Posted By Brian Houghton I am advising an organisation based in a city location. They are concerned about the risk of their staff being attacked if they work late and then leave the building alone to walk to the station. They are considering a scheme where the staff are instructed to take a taxi from the building to their home or the main line station that they would normally use. The organisation will pay for the taxi. While I think that this would be an excellent policy, demonstrating concern for staff welfare, it will be necessary to justify the cost at some point. I am unclear on the legal requirement here. I think that the proposed scheme probably goes beyond any legal health and safety requirement but I am not certain of this. I would be pleased to hear any opinions on this subject or to take advice from anyone who has adopted such a policy. Many thanks, Brian

Posted By Brian Houghton Patrick, Many thanks for taking the trouble to respond. Regarding the situation with my client, I agree that this is a tremendously worthwhile inititive (and I shall certainly encourage them to adopt it). Your example can only lend weight to the proposal. However, from a theoretical point of view, I am struggling to decide to what extent the legal requirement to assess risks and adopt control measures covers this, bearing in mind it applies to people leaving, rather than being at, work. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, Brian

Posted By Brian Dawson Brian, I'm not sure that "instructed" is appropriate. Its one thing to offer a Taxi but surely its up to them whether to use it; it is after all their own time. Brian

Posted By David J Bristow Hi Brian While I understand your reasons for suggesting to this organisation that in providing transport to employees leaving its premises late/or alone the risk of attack will be reduced and is commendable for the concern for the safety of the employees. Should we not first look at why there is a need for employees to: a) Work late b) Leave alone late at night? Surely our first response should be to eliminate the hazard or reduce the risk (sorry if it seems I am stating the obvious) to as lower level as is practicable. Why do employees have to work late? Why are they leaving the premises alone? Further more what criteria do you use to establish - “that it is late”, 8.00 pm in the middle of the summer months is late, but light, whilst you could argue that leaving at 4.00 pm in the depth of the winter months is not late, but dark, but could be and probably does pose more risk to an employee to an attack/violent abuse, when is a safe time to leave work? I am not a legal expert, but how far do you go in order to protect the workforce – what if an employee were to be attacked immediately after leaving the taxi, whether this be at the station or the employees home – could the employer be held responsible? I don’t know the answer. However, an interesting posting which I feel quite a few of us health and safety professionals will have had dealings with - “lone/late workers” and what to do for best to protect them when leaving the workplace, and I am sure in this modern world of ours many employers and employees work late/alone! Kind regards David B

Posted By Jim Creak I am sorry to put a complete damper on what is a very thoughtful staff welfare proposal but has very little to do with safety at work or safety management. Risk assessment has to be based on objective data not hearsay,supposition or theoretical circumstance. The risk has to be measurable,where is the data that would suggest people leaving work are more likely to be attacked than other people out for the evening? How many attacks have taken place? If you read the papers these attacks are taking place in broad daylight but what are the real statistics. If Safety Management is to include the journey to and from work it is not covered by any legislation and would open up a major new obligation about the risks of cycling to work, motorbikes,driving and road rage incidents etc.etc.etc. It can not be justified under Health and Safety....

Posted By Brian Houghton Mamy thanks to everyone who has taken the trouble to respond to this posting. Your views are much appreciated. Regards, Brian

Posted By PatrickT Time for another two peneth, what happens in the event of an incident, I believe our Ambulance chasing brothers (the no-win, no-fee merchants) will be wielding the foreseeability (Domestic Air Traffic was soon grounded throughout the western world after the tragic events of 11/11), and the downgrading of established (in this case) safety measures and the percieved risk, sticks? for withdrawing an item of PPE? I believe your client has set a precedent and not a bad one at that. Try this Scenario on for size, What if this "service" was withdrawn and an incident took place which put fear into the workforce and lead to an upturn in absenteeism by staff not turning up to work (so as not to run the gambit of the same thing happening to them)or staff looking for employment elsewhere? Some of our informed colleagues should consider having a day off to ponder the idea of a wholeistic Risk Management calculation, in its simplist (often most effective) form, Cost in the Brain drain to the organisation, Cost out the price of a (Probably discounted)Taxi hit the key marked Share Holders Dividend to consider and hey presto Cheap Taxi for Staff = Good thing (investment) workforce turn up for work day after day and make money for the share holders. No Taxi for Staff = Bad thing (litigation) Additional burden on the NHS / Welfare State, needless court room costs, The fine, The Compensation, the Share holders loss of confidence / dividend. Declining skills base, Increased recruitment costs, Affect on competitiveness. Brian, some very good points have been drawn out during this debate and I hope my simp/whole istic approach is of some help in your considerations to your client. Patrick