|
Health and Safety Myths
Don't Believe everything you read in newspapers.
Information and Consultation Regulations
Smokefree – countdown to 1st July
Are you prepared for a smoke free environment?
Sticks and Stones and Harassment.
(and the odd banana)
Poor old HSE (Health and Safety Executive) get blamed for lots of things that aren’t their fault. They have even been wrongly accused in the newspapers of banning bonfires and making children wear goggles to play conkers.
Now they have started to fight back. Their website features a “myth of the month” and the first myth to be debunked is that the HSE has banned stepladders.
You can’t blame them for fighting back.
On 17th January 2007 the Daily Mail carried a story headlined “Firefighters banned from using Stepladders”. When you read the article it explains that the Fire Service are reviewing their practice of using other people’s stepladders when fitting smoke-alarms. Now it seems to me perfectly sensible to be careful about using borrowed ladders. It’s a principle of good health and safety that you make sure your equipment is safe before you use it. The problem is that the headline was misleading. Anyone who read it without studying the full article could get the impression that stepladders have been banned altogether.
The Times article on January 18th was even worse, with a headline stating “New safety rule for firefighters: stay off that ladder”. The reporter stated in a fairly incredulous tone that “The brigade is reviewing its stepladder policy after the Fire Brigades Union pointed out that a firefighter on a stepladder not much more than 6ft from the floor may be contravening the Health and Safety Work at Height Regulations 2005”.
Now I don’t know if that reporter has ever fallen from a height of “not much more than 6ft” but he wouldn’t be laughing if he did. The tragic fact is that a lot of people have been killed and very seriously injured in falls like that.
To put the record straight, HSE say that for straightforward, short duration work stepladders and ladders can be a good option. But you wouldn’t want to be wobbling about on them doing complex tasks for long periods. A large number of workers are seriously injured or killed each year using ladders and stepladders. They go on to say:
Yes – we want people to use the right equipment for the job.
Yes – there are some common-sense rules for using them safely.
But no – we have not banned them!
“Vee hav vays of making you talk….”
It takes me back to when I was a kid. Every Thursday I would get my copy of the Tiger or the Eagle or whatever comic was in fashion. Looking back now, the characters seem so terribly stereotyped. Desperate Dan had an eating disorder. Dennis the Menace had a problem with authority. And Roy of the Rovers just couldn’t bear to lose.
But I loved the war-heroes, especially the fighter pilots. My hero would down a couple of enemy planes before breakfast every week (always shooting carefully so the pilots could bale-out). But every now and again his Spitfire would take a hit and he’d parachute into enemy territory. Then he’d be captured and interrogated, telling them nothing of course. The treatment was never brutal but the Kommandant (iron cross pinned on tunic) could always induce terror just by uttering the sinister phrase “Englishman, vee hav vays of making you talk………”
Times have moved on. But it seems the Europeans are still looking across the channel and finding ways to make us “talk”. Take the Information and Consultation Regulations 2004.
The background to these regulations is that some “mainland European” countries have had a strong tradition of worker-participation at board level. The Germans had worker-representatives on their large company boards since soon after the war (don’t mention the war). And since the early 80’s French worker representatives have had the right to attend board meetings.
The Brits never had any stomach for giving worker’s representatives a legal right to be involved in board-level decisions. We never wanted “forced-participation”.
But as members of the European Union we must comply with European Directives. And Directive No. 2002/14 requires each country to “establish a general framework for informing and consulting employees”. So the British Government had no choice…
Find out how it affects you in the full article.
The Information and Consultation Regulations were born.
At first these regulations only applied to businesses with 150 or more employees. However from April 2007 they are triggered if you employ 100+ employees. And from April 2008 they will apply to companies with 50 people or more.
But you have to hand it to Parliament. When they framed the regulations they made full allowance for the apathy factor.
With most regulations, if they apply to you, you have to do something (or risk getting into trouble). These regulations are different. You don’t have to do anything. Absolutely nothing. Nichts. Rien. At least not unless you are asked to.
What the regulations do is give your employees the right to make you set up a formal consultation process. But you are only forced to act if at least 15 of your workers (or 10% of them whichever number is higher) make a written request.
And if enough people make a written request, what happens then?
The next stage is to hold a ballot to elect representatives from the workforce. Once the representatives are elected, the Company then has to negotiate with them to decide the detailed arrangements for consulting and informing the workforce in the future.
So what should you do to prepare for the Information and Consultation Regulations?
The first thing to say is that if you have fewer than 50 employees, you don’t even need to think about doing anything. If you have over 50 people and you think your people are relatively happy with the way you keep them informed, you could take the view that it’s unlikely that 15 or more of them will make a written request for formal arrangements. In that case you needn’t do anything.
On the other hand if you are concerned that a lot of people will put a request in writing you could take the initiative to set up arrangements. The way the regulations work, if you have a pre-existing arrangement, it takes at least 40% of the workforce to challenge it.
Setting up a consultative arrangement isn’t difficult but it must conform to certain criteria. Picasso HR can help make sure you comply.
