Rank: Guest 
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
John,
There has been lots of debate/info on this mate, use the search tab on the right, insert 'smoking' to find the previous threads on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Houghton
Hi John,
If you are looking for legislation to support a ban on smoking in the office, you might start with the general duties of employers to employees in S2(1) of HASAWA.
But more of a motivator might be the possibility of litigation - I believe there have been successful claims against employers arising from health problems alleged to have been caused by passive smoking.
The general trend in society supports smoking restrictions in the workplace. I do have some information regarding the introduction of smoking policies. You have my contact details - let me know if you would like copies.
Anyway, it's a filthy, disgusting habit.
Brian (20 a day man)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear all,
A couple of comments:
1. COSHH 2002 does not apply to passive smoking. Regulation 2(2) states "In these Regulations, a reference to an employee being exposed to a substance hazardous to health is a reference to the exposure of that employee to a substance hazardous to health arising out of or in connection with work at the workplace."
2. Whilst passive smoking may be anti-social, there is as yet no proven health risk. The epidemiological evidence is somewhat equivocal. Different studies show weak associations between smoking and ill health.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Mains
Should have added that the comments to employers about extraction was made under a COSHH heading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Who gives a jot about reg this or reg that, there is no legally enforceable requrement to prevent smoking in the workplace unless you work in certain industries eg Food, flammable, airside etc, you even have to provide areas for smokers to smoke, remember the words where practicable or reasonably practicable etc etc
Never seen a tab with an orange square saying it was toxic or harmful or do we every time we 'light up' have to classify under CHIP and get a MSDS before smoking depending on the lenght of fag, tar content and how many puffs expected to take!
The point is, that in the workplace today this is not an accepted practice and employers should be taking it by the horns and enforcing a ban! But you will end up in court as its against my Human rights bla bla bla.
said my bit going outside in the rain for a tab!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
In the context of H&S never seen the HSE look to prosecute because you disobeyed the markings on a packet of tabs!
The point being its not illegal to smoke!
lobby now for markings on beer bottles ' warning - if you drink this you may fall over and could even damage your liver' will the HSE prosecute? You can get dismissed from your employement for drinking at work!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Lee
Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992.
regulation 25: Facilities for rest and to eat meals ;
(3) Rest rooms and rest areas shall include suitable arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke.
Your argument regarding HSE prosecuting for not following disobeying markings on packets of fags is spurious and was never implied (if the given scenario is an office it will quite likely be Local Authority Enforcement anyway).
Your analogy of markings on beer bottles is pointless, I am sure I, or even my five year old daughter, could come up with an array of things that could kill but do not have warnings on.
Bottom line is why should non smokers have to breathe in other peoples smoke, law or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Peter,
the thread isnt about the right to smoke or not, I agree smoking is bad and should be abolished, but being in the real world smoking is not a criminal offence under H&S statute, unless for specific industries.
Using COSHH etc doesn't wear.
The H&S statute as it stands at the moment permits smoking in the workplace and even puts a duty on employers to provide a separate area for 'rest & eat meals' tell me where 'thow shall not smoke' appears in the HASAW ACT 74 or COSHH or CHIP or show me a MSDS on smoking.
we all know its bad, it smells, it's annoying for others, may harm them and costs the country £billions, but you cannot use safety law to stop it at present.
It will take a determined effort by employers to stop this activity at work.
A senior salesman who make your company £500k pa profit, would you dsimiss him for smoking in the workplace?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Ok Jay now I am an anti - smoker get that straight now.
where in any legislation does it say that it is a 'prima facie' case where the penalty is bla bla if you smoke at work? (except in certain industries food, explosive etc etc.)
What I am getting at is that it does not exist and legal precedent has not yet been established and will not until the law is changed so look to other avenues to ban smoking, as using H&S Law will not work.
You know and I know as soon as you start quoting legislation someone somewhere will say " doesn't apply to us, because...."
Would the TU support a person who was dismissed for smoking and was claiming unfair dismissal for breach of Company policy on smoking at work?
When the first prosecution takes place under S2 by the HSE/LA for allowing smoking at work and therfore in breach of statutory duty I will eat my hat, we cant even get the medical/scientific community to agree that ETS is damaging so what chance do the H&S Enforcers have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Faced with a similar situation some time ago the management decided to hold a vote on the issue of whether to continue to allow smoking in the offices.
as the non-smokers outweighed the smokers the outcome was obviously a ban on smoking in the office, however it was democratically arrived at.
This was accepted by the smokers (myself included) and the office went non-smoking from the following Monday.
On a personal note, as a smoker, it did not bother me at all and actually meant that my smoking decreased from about 20 a day to 5 or 6 a day (at the office) with those ciggarettes I did smoke, smoked whilst out on site and not outside the office in the street.
We did however, as part of the arrangements make provision for smokers and provided initially a hut outside (garden summerhouse) but eventually a room with ventilation and comfy chairs was made available.
As smoking by most persons decreased over time (monitored by questionnaire) the health effects, even for smokers, and feedback was very positive.
We did get just one or two gripes from non-smokers about time used by smokers to smoke when the non smokers said they were at their desks working, but generally it was taken very well. Interestingly enough the whole gripe concerning smoking was initially instigated by persons who had given up smoking, and this was also the quarter from which the gripes over 'smoke breaks' came from.
In the most part the majority of persons who had never smoked were indifferent to smokers and had no real bias one way or the other on smoking in the office or on 'smoke breaks'...
For those few who complained on the subject of 'smoke breaks' the general response was that the improved atmosphere in the offices outweighed the little loss of time, and this in the most part not actually lost time as most persons arrived and started work before their official time of 9.00 a.m. anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
Spoke to a guy once who tackled this to the enth degree. (conclusion was no law apart from dangerous atmospheres, surgey etc etc was in place. Was advised by employment Law barrister not go the 12 week notice route but more like the 6 month notice route.
(could be waffle)
Also spoke to a mate who when he got his first safety job banned smoking on site altogether (the ban lasted 6 months he lasted 3) He stated managers became annoyed at him as they had to face the music from shop floor due to such a short notice.
Worked at place where smoking was banned to outside building but no shelter etc was provided looked on lawn and grounds and was disgusted at state. Spoke to facility manager who regrets not funding suitable smoking bins etc
Point is Compromise and pragmatic solutions
after discusions with employees. ( bye the way some companies offer employees some assistance in quitting the habit whilst waiting for change to no smoking and guess what only a few took the assistance and no one really griped. Spend a penny save a pound
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By johnwaterson
Dear All,
Thanks for taking time out for all your replies, especially Dave and Jay. Had your own little forum going. Well again thanks a lot.
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.