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

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,

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.

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.

Posted By Salus
see previous thread, smoking rooms - banned or not, 23.03.06

Posted By Salus
JK, calm down, I should probally have put see my comment to the thread

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Posted By Sheila EJ Keogh
Using face masks? This would be the very last option in the PPE hierarchy!

Posted By John Webster
In Scotland, enforcement is by LA Environmental Health Depts

See http://www.clearingtheairscotland.com/ for a rundown of how the legislation is supposed to work