Posted By johnwaterson Can anyone assist in this question I was asked ref smoking in the office. I know that Reg 6 WHSW Regs, state that effective and suitable provision must be made to ensure that good ventilation is provided in every enclosed workplace. Reg 25 mentions about facilities for rest and eating meals, and the prevention of discomfort caused by tobacco smoke. But what is the situation on smoking within the office. The number of non-smokers out number the smokers and this is the bone of contention. The non-smokers would like the smokers to stop smoking within the office. Anyone had any similiar problems.

Posted By John Webster John Don't forget to include CoSHH regs in the equation. Tobacco smoke, including passive smoking, is proven to be harmful to health. I am surprised there are still offices around where smoking is permitted. The debate now seems to be whether to provide smoking facilities in the workplace, or banish the poor blighters altogether.

Posted By Ken Taylor Only similar problems in the distant past, John, before workplace smoking (anti-smoking) policies were introduced. Unfortunately, we don't yet have a clear law specifically prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces and so you have to use the arguments described above and in the forum archive. As you are in the majority, why not go for a policy with the employer?

Posted By David Mains Adrian, the HSE take a different view! They advised my employers that suitable extraction had to be fitted in order to prevent employees exposure to cigarette smoke. HSE guidance on the Welfare Regs states that "...you must provide a working environment where people can work without being irritated by tobacco smoke..."

Posted By Peter Lee Adrian, Regulation 7 (1) of COSHH 2002 states that every employer shall ensure that the exposure of his employees to substances hazardous to health is either prevented or where this is not reasonably practicable, sadequately controlled. This as well as Regulation 25 (3)of the Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. As for no proven Health Risk, Roy Castles family may strongly disagree.

Posted By Peter Lee Dave are you saying regulations are not legally enforceable, surely not. I suppose those big white stickers on packets of cigarettes are there for fun are they? "SMOKING KILLS"

Posted By Jerry Hill Hurrah...a debate I can join in with! I'm a smoker. I know the risks, but I'm a big boy. I drive in excess of 38,000 miles per year so I'm (probably) more liable to die in an RTA than from smoking. Of course, if I was smoking at the time of the RTA, well hey, wouldn't the statisticians love that one? Okay, to my point. Although I'm a smoker, I am quite happy to go outside for a cigarette. I do not expect my bosses to provide me with a nice shiny shelter from the elements. If it's raining, I get wet OR, I don't smoke. (This actually helps me cut down on the ciggies) Whether it be statutory duty or just good practice, I do recommend to all my clients that they make their workplaces NO SMOKING areas (in view of the litigation mentioned in an earlier thread), and suggest that they consult with their smoking staff (Consultation of Employees), give them 12 weeks notice that the workplace is going to become a non smoking workplace and move onwards from there. I'm sure, somewhere down the line, this is an infringement of Human Rights but I think that good practice to the many outweighs that. However, perhaps the biggest problem I face in advising Clients is that I frequently come across MD's or company owners that smoke. (I've even had them light up during meetings with me but, although I'm a smoker, I always decline if offered one - it doesn't seem professional) Most of these smokers wouldn't dream of making their workplaces non smoking. And to all the non smoking martyrs out there, think how much the Government would have to raise your taxes if we all gave up!

Posted By Ian Mycroft The only way forward as far as I am concerned is a complete ban on smoking in all workplaces and public places. My reasoning for this is, if smokers light up in a room with non-smokers present, they immediately deprive the non-smokers of their right not to smoke. The reverse however, is not true, the smokers would still have the right to smoke in their own homes and maybe in some smokers only clubs, etc. the only right they would be deprived of is the right to make others uncomfortable by inhaling their smoke. Imagine if someone were to force a tee-total person or toddler to drink alcohol on a regular basis, what an outcry that would bring, from non-smokers and smokers alike. Ian (an ex-smoker for the past 20 yrs, there's no prude like a reformed whore!)

Posted By Jay Joshi I have included an extract from the HELA circular on the Legal Position on smoking:- ETS means environmental tobacco smoke LEGAL POSITION 7 (1) HSW Act s.2(1) could be used to require an employer to take reasonably practicable precautions to ensure the health of their employees from ETS. However, the balance of benefit against cost, etc, means that each situation needs to be considered on its merits. (2) The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (MHSW Regulations) SI 1992 No 2051 which came into force on 1 January 1993, require every employer to assess the risks to health of employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work. The purpose of the assessment is to assist the employer in complying with the relevant statutory provisions, including HSW Act s.2. It will therefore be relevant where HSW Act s.2 is considered to apply to ETS. Whilst the ACOP Management of health and safety at work makes it clear that employers can usually ignore trivial risks or those arising from routine activities associated with life in general, the requirements will apply to ETS when the risks are considered to be significant. (3) The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and Approved Code of Practice contain: (a) Regulation 6 which requires employers to provide effective and suitable ventilation. However, it should be noted that the Froggart Report stated that improved ventilation did not provide an adequate safeguard against exposure to ETS. (b) Regulation 25(3) which requires employers to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke in rest rooms and rest areas. The ACOP suggests that methods of achieving this include the prohibition of smoking in those places or the provision of separate areas for smokers and non-smokers. These Regulations came into force on 1 January 1993 for new workplaces and will do so on 1 January 1996 for existing workplaces. (4) HSE Solicitor advises that the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (COSHH) do not apply because the hazard does not arise out of or in connection with the work activity. You can access the circular at:- http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/91-1.htm

Posted By Jay Joshi Dave, I agree that so far there has been no legal precedent in context of application of section 2 etc on smoking--that was the very reason the HSC consulted on the need for an ACoP on passive smoking and recommended to the government to adopt it. It appears that the "hospitality industry sector" --especially pubs successfully lobbied against the ACoP despite the HSC also recommending that in recognition of the particular challenges faced by parts of the hospitality industry, where the Public Places Charter applies, compliance with the Chater will count as complying with the ACOP for a period of two years.

Posted By George Wedgwood Being a mostly 'outdoor' operations company, my employers are effectively establishing an effective ban on smoking in all 'communal areas' and i am in process of establishing a policy to create the internal 'rule'. This has largely been kicked off by the mD who doesn't smoke and bought a new HQ office which he likes to keep smoke free! Leadership works! Quietly, I think we will gradually establish a smoke-free workplace as the culture changes at the distributed sites, once we establish the right rule for managers to implement. I suppose the hardest bit will be getting our lorry drivers to stop smoking in their cabs!

Posted By Dave Wilson Seems we agree then, Smoking is bad It's not illegal Shouldn't be allowed in the work place No law to stop it Law to provide area to smoke in place Need management buy in Need staff buy in Need HR/OH support for smokers Need counselling Need time Need change in law Need funds to undertake Need to spend less on the NHS Need help and commitment need a fag! = no smoking in the workplace!