head of premises" may have day to day responsibility for maintaining health and safety arrangements on a given site,(e.g. maintenance of floors, stairs, fire drills, lighting, legionella testing etc.) but this wouldn't override the employer's responsibilities towards their own staff who are working on that site. Clearly you would have responsibility for those staff over whom you have operational control (this would include regular sub-contractors such as cleaners).

A simple principle to consider here is that if you don't have line management responsibility for staff, you don't have authority over them. Hence it follows that you cannot be held accountable for their actions or omissions. Those staff must comply with proper health and safety guidelines that you establish, but if they don't, then responsibility for them lies with their employer.

An example is that of staff who work on the trading floors in the city of London. I have, on a number of occasions, been told by FM's that they cannot get these staff out the building when they carry out a fire drill. Can the FM really be held responsible for this? Clearly not. Although the FM might have been given authority to evacuate the building, he/she is not the employer. Thus, if these staff choose to ignore the fire drill, it might be that the only option available to the FM is to advise the employer of the problem and of the lack of co-operation of the staff. Under HSWA it would be the employer's responsibility to take appropriate action.

In summary therefore, you undoubtedly will have responsibilities for health and safety but only those that sit within your job remit, i.e. if it is your job to make the workplace physically safe, then that's your responsibility. If employees of another employer are in that workplace then your job is to make them safe by doing your job properly. If they fail to co-operate then your responsibility would be to advise their employers and take whatever other action is available to you. Employers might think that they can palm off responsibility for their staff but it is an absolute point of law that they can't.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

I can sympathise with you because I have encountered many occasions where poorly controlled youngsters have put themselves or others at risk.

I am assuming that these staff are not employed by you, but rather they are employed by the various tenants of the building. Additionally, you don?t say under what circumstances these staff are using the building, (e.g. are they just in town and wish to use the facilities or perhaps they have legitimate reasons for being there with their children). In some places the use of such arrangements is taken as a right of staff (even if this is only assumed by them). Withdrawing such a convenience (no pun intended) may cause some discontent among staff (especially amongst those staff who do properly supervise their children in the building). It may also paint you as a ?jobs-worth?, which can have effects on managing other risks.

With the foregoing factors in mind, the question of whether or not you keep them out will be a matter of whether or not you have the authority to do so. If you wish to ban the practice and have the authority to do so, then there?s nothing to stop you. It would be sensible to discuss the issue with the various employers and explain the implications to them. You can thus formulate a policy that they (the employers) too can support.

Ultimately, however, if you have the responsibility for the health and safety of persons in your building, you do have the right to establish safety policies and procedures to fulfil your duties. Perhaps the problem can be managed differently, e.g. very limited access to ground floor areas only. In any event, the best way to deal with it will be to arrive at a policy that, to the extent possible, everyone is aware of and supports.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

There are no specific legal requirements relating to this issue. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does however require employers to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees (and others). This would logically mean that employees cannot be required to carry out tasks that are patently unsafe. Employees in exercising their duties under the same legislation may at times therefore refuse to undertake work on the grounds of health and safety.

Clearly, if such an occasion arises, the employer must ensure that no negative reaction (reprisal / unwarranted discipline) occurs as a result, and thus the question raised is a valid one.

To show that your company has taken steps to deal with this issue it is necessary to develop a clear and enforceable policy on how employees are to raise concerns about health and safety. This policy would outline various means of communication, such as safety representatives / committees, defect and near miss reporting etc. It must of course be in harmony with other policies, such as those dealing with the requirements of employment law e.g. bullying, harassment, discrimination etc. The policy should be clearly communicated to all employees to ensure they are aware both of their right (and need) to refuse work on the grounds of genuine concerns about health and safety, and their responsibility to report any conditions or practices in the workplace that they perceive to be unsafe.

Management should then be seen to respond in a reasonable way to any concerns raised about health and safety in the workplace, in line with the stated policy. It is necessary to understand that a company will be judged not just on the basis of its written commitment to this issue, but also on the basis of the action/s that it is seen to take.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

It's probably worth starting with the legal requirements. All employers have to record accidents that occur in their workplace/s. This is in order to comply with both Social Security and Health and Safety legislation.

As an employer in his/her own right, an FM contractor would have to keep records of all accidents occurring to their own staff and any other persons affected by their work activities. It is possible that this would involve the use of several accident books in different locations. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does of course mean that a system needs to be established to enable the entries to be collated. Having such a system doesn't compromise obligations under DPA since copies of the original entries in the accident book can be sent to certain persons, e.g. HR or H&S Manager/Officer as persons with legitimate right to such information.

Having double entries of accidents, e.g. in your own book and the client's book is not really an issue. It is certainly wise to record all accidents involving contractors/sub-contractors that happen on your premises, not least because such information could be part of a defence in a legal case at a later date.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

As well as the legal duty to record accidents there is the requirement is to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This was why the B1510 Accident Book was revised and responsibility for its production handed over from Department of Work and Pensions to the Health and Safety Executive.

