Posted By garry saunders Sorry about the contentious headline, actually I'm not sorry at all. Volunteers at work are working without pay. Employees are at work but, according to the Inland Revenue and Employment Tribunals, they don't have to have a contract of employment to be an employee. The HASAWA in its opening statement and first paragraph 1,-(1) says the Act is all about "securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work". I'll repeat that "PERSONS AT WORK" Volunteers who work are persons at work. They are people therefore they are persons. They are working so they must be at work. HASAWA then goes on to describe these people as "employees" This would be no problem but in all cases HSE and EHO's regulate this on the basis that the unpaid worker is not an employee or a person at work as stated by the Act. Volunteers are outside the protection of the Act and its regulation except as Section 3 'people not in employment', even though they are employed; just not paid in money. Boiling this down to basics you are protected at work if you work for reward. If you work for the general good of society or your local community you are not considered, by the regulators, worthy of any legal protection. Either this or they don't believe you are a "person" or "working". I did a Degree in philosophy so I am ready for the challenge. I would really like to hear any views. Garry Saunders Chair - Charities Safety Group

Posted By John Murgatroyd Well, so what ? The H&SAWA is good on paper, but a waste of time in reality. The H&S inspectors are thick on the floor if there is an accident, with more if there's a death. But not seen in decades otherwise. Unannounced visits are preceded by a few days of getting the guards put back on and all the 440 volt extensions disappear, the paint shop empties of the normal 200+ litres of " ready use " paint and solvents. If you make a complaint to H&S, don't tell them your name. DON'T believe the "we won't divulge your name" , they will. Don't let the job get in the way of a career. Why should unpaid volunteers be protected by H&S ? The paid employees aren't. Sack the lot, and let the insurance companies do the job.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Not sure where you have got your information from but as others have implied and to the best of my knowledge the HSWA does cover all workers paid or unpaid. The principle I believe is that if an undertaking (sports body, charity etc) is paying an employee (groundsman, accountant etc) then it is deemed to be an employer. That said, the law is a strange beast and much of it is enshrined in case law and precedents, which in any case can be overturned by a higher court. I am interested to learn where the philosophy bit fits in... Regards Ray

Posted By David Sinclair Laurie, I think the point is that if a volunteer gets injured, the chances of your organisation (or whoever was responsible for the volunteer) being prosecuted are slim to non-existent. The number of legal challenges going through, or threatended against the HSE at the moment for failing to take action, may cause it and the Government a change of heart. Regards. David

Posted By Victor Meldrew So thoughts.... Anyone see this recent posting on this forum: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...view&Forum=1&Thread=8574 The Hampton Review has been set up by the Treasury to examine the regulatory burden placed on business. A questionnaire has been sent out to businesses seeking information on enforcement / advice provision by HSE, Environment Agency , Local Authorities, Foods Standards Agency etc. Having read the questionnaire and with the recent cuts in civil servant jobs announced, are the HSE enforcement jobs at risk? And if so are not MIOSH, RSPs or the future CMIOSHs more competent anyway to complete reglatory duties on behalf of Her Majestys Governement of the day? My CV available upon request Maam!

Posted By garry saunders Thanks to you all, so far, for your responses. Why are volunteers not protected by Section 2 of HASAWA just because they are not paid money? The main concern of the Charities Safety Group is that the Regulations arising from the Act require employers to do all sorts of stuff to prevent harm, ill-health and damage. Because it is all related to employers and their employees (paid that is) the volunteer misses out on instruction, training, supervision, information, consultation on safety maters, etc, etc. Of course the Act covers ‘others affected by the work’ but this does not require the employer to do as much as for their ‘employees’. The result is that volunteers miss out on the proactive prevention of harm, ill-health and damage. They have to wait for the worst to happen and get it all settled by the courts, it’s too late by then. All the benefits of effective safety management apply to the use of unpaid workers as they do to paid workers. I would be interested to hear why “persons at work” in the HASAWA became paid employees only. Why does the Act begin by using the term “persons at work” and then go on to use “employees”? Did Roebens mean the Act to cover all people who are at work, the Act says so. Why use “employees” then? Was it because, for the Report, employees meant those people engaged by an employer to carry out tasks that benefit their undertaking, paid or not?

Posted By Stuart C Volunteers are "employees" as i understand it by virtue of the master servant /relationship a volunteer has with the charity. If Section 2 is deemed not to apply to volunteers then Section 3 clearly does and this effectively requires an organisation ot provide the same level of protection as it would an employee. Decisions on enforcing this requirement are probably a matter of Policy with HSE - and as has already been pointed out with the current review of HSE's policy on Section 3 i wouldn't be surprised if it changed.

