Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
Is a workplace still a workplace under the regs if its main purpose is for storage and no or almost no actual work takes place there such as a garage where people begin work and change their clothes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
great thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Agree entirely with 9-ship. The two keys are in teh workplace regs, which defines workplace, and in case law about the scope of employment. The latter is complex and sometimes contradictory, but loosely speaking a person is 'at work' when they are engaged in the employer's undertaking. From your other post it sounds as though the activity in the lock-up is an essential part of the work, therefore the people in the lock-up are at work,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By 9-Ship
Storage is a 'work activity' in the broad sense - I presume from time to time that employees have to visit the garage/store to put items into storage and to recover items for use in the main building? Therefore it is a workplace, because the employees are being paid to work in the stores area.
Also the Welfare regs cover issues such as changing rooms/welfare provision etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
It is a place that the community service supervisors arrive change into uniforms check the vans oil etc, load the tools on a go of to start supervising, returning at the end of the day to unload and clean the tools tiny amount of paperwork, and finish, but the firm still argues that as no actual work takes place there it is not covered by the welfare regs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By 9-Ship
That sounds like work to me?
I presume they are not doing it for fun & free of charge.
No - thought not - so its a workplace and the Welfare regs apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
thats what I thought
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
If, as you state, they are checking the vans, oil etc. then there is no question, this is a workplace. Furthermore, checking oil etc. could result in skin contamination, so adequate hygiene facilities will be required to comply with COSHH.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
I would never of thought of COSHH regs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Simon
Paragraph 139 of COSHH ACoP includes the following:
"Employers shoudl also ensure that employees follow good personal hygiene practice, such as thoroughly washing their hands in warm (not hot) water whenever necessary, encouraging them to use moisturising creams after work, and introducing a regular programme of skin inspection."
If your employees come into contact with engine oil and other soiling that will intevitably occur when checking out an engine, then how will the employer be able to claim compliance if there are no adequate washing facilities? Remember that used engine oil is technically a carcinogen and certainly something that can cause contact dermatitis (reportable under RIDDOR).
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Ayee
Simon
See my response to your other thread.
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
Simon, the facilities do not have to be in the workplace you mentioned, they can be in another part (close by) of your site.
Just make sure they are suitable and suffecient for the amount of people using them and for the type of work being carried out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Simon Zeigler
The main problem I have is that the service was protected by crown immunity, having lost it they don't seem to know how to join the rest of the modern world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.