Whilst you could use an in-house version provided that you meet the requirements of DPA, I think that might present some issues, especially if you intend to capture the data electronically. My advice would be to use the HSE?s version (or other publisher) as it is a good document to use (e.g. it has guidance on RIDDOR reporting) and is DPA compliant. Also, even if you have numerous locations to cover, I really don?t see what you?ll save in creating your own documentation.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

The Approved Code of Practice associated with the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 suggests that each employee (in an office environment) should have at least 11 cubic metres (up to a maximum ceiling height of 3 metres). This figure, however, is for unoccupied space and so does not take into account the furniture and equipment. As you can probably visualise, 11 cubic metres does not represent a very large floor area, typically an area of about 2.5 m x 2.5m.

Other regulations apply, e.g. Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 which requires that ?the workstation shall be dimensioned and designed so as to provide sufficient space for the operator or user to change position and vary movements.? You will also need to leave sufficient space between desks to allow for safe access and egress especially in the event of emergencies. BS5588 - 11:1997 suggests a gap of 600mm for less than ten people easily able to move, and 900 for a wheelchair user.

For your 10 staff therefore you will probably need 50 - 60 square metres depending on the layout and the factors mentioned above.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

It is good practice for all users to be aware of the regular basic visual checks that can be carried out on electrical equipment that they use, however this should not be confused with the formal visual inspections mentioned in the HSE Guidance. Such formal inspections may require that covers are taken off equipment, plugs are opened etc. and therefore should be carried out by a ?competent? person within the requirements of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. This does not have to be a qualified electrician, but it should at the very least be person who has sufficient knowledge, training and experience to identify problems.

With a view to the checklist, it is unlikely that all of the questions could be answered without some dismantling of equipment and I would advise that it is probably better to invest in training maintenance personnel than to trust in any assumed competences of users.

For further info see HSE publications: IND(G)236 Maintaining portable electrical equipment in offices and other low risk environments (available free at www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg236.pdf ) or HSG107 Maintaining portable and transportable electrical equipment (available from www.hsebooks.com

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

Nina, there is not an absolute requirement for doors to open outwards but it is preferable and considered to be good practice.

Whether or not your own circumstances will permit you to continue with the existing doors has to be based on a fire risk assessment carried out by a competent person. Your H&S consultant may not possess the competencies to do this and may thus just be exercising an understandable professional caution.

WPL can provide assistance in this area if required. 0870 7778881

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

Hi Dave,

Although much of the training that is given to fire wardens is generic in nature, to fully meet your needs, it also has to be tailored to your individual workplace.

The type of subjects you would expect to cover would be basic principles of fire, how it starts and spreads, basic fire prevention methods, e.g. keeping fuel and ignition sources apart, good housekeeping etc., the use of portable fire extinguishers (with practical demonstration if required), means of escape, etc. A test paper (usually multi-choice) is a common means of checking the understanding of the trainees. Training providers would normally issue certificates of attendance for such a course.

If you have any further queries, please contact Rob Statham or Gordon Ferguson on 0870 777 8881 for more information.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

The simple answer to this question is that there is no standard template, and in my opinion there is no need for one.

Professional H&S Managers are bound by a code of conduct that requires them to highlight health and safety issues to the organisation that employs them. This means providing well founded advice to directors, managers (and fellow employees), regardless of self-interest (e.g. fear of repercussions). It also means looking for ways to constructively influence those within organisations. A ?cover your back? approach may indeed be necessary to a point, but remember that if something should go seriously wrong, HSE will investigate not just pieces of paper, they will look at what really happened and who could have prevented it.

If the advice you give as a professional is not followed, then to some extent this is a management prerogative. Management doesn?t have to do everything that the H&S manager says, but, however, if his advice is well-founded and they ignore it, the responsibility for subsequent failures is theirs. The role of the H&S Manager often involves pursuing actions that have not been completed by due dates. He may well be held accountable if he failed to do this, but the lack of action is the responsibility of the person to whom it is delegated. If the H&S manager is doing his job and actions are progress chased there will be some supporting evidence of this. It will not, however, be in some form of standard template, it will be in e-mails, memos, risk assessments, etc. If your organisation likes to have conversations ?off the record?, then follow them up with e-mails putting the conversations and the required actions ?on the record?.

Of course, where serious risks are involved, professional integrity demands that Health and Safety Managers take appropriate action e.g. escalate the issues to a higher level, (e.g. senior managers, directors) and in extreme circumstances to the HSE or Local Authority.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

Julian, my apologies for misunderstanding your issue. The answer, however, is the same with the DSE Regs. being the relevant legislation. They make no specific reference to fonts size but state simply that:

?The characters on the screen shall be well-defined and clearly formed, of adequate size and with adequate spacing between the characters and lines?
?The image on the screen should be stable, with no flickering or other forms of instability.?
?The brightness and the contrast between the characters and the background shall be easily adjustable by the operator or user, and also be easily adjustable to ambient conditions.?