Posted By Jay Joshi1 Garry, I presume that you personally may have been involved in the compilation of the guidance fron HSE on "Charity and voluntary workers-A guide to health and safety at work " HSG192. This guidance clarifies the role of volunteers and it is my undersatnding that the Charities Safety Group was involved in its compilation. I may add that there is specific definition of employee & at work in HASAWA-- Section 52 is about Meaning of work and at work and section 53 --employee” means an individual who works under a contract of employment So, in law, should a unpaid volunteer be injured etc, the "undertatking" (or employer) still has duties under HASAWA-- Section 3 of the HSW Act places a duty on employers and the self-employed to conduct their undertakings in a way that ensures, so far as is reasonably practicable, that people other than their employees (eg voluntary workers, clients, customers and members of the public) are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 place a duty on both employers and the self-employed to assess the risks to employees and anyone else (eg voluntary workers, clients and customers) who may be affected by the work activities being undertaken. As a result of this assessment, appropriate preventive and protective measures have to be taken to reduce the risks identified if they are not being adequately controlled at present. Section 4 of the HSW Act places a duty on people in control of non-domestic premises (eg a landlord, or the employer or person in charge of a shop) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that access arrangements and any equipment or substance in the premises are safe and without risk to health. The duty is in relation to non-employees, (eg voluntary workers) who use the premises as a place of work, or where they may use equipment or substances provided for their use there. There are also more specific duties in relation to a workplace in the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Some of these apply to employers and also to those who have, to any extent, control of a workplace. Whether to inspect/prosecute or not is ultimately decided by HSE --they appear to have a transparent policy--it is on their website. I feel that the problem lies with local authority enforcement--not the HSE and most local authorities are even more underfunded than HSE!! I doubt whether it is only the charity sector that is affected -as LA's have to inspect & enforce HASAWA etc in far greater numbers than the HSE. Ultimately, you get the best, & the worst in all sectors of industry--it is not unique to the charity sector. Having said all this, nothing prevents the HSC from initiating changes that will include voluntary workers being in the definition of being at work!

Posted By Laurie The reason I quoted the Princes Trust is because I seem to remember they were prosecuted following an accident in the Scottish Islands some years ago (if not my apologies to the Trust), which would seem to indicate that prosecutions do take place Laurie

Posted By Chris Huffadine Well - It's Monday morning again. Time to get back on track. Yes, the Prince's Trust were prosecuted. Yes, there are difficulties with enforcement. BUT ISN'T THIS ALL RATHER REACTIVE? The challenge for all health and safety professionals is surely to stop people being hurt in the first place. This thread would take an interesting turn if we stopped dwelling on the past, looking at reactions, and began to look at proactive measures. In the spirit of HS(G)65, let's look firstly at the "policy". What does the HSW actually say about volunteers? I don't see the word "volunteer" used once in the Act. There has been a fair bit of comment about "master servant" relationships and section 3 of the HSW. However, I fail to comprehend how the extensive protection afforded to employees under section 2 of the Act works for volunteers. Enlighten me.

Posted By Chris Huffadine Sean makes some good points about the spirit of volunteering. I agree. But how are they protected, specifically, by the Act?

Posted By Paul W. Jarvis Gary, It is soooo good to be back in the Charitable sector!!! Could not resist the opportunity to join in such a contentious debate. If risk assessments are carried out by a competent person, then as part of the control measures to reduce the risk to as low as is reasonably practicable, and I would therefore suggest that training, and where applicable supervision, could and should be a control. Persons, whether employees or volunteers, need to be competent-If my memory serves me well, The Princes Trust were prosecuted for the death of two students on a Scottish Island for not using competent persons. The area of health surveillance is more problematic and i do not have an easy answer save that of bringing volunteers under section 2! I still fail to see why this cannot be done except for the unwillingness of this government to provide adequate protection to all persons at work, whether paid or not. One can also include the judiciary in failing workers, in that the fines for financial misdeeds are so far inexcess of those for health & safety breeches as to be unbelievable! The other issue is with regard to enforcement, and whilst i agree that not enough inspections or prosecutions occur one should be looking to pillory the real villians, the so called Labour government for failure to fund. Furthermore this present government gave a committment to introduce corporate manslaughter legislation over 6 years ago, not only do we not have it but the draft documents are being constantly watered down thereby rendering it useless! I hope i have provided some fuel to the debate. The fight goes on fellow practitioners!!!!