Posted By J Knight Hi JEB, I read an article about this in SHP in the days before it became a TLA, and what it said was that Churches etc are workplaces, but that Vicars (in C of E) aren't employees, being effectively self-employed (apparently). The same would presumably apply to mosques etc though many imams are unpaid and are effectively volunteers; not sure about Catholic Church, Sikh Temples, synagogues etc etc. In any event the Department of Communities has published sector specific guidance for places of assembly which specifically includes places of worship following the RR(FS)O so they evidently fall under the definition of workplace used in framing that particular piece of law, John

Posted By CFT Oh Jonathan you have just brightened up my day. I was going to respond but simply can't follow your post. CFT

Posted By Jonathan Breeze :-) When the Big Cheese goes on the record over the issue, you listen! Otherwise when you are summoned to the celestial boardroom, it won't be so much "Well done good and faithful servant..." as "You're Fired!" ...Anyway, Just checked up some details. The union was AMICUS as stated in this "Personnel Today" report: http://www.personneltoda...lergy-claims-at-bay.html Various opinions on the subject have been given including the following: "...Or consider the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Clergy are injured from time to time in the course of their duties, but because they are not regarded as employees, the Act can do nothing to protect them. Other members of the Church can look to the Act to ensure that they work in a safe environment, but not the clergy." Taken from: http://trushare.com/44JAN99/ja99trot.htm However, I can't find any definitive legal guidance.

Posted By Rob Randall Hi, the answer to this one is it depends! Ministers of religion (all Christian denominations) are definitely not employees but are self-employed. I'm not sure about Muslim and Jewish "ministers" but I would imagine that the law would be equitable in this respect. However the Anglican church and the Roman Catholic Church have a hierarchical structure with Bishops and dioscesan officials and this probably means that they have duties in respect of their parish priests but not under the HASAW Act. The presbyterian churches such as the Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland etc. have a form of government whereby they are grouped into district presbeterys with a sort of governing council. Other Free churches, i.e. Baptist, Methodist etc. do not have a hierarchical structure but are self-governing independent churches whose church members make all of the decisions in respect of the running of the church and the administration of its property and other assets. This last group are in the unique position of being a bit like a club insofar as health and safety law is concerned because each member is responsible for the conduct of the "undertaking". Being charities churches also have Trustees who have duties and responsibilities (mostly financial constraints) under the laws governing charitable bodies. Although this takes ministers of religion out of the frame insofar as health and safety law is concerned churches do of course have responsibilities under HASAW and the Occupiers Liability Act to members of the public and to anybody that they may employ such as cleaners or handymen/women. However, like others, I would say that the golden rule should always be followed, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Posted By Rob Randall Hi, In response to Robert Lewis I apologise for leaving the Orthodox churches out of my list it wasn't intentional just practical. I didn't list all of the free churches either, time doesn't allow. The HASAW Act only applies to the people who are at work, i.e. those with a contract of service, those with a contract for services (contractors) and to anybody who might be affected by the actions of people at work. Coffee mornings are not usually staffed by employees but by volunteers from among the congregation. The best practice on this is to treat them as if they are employees, i.e. ensure safe conditions and safe working practices by doing all of the things that you would have to do for employees. As for concerts they are a public performance and all of the requirements for running such events would apply. Regards,

Posted By Jim Walker Is this country really so backward that we do not treat religious organisations like any other charitable concern? To me, C of E is absolutely no different to RSPB.

Posted By Gilly Margrave Yes churches are covered by Fire RRO. It's worth a quick look at this. http://www.churchsafety..../downloads/downloads.htm Gilly

Posted By Alan Hoskins Hi Rob, If you look back at the original question, it's about the Workplace Regulations 1992 and not HaSaWA. The Regulations cover both employed and self-employed persons at work, so priests (self-employed) would be 'at work' when conducting a service and therefore I believe that the Regulations would apply. In practice though, I think there are some requirements of the Regulations that would be difficult to achieve in all cases - toilets, for example, may not be present in all church buildings. I have to admit to sometimes responding to posts before putting my brain in the correct gear and my reference to Fire Risk, earlier, is one of those. FR assessments are required because churches are places of assembly, and not because people may be at work in them. Alan

Posted By Alan Hoskins JEB, That's a somewhat different question, but I would still maintain that they would be included. In my response I was considering existing buildings. Why would you build a church to any lesser standard anyway? In a new build, there has to be consideration of the use of the building and even though the WP Regs apply only to people at work, there surely needs to be a similar provision (heating, lighting, walkways, toilets, etc. etc.) for members of the public present. Alan