It’s official!
What, the date when we have to stop smoking in the pub? It’s 1st July isn’t it?
No, the new word.
What new word?
Smokefree. It’s a new word invented by the government. It didn’t exist before. We used to have to say smoke-free, but the government has banned the hyphen. Now we have a smokefree law and we’re going to have smokefree premises and smokefree vehicles.
Now I don’t mind the fact that I will be able to go to the pub and come home without my clothes reeking of smoke. But what did the poor old hyphen do to deserve such treatment? It’s the thin end of the wedge. We’ll be living in culdesacs next.
But there’s nothing we can do for the hyphen.
Instead I had better help you get uptodate (there I go again) with these smokefree regulations. There are a few things you need to know.
- The final regulations have just finished their passage through parliament.
- The government have produced a booklet with all the information you need to know.
- During April, all businesses should receive a copy in the post.
- The main place to go for information is the smokefree website. www.smokefreeengland.co.uk.
- If you go to the resources section of the website you can order FREE signs.
Signs
It’s probably a good idea to get your FREE signs ordered in good time because demand is going to very high. You will need a no-smoking sign at every entrance to smokefree premises. The signs must meet the following requirements:
- be a minimum of A5 in area (210mm x 148mm)
- display the international no-smoking symbol* at least 70mm in diameter
- carry the following words in characters that can be easily read: ‘No smoking. It is against the law to smoke in these premises’
If you have a separate entrance and it is only used by staff, you can have a smaller sign without the wording but it must include the international no-smoking symbol at least 70mm in diameter.
Company vehicles
If used by more than one person they will need to display a no-smoking sign in each compartment of the vehicle in which people can be carried. This must show the international no-smoking symbol at least 70mm in diameter.
Signs can be ordered from smokefreeengland.co.uk/resources or from the Smokefree England information line on 0800 169 1697.
Someone told me I will get an onthespotfine if I use a hyphen in a smokefree word. I don’t believe it. I think that’s just scaretactics.
Remember the old rhyme. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”
Well forget it. Nowadays it goes something like … “sticks and stones may break my bones but names may violate my dignity and create a hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, giving me grounds for a claim of harassment under anti-discrimination law”.
Take the example of Robert Whitfield who worked as an office manager for Cleanaway UK. Robert was gay and his boss often made unpleasant remarks, using words like “queer” and “queen”. Then one day, Robert had had enough and he resigned. Those “names” didn’t break any bones but the Employment Tribunal decided they amounted to harassment and awarded Robert £35,000 in compensation.
Find out how an owner acted totally unreasonably and got away with it in the full article.
A record amount of compensation for homophobic harassment was awarded to Jonah Ditton who was fired from his highly-paid sales job after just eight days working for CP Publishing. His boss claimed that Jonah was dismissed because he was “psychologically unbalanced”. The tribunal decided otherwise. They found that Jonah had been subjected to abusive and offensive comments on the grounds of his sexual orientation and awarded him £118,000.
The names they used, like “wee poof” and “bent”, certainly hurt Jonah and cost the Company very dearly.
Alan Whitehead used to work for Brighton Palace Pier as an Arcade Operations Manager. Alan was off work due to sickness and when he returned to work he heard that while he was away his manager had referred to him as “a f***ing chutney ferret”. Alan was very upset about this and resigned. When the Employment Tribunal heard the case they awarded him almost £10,000, of which £4,000 was for injury to feelings.
In this case, just one “exceptionally offensive” comment, even when the employee wasn’t present to hear it, was enough to justify a constructive dismissal claim and a finding of harassment.
Patricia Moonlight was subjected to some very harsh words when she arranged to go for a medical appointment during her lunch-break. Pat worked as a supervisor in a Dundee butcher’s shop which was run as a partnership by two brothers, Frank and Grant Yorke. Their father (known as Mister Yorke) used to own the business and was still involved in it. He had a strong presence and the staff regarded him as the overall boss.
Now Pat did the right thing when she made her medical appointment. She agreed the arrangements with Frank Yorke and organised cover for herself. But when Mr Yorke (senior) found out, he was outraged. He shouted at Pat telling her “that’s no use to me I have a business to run”. When she explained that she was unwell he said “if you’re not well, then just go and go now”.
Pat told Frank Yorke about what had happened and how upset she was. He said he would look into it and call her the next day but he never did. Having not heard from Frank, Pat wrote a letter of resignation due to the way she had been treated by Mr Yorke (senior).
When the case went to the Tribunal, they found that Mr Yorke’s behaviour had been “seriously unreasonable” and amounted to constructive dismissal. So Pat won her case.Then the Company appealed. The appeal hinged on the fact that Mr Yorke (senior) was neither an owner nor an employee of the business. Technically he had no authority at all, so in the eyes of the law he was a third-party and the Company was not responsible for his actions. At the end of all that, Pat lost her legal case.
As Ian Hislop once famously said, "If that's justice, I'm a banana". | 
