Posted By Ashley Williams I’ve had an enquiry from someone today, their employer is refusing to let staff use the toilets at work unless they have been in work for 4 hours. If staff go before they have worked 4 hours they are timed and the time is docked off their pay. For a change this is not a call centre environment, a worrying fact in my opinion as it would appear that other sectors are now feeling they can do this to staff because call centre’s have been doing this with their staff for so long. Does anyone know which piece of legislation, if indeed one exists, gives people the right to use the toilet as and when required? The only thing I could think of is a loose interpretation of section 2 of the HSAW Act parts 2(1) and 2(2)e. Ash

Posted By Shaun William Simpson Give him some laxative chocolate. Seriously he or she is living in the dark ages. Do you have union representation? I am sure they would have something to say on the matter.

Posted By Raymond Rapp As a former H&S Rep I could certainly say a lot about this employer, but it would probably get me censured by IOSH. Seriously, there must be something in HASWA with regards to health, welfare of employees. What if one were to 'wet' themselves could this not be construed as an industrial injury? Without digging out a a vast amount of legislation I would think that common sense must prevail. Is this reasonable and practical - I think not!

Posted By Ashley Williams Alistair, Thanks for your suggestions, I had considered Articles 3 and 17 as the organisation in question could been seen as an emination of the state by nature of its charter. Thanks Ash

Posted By Diane Warne Have a look at this article from the TUC web site: http://www.hazards.org/toiletbreaks.htm which hightlights "infrequent voider's syndrome" as a hazard to health. I do hope the employer does not get away with this. Presumably they think that pregnant and menopausal women, men with prostate problems and anyone who has a urinary infection should just jolly well try harder to "hang on!" Unfortunately, as others have indicated there does not seem to be any legal prohibition of this appalling treatment of workers.

Posted By Ken Urquhart Ashley, You have certainly generated some interesting debate with this one, so here are some of my thoughts and current experiences on the issue. What kind of Business is this Company. What product(s) do they manufacture or process and or what services do they provide. Is there a risk that the product or the process is polluted or contaminated by human excretia or urine. If personnel are denied access to proper sanitation or the facilities that are provided are unsanitary, not cleaned etc., then personnel in desparation will find ways and use places to releive themselves. What about Hand Washing, if the Business processes Food related products/substances, or just in simple hygiene terms. This restriction will undoubtedly attract all sorts of Risks wihin the Businesses premises and potentially could allow contamination of materials, components, goods, product, premises etc. Putting aside legislation regarding right of access to and the use of provided Toilet facilities, (Statutorly provided at that). How would this company cope with a Web and local Media exposure that its products and or services could be contaminated by human waste, that they , the goods or their premises where they offer services could be unsanitary and a Health Risk? As maybe a possible Customer of this Organisation I would want to know about the quality of the product or service and any Health risk so that I can make an informed decision as to whether or not I continue to do business/trade with this Dickensian sounding company. As a potential consumer/user of their product/services, if I found that by purchasing/using their product that I was liable to Health damage becuse the companies personnel were not allowed to go to the toilet except at times and at intervals dictated by the Employer, then I for one would certainly take the matter up with whatever local and national stautory body or local authority department might have jurisdiction and I would certainly make a song and dance about it. It also occurrs to me, do we know how the so called Management, the people who made these Company rules address their natural needs to achieve Bodily Functions at will, comfortably and at a time and location in a facility available to them. I am currently working in Hong Kong and I am involved with the Constuction Industry here and with the myriad of contractors and the rampant Tiering system of Sub Contrcting that prevails. Defication and Urination on Hong Kong Construction Sites is rife and even in glossy completed buildings in this Asia's so called premier city there are areas where several years after construction completion and occupancy you can still smell the stale urine from where the construction workers used an area of the building as a toilet during construction. Under The Hong Kong Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, there is clear provision in Law for Toilet and Washing facilities to be provided and maintained. (Being a former British colony these now SAR regulations very much reflect the Former UK Factories Act requiremnts that are now long enshrined in EU and UK Workplace Legislation). The interesting aspect however is that under the same Ordinance, a separate code of Regulations exists that applies to Construction Sites in Hong kong. (Construction Sites Safety Regulations) Within these Regulations there is a requirement on the "Contractor responsible for the Construction site", (in this instance The Principal Contractor) to "provide sufficient and suitable latrine and washing conveniences on the site and, where persons of both sexes are or are intended to be employed, such conveniences shall afford proper separate accomodation for persons of each sex." (There are quite a large proportion of Hong Kongs Construction Site personnel, who do mostly physical labouring tasks I might add who are FEMALE,and who are often given little separate ameniety and or respect by the Male dominated work population on the site). However, when you sek official guidance or interpretation from The HK Labour department, the body that polices this legislation as to what is the advisory or what is considerd as sufficient and suitable, The ratio of numbers of facilities to numbers of workers, there is NO official guidance.(For Construction sites) Under the Factories Legislation that I eluded to earlier however there is within that Legislation itself a precise scale table. I have tried to get the Labour Department here at least as an interim measure,to take that scale schedule as the minimum and apply it to Construction Sites but so far to no avail. Contractors here because of the Tiering and Sub contracting regieme intrpret there obligation as applying to there direct personnel, which is usually low in number so they then provide ONE (1) Chemical Toilet and ONE (1) water standpipe and hose and that is all they are prepared to provide by way of Employee welfare and sanitation provision. (Often the Contractors Commercial people then muscle in and argue that they have fullfilled their statutory duty and any further provision would be a cost that they had not allowed for and that they had no obligation to incurr). In fairness, not all the contractors behave like this and some of the Major Clients and The Government Department clients specify more stringent standards. Such requirements are slowly driving change but there is still a long long way to go. The fact remains however that Welfare provision, particularly toilet and washing provision for Construction workers here in Hong Kong is to say the least, archaic and totally inadequate. Interestingly though is the quality and the povision of Toilet and washing facilities at the same construction sites SOLELY for the use of the Contractors STAFF Personnel. The Worker personnel are discriminated against. (But I am working on that also). I must close now and dash or there might be a local incident, I am now in that age where the male systems and plumbing are not quite what they once were, no one is stopping me). Regards Ken Urquhart

