Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer The Smoking/No Smoking debate continues
Just had a general chat with our MD, and came across an interesting point re above.
As many of you are now aware there is a total ban in public places up here in Scotland, so far the current status appears to be one of a positive nature.
However, what about the situation where workers enter a place of work which is not a place of work ie a building owned by council/private tenants - the HOME!
We have a scenario where one of our servicing engineers (non-smoker)attended a call out to a council household, and refused to complete the task because the householder, her hubby, and kids (late teens/early 20's) smoked like chimneys. This had an impact on our contract with the relevant council. He was quite right in doing so as not to expose himself to the dangers of passive smoking.
We do have our smoke free policy, signage, etc, etc which covers our own workplaces/buildings and company commercial vehicles and all things considered a place of work.
This situation could also affect other personnel who have to conduct their daily rountines in a similar manner, ie home helps, health visitors, plumbers, decorators, just about everyone who deals with the public.
Advice welcomed gratefully
Alex
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Hoskins I suppose so far as public sector organisations are concerned they could make policy decisions not to provide the services unless the householder complies with the requirement not to smoke while staff are present, since during that time the home becomes their place of work. (Human Rights lawyers comments awaited!)
Alan
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lorna Barrett How are things,
I am in Dublin Ireland, where the total ban on workplace smoking has been in force since March 2004, here, the ban on work place smoking does not apply to places of residence, this includes, old folks homes, hotel rooms (unless designated as a non-smoking room by the hotel), jails and other such residential places of work.
I obviously cannot say for certain in the UK but if this issue arose in Ireland the Legislation would not be enforceable against the home owners.
Nothwithstanding this, the employees own wishes need to be considered locally by the employer.
Hope this helps a little,
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer Lorna
We are faced with the same scenario here in Bonny Scotland, however the problem we have is (not fully happened yet, but could occur):
Housing authorities/local councils tender work to be conducted on properties
Said company wins tender & commences programmes of works
Said company employee refuses to conduct works due to smoking issues
Housing authority/local councils note refusal(s) and take into consideration when reallocating new works
Said company submits proposals for new tenders - refused
Business implications, reduction of works, employee redundancies, etc, etc
The scenario could have far fetching implications all around
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bernard Grainger The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs 1999 require all employers to carry out Risk Assessments, where a contractor or supplier is used then the Client must assess the risks to them also.
I suggest you review your own risk assessments to include exposure to passive smoking in residential homes, a risk control measure is that the Party in control of the premises must ensure this does not occur during the works duration. Pass this onto their Safety Dept. Where maintenance is being carried out on behalf of the Landlord e.g. the council they must instruct the tenants of their responsibilities. Information on hazards must be communicated to all parties affected in this case yourselves and the smoking family, if for example the do not co-operate, the Council still have a Duty to ensure no persons are exposed to passive smoking. This sort of co-operation will be part of the tenants terms of lease anyway.
A local authority should already have a policy on this issue as their own direct employees are in the same situation.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By d88 I know a few friends who work in the social services side of local government and who regularly visit clients. THe policy decision given to them is that the client should be made aware that they should not smoke for at least two hours before a visit.
How they police it i don't know and it does seem a bit OTT however staff have a right not to enter a house / or leave where it appears that the resident has been or is smoking.
Seems this smoking ban in Scotland throws up more questions than it answers !!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lorna Barrett Dear all,
It was the same here about 2 years ago when this first came in. Everyone was up in arms saying it was unworkable, however it has gone very smoothly with very little, if any disruption to work activities. Surely this scenario could be resolved on a local level. if residents could refrain from smoking in the rooms to be worked on for the duration of work, this would satisfy the employees no doubt.
If the law does not apply to residential premises it is not for the courts or the regulatory bodies to enforce it, the only way to resolve is by mediation between contractor company and residents of the house.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philby' This is an issue we are currently attempting to address for our visiting officers...in the intirim of completeing/revising policies and procedures, we are going to add the advisory note, that D88 alludes to, on our appointment letters.
However, we are fully aware that we cannot enforce nor police this, other than to agree that the visiting officer can 'play it by ear' and refrain from carying out the visit.
Unfortunately we have a duty to provide a service and the client has a right of access to the service...so there will be much tooing and froing, wringing of hands and head scratching to please all folk...
Philby'
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus see previous thread, smoking rooms - banned or not, 23.03.06
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight Salus, this isn't about smoking rooms, this is about people smoking in their own homes when a worker is present.
Agree with most of what has been said here; the best way to resolve this is by negotiation with the service user, and if possible to sort out these kinds of problems by explicit contract prior to service delivery starting. also agree that you can't force a worker to deliever a service in a smokey atmosphere,
John
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus JK, calm down, I should probally have put see my comment to the thread
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John McFeely Most smokers are very understanding and will comply to a simple request, even in their own home, depending on how the request is put to them. Should a smoker refuse to stop whilst work is being carried out in the home then the employee is quite within his/her rights to stop work for half an hour until the are is smoke free.
Jackie McFeely
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joe I work for a Scottish Local Authority social care provider who have over 2000 workers employed to provide at home services in one guise or another.
In the month since the ban has been introduced we have had minimal contact from managers of employees where service users have failed to comply with our request for smoking to cease whilst our staff are present or allow for ventilation whilst there etc.
I hope this continues however for situations were difficulties arise we do have planned arrangements in place for services to be reviewed to reduce exposure time should a service user chose to not comply with our request.