To answer your question, this is all that the law says about font size at present.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

The use of Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) is becoming increasingly common especially amongst commuters. The most notable legislation that might have a bearing on their use is the Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992.

The guidance to these regulations (HSE Leaflet indg36) states that employers should: ?In setting up software, choose options giving text that is large enough to read easily on your screen, when you are sitting in a normal, comfortable working position. Select colours that are easy on the eye (avoid red text on a blue background, or viceversa). Individual characters on the screen should be sharply focused and should not flicker or move. If they do, the VDU may need servicing or adjustment.?

It should be noted though that the DSE Regs.1992 apply to DSE users, i.e. those people who use such equipment for significant periods of time. The definition of a user varies, but it is generally considered that at least one hour?s continuous use each day is a starting point. Given the nature of use of PDAs (i.e. usually sporadic), this would mean that for most employees, their use is unlikely to come within the scope of the regulations. Employers should nevertheless establish the extent of employee usage and if this is significant they must ?so far as is reasonably practicable? comply with the DSE Regs.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

The question appears to have been adequately addressed insofar that there is no legal requirement to provide natural lighting. The best practice would suggest that in most office environments, a mixture of natural and artificial light is preferable to light purely from artificial sources. However, not to be overlooked are the difficulties that such light can create for DSE users. It would also be wise for employers to consider the impact on staff morale and perceived wellbeing where no natural light is available. Guidelines on staff occupancy levels tend to gravitate around ventilation requirements and space required for the nature of work undertaken. Workplace lighting levels are also largely determined by the type of work being undertaken in conjunction with access/egress needs rather than the personal preferences of employees.

Bill Scholes - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 16 posts

To answer your question it is worth considering the objective of ?adequate fire safety training?. Quite simply, this is, to ensure that all people know what to do in the event of fire in order to preserve their personal safety. This would in the majority of cases involve knowledge of evacuation procedures but may also involve some ?first-aid? fire fighting i.e. tackling small fires where safe to do so, (and where this does not jeopardise a speedy evacuation). All staff should be provided with enough training to enable them to play their part in safely executing emergency procedures. This is not the same for all since some staff, e.g. Fire Wardens or Fire Marshalls will have greater responsibilities than others. Such staff need to be selected on the basis of their ability to discharge their respective responsibilities. Training of necessity, will include some theoretical content such as ?what to do when the alarm sounds? or ?which fire exit should I head for?. However, to be adequate, it will also provide staff with opportunities to practice the procedures e.g. fire drills. Lack of practice may well lead to confusion in a real emergency, in turn causing delays in evacuation.

The question you raise concerning the presence of members of the public highlights the fact that in general it is not possible to train them in such procedures. Occupiers of premises thus have a duty of care to ensure that enough competent staff are in place to effect emergency procedures, thereby securing public safety. Therefore where members of the public are present it may be necessary to have persons trained to achieve evacuation as well as those who are trained in the use of fire extinguishers and who could thus, if appropriate, tackle small fires. Fire Wardens/Fire Marshalls may well carry out either role but it should be noted that the critical factors are that roles are clearly understood and that responsibilities are effectively executed. Establishing a clear safety plan and providing Fire Warden/Fire Marshall training to the right members of staff will overcome the risk you describe of ?someone paying insufficient attention and using the wrong sort of extinguisher?. In addition, such well trained Fire Wardens/Fire Marshalls can be instrumental in training the remaining members of staff in the emergency procedures.

Ultimately, the decisions you make about the numbers of staff deployed to each role will be based on your fire safety risk assessment (a responsibility that the occupier bears even if the premises are subject to a Fire Certificate). That risk assessment should be conducted by a competent person/s i.e. someone with sufficient knowledge and understanding of the workplace and risks presented, as well as available measures to control those risks. It should take into account those who would be put at risk in the event of fire, e.g. employees, visitors such as members of the public, disabled persons and should describe the measures necessary to control those risks. These measures will be the foundation of your safety plan. Whilst this may sound onerous, often it is a relatively straight forward exercise. HSE provides guidance in "Fire Safety : An Employer's Guide" available from HSE Books. Workplace Law Group can provide in-company Fire Warden/Fire Marshall training tailored to your specific needs.

Fire Risk Assessment In-house Training http://www.workplacelaw.net/eshop/product_info.php?product_id=234

Fire Warden In-house Training
http://www.workplacelaw.net/eshop/product_info.php?product_id=411

Workplace Law are holding a Fire Conference in October 2005. For further details, contact Tom Bett on 01223 431051 or tom.bett@workplacelaw.net