Posted By Jim Walker Ashley, Name & shame them - everyone wants to know who they are; you imply a quasi-government organisation but they have good unions, so it can't be them. On a practical note: they ought to use the toilet as and when. If they are subsequently stopped money then this is an offence (I can't remember what). Would the organisation then risk the publicity ? Ken, Staff urinating (dare I say willy-nilly) on UK construction sites is rife, believe me.

Posted By Ken Taylor This seems rather like the employer charging for the use of toilet facilities by deduction from wages. Wasn't this sort of thing 'outlawed' ages ago when they were stopped from making deductions for compulsory use of the company shop, etc. Vague references to the 'Truck Acts' are stirring in my mind. Could one of our lawyers illuminate us further in this respect?

Posted By Chris Pollington I note with interest that in this months ROSPA magazine a similar situation is facing the drivers of underground trains, with no provision at some stations for them to respond to natures call and the union is rightly making a fuss. On a separate note, I have just spent an hour looking over the weeks postings and have to comment on what a brilliantly diverse set of circumstances we are faced with. Having checked other web forums,IOSH has the best by far and this is because of the quality of the postings and the respondants. One thing that would make it better for me (and others I guess) would be an in built spell checker, any chance?. And finally, back to the main topic, When we finally adopt the Euro, is it right that we cannot then say "spending a penny" but have to call it Euronating! Best regards Chris.

Posted By Martin R. Bessant Sorry Folks to spoil your fun but IOSH have confirmed that it is not allowed to "Name" companies on these forums who are perceived to have offended. The companies are not able to respond and defend themselves as it is unlikely that they are aware of the postings. The moderators will therefore be removing from this forum any message which names the specific company. Will all contributors please not name specific companies when posting messages about problems. Your help in this matter is appreciated. Moderating Team.