We may have been lucky up until now but I do not believe there is a lack of willingness from the vast majority of Joe Public to repsond to these requests from organistaions as long as it's couched correctly.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Watson Surely the issue is around are the tenants smoking when the engineer is there. If they are his actions are justified, if they are not he is overreacting. My belief (prepared to be challenged) on passive smoking was that you were only at risk if the person was actually smoking (i.e. exposed to the smoke). I was not ware of any increased risks around entering a smoker’s house?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alexander Falconer John, you are correct in the issues
The engineer is within his rights to refuse to do the job and expose himself to passive smoke.
The additional issue I have is one which has commercial implications for our company - then again this is another problem.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joe Alex you say "The engineer is within his rights to refuse to do the job and expose himself to passive smoke."
Here's a good one for friday, within the specifc guidance on the smoking legislation in Scotland and our wider general H&S requirements is it our duty to reduce or eliminate the exposure to passive smoke??
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B Whilst I agree with alot of the comments above, Risk assessment etc etc, and the fact that the engineer was well within his rights to refuse to expose himself to the passive smoking hazard. I am not saying that this is the case in this situation.... but how will a risk assessment be policed, when you are asking tennants not to smoke whilst work is being carried out on their home? it takes most councils months, even years to eject ASBOs and nuisance families etc. I am sure some would comply but some smokers are a bit miffed about being told they cannot smoke in public places let alone their own homes. as I said above, I agree with some of the comments but policing would be a nightmare.......
p.s. in case ur wondering I dont smoke......................... anymore that is.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton I know that PPE is used as a last resort but I cannot believe that no one has considered a HEPA filter face mask which cuts out cigarette smoke for just those times when people, for whatever reason, cannot stop smoking when workmen are there. It seems such a simple and obvious solution. Yes, set the guidelines and ask people not to smoke, but carry a face mask just in case. At £30 plus the PM1 filter at approximately £10 you could get on with a heck of a lot work and save loads of time with employees refusing to work because of passive smoke. The web link below: http://www.respro.com/popup_aero.phpHilary
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bernard Grainger Steve
The council's sanction on non cooperation is that the work is not undertaken until the persons concerned comply, this being on the grounds of H&S of the workers. Any unreasonable smoker would see the benefit cooperating. The policing of a risk assessment is as ever down to the person in charge of the physical work. They would make the judgement call on whether a health risk is present and act as they see it. Effectiveness of arrangements is down to monitoring, feedback, consultation review etc, All employees have the right/duty under the 74 act not to put our own H&S at risk, so do as the original bloke did and refuse to work in those conditions. This will compel responsible persons to act.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Watson To clarify my point, if they are not smoking whilst he is there he is not exposing himself to passive smoking is he? To refuse on the basis they might light up is equivalent to saying I am not driving my van as someone else may cause an accident and expose me to injury.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper In 'one off' situations surely passive smoking has got be regarded as a nuisance and not a significant risk to the health of those exposed to it !!!
I tend to think we should treat this issue a bit like noise...OK constant, harmful doses are a threat but one off exposures should surely be looked at in isolation. I'm no expert on exposure levels etc. but surely any risk assessment worth its salt would deem the risk to be insignificant...OK might not be what the people want to hear but let's be practical here.
FH
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bernard Grainger Totally agree, but the risk be noted rates for compliance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man I think that if you follow Hilary's advice above, you can't go far wrong.
It is not an option to withdraw the service from the user simply because they smoke - local authorities have a number of statutory obligations in different service areas that give rise to risks that are unavoidable.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Mace Firstly i smoke, yes i am a bit miffed about bans being introduced, but the nations health issues must be addressed, the country cannot sustain or continue to increase budgets to the health service forever at some point the bank will be empty.
However if a TENNANT wants the work done then surely they would comply if they won't then face masks are the only option, refusal to carry out work is both costly to the council/landlord (as most companies would still charge for the labour and call out) and damn annoying to everyone involved.
At the time of issue of contract to tennants surely it would be possible to pass on the costs incurred for those that smoke in some clause.
Lets hope that the sensible people will prevail.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fornhelper Sorry to labour the point but are 'face masks the only option' ???
Given the short exposure time (in relative terms) and likelihood of harm, an open window would just be as effective in reducing any risk to an 'acceptable level' (though personally I still feel the risk would be insignificant without the window being open !!!).
As the ACOP states "insignificant risks can usually be ignored" and maybe this is an approach we should use sometimes or we will end up issuing respirators to people standing at bus stations due to exhaust fumes being present in the atmosphere!!
FH
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bernard Grainger The original point was that the exposure was perceived by the individual as significant due to the whole family being at it, the likely duration is not known but repeated exposures like this instance presents a foreseeable risk of something be it Cancer or Asthema or irritation to the nasal passage and eyes (an existing condition being made worse)
A risk assessment may find correctly that opening a window is enough for one individual, but may cause problems for another due to a range of factors. Assessment and consultation with those affected is necessary, 99% of smokers will probably co-operate when it's explained properly, if not, the worker has a Duty under legislation not place themself in danger, so if they perceive a hazard, all parties must be seen to act.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sheila EJ Keogh Using face masks? This would be the very last option in the PPE hierarchy!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Hagyard Just to throw another spanner in the works check out this document. www.hse.gov.uk/LAU/pdfs/launews0306.pdf.In particular page 6&7, which states, and I quote “The new legislation (no smoking in Scotland) is not made under HSAW and will not be enforced by HSE”. If that is the case who will enforce. I understand LA’s and trading standards have enforced in pub’s etc in Ireland but other areas where they don’t normally have enforcement powers? Do the regulations contain enforcement powers? Sorry I know I could just look up the regulations but it’s been a long day. Brian.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
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.