Posted By Ashley Williams Martin, You will have seen from my posting that I actually expected the moderators to remove the message or the company name before the message made it to the forum. Ashley

Posted By Ashley Williams Ralph, I havent fallen foul of the moderators, at the end of the day IOSH are just covering their own back, what would happen to them if a lage organisaition such as the one mentioned took offense and its bat and ball home. By letting the name stay on the site IOSH would have been a creating a liability as it was Published (in the loose internet sense) by IOSH in its forum, over which it, by having moderators had editorial control. Ashley

Posted By Paul Craythorne Robert, My point was concerned with the fact that too often H&S professional get too bogged down (excuse the pun) with trivial issues and policing their work places to concentrate their efforts on implementing effective management systems that would lead to these issues not arising in the first place. I have worked in companies where H&S Committee meetings are lengthy and drawn out by a list of local, trivial issues that should be dealt with by local management thus allowing the Committee to focus its efforts on policy development and implementation. If companies like the one mentioned are behaving in such a dickensian manner then there is something fundamentally wrong with the H&S culture. These issues will only be eradicated when H&S practitioners get to work on the route cause and implement change at the top. If they are only looked upon by management and unions as someone who sorts out the drains, rats, toilets, empty fire extinguishers etc. then these postings will appear on the forum from now till doomsday. Regards, Paul

Posted By Laurie I have only just come to this thread, so have had the advantage of reading a wide range of responses. A couple of thoughts for consideration - There can be little doubt surely that this is a welfare issue, for which we, as H&S professionals, are responsible? While I agree that there is frequently a "hidden agenda" (I cannot be the only HSO who has had complaints about ozone levels when you know all along they just want a faster printer!), there are no "trivial" H&S matters to the genuine complainer, and the lack of gloves is as important to a cleaner as the lack of BA is to an industrial chemist. Yes we do get involved in things which might not be strictly "health and safety" but if they are causing concern to our clients, whether shopfloor or management we should at least give people a steer in the right direction. I am frequently asked to look at non-H&S incidents by both senior management and emplyees; I regard this as a compliment since they both see me as an "honest broker" and almost invariably accept my recommendations. After all there is no-one, at least not in my organisation, who has more experience and ability in carrying out an investigation. OK, so I do get a bit frustrated when people ring me to complain about a dog locked in a car (particularly when the RSPCA had already investigated and were satisfied with arrangements in place!), but better that than "Oh don't bother with the HSO. He's no help at all" Let us not get so full of the sense of our own importance that we forget the people we are paid to look after, particularly when those people are the ones who indirectly pay our salaries! Laurie Laurie

Posted By Ken Taylor Whilst a regular admirer of Diane's contributions and not the greatest advocate of Heinrich and his triangle, I do feel the need to emphasise that we should give proper attention to the various health-related issues that 'materialise'. The links between health and safety have been long recognized (at least since Ramazini and probably since Adam) and, within our limited capabilities, some of us try to be something of a 'health practitioner' as well as a safety one. Who can tell to what extent toilet deprivation or 'sloping off' withot permission to avoid pay reduction or a sense that management don't care about you so why bother to do your best, etc, etc can lead to unsafe practices, omissions, corner-cutting, accidents, etc. I'd better shut up before I begin to sound too much like a college lecturer rather than a HEALTH and safety practitioner. I suppose it's a question of emphasis - but let's try to get it right even if others fail. With Seasonal Greetings.

Posted By Graham Bullough Ashley - As previous responses don't seem to have asked or may have been deleted by the moderator, does/did the regime of staff being timed and having pay docked if they go to the loo during the first 4 hours of work apply throughout the organisation involved or just within one or a few areas or workplaces? Either way, does/did it apply just to the workforce "on the floor" or does/did it apply to all employees including senior managers? Most importantly of all, as other readers of this thread no doubt would be interested to know, is the regime described still in force or has it been tackled? Has the raising of it as a subject for the IOSH discussion forum been of much help in dealing with it? Graham Bullough p.s. With 29 responses already to date (plus others which were deleted by the moderator because they named the offending organisation)perhaps this thread holds the record for the most responses generated.