Posted By Chris Packham
Gary,

I would not wish to comment on the legal position but I would suggest that the college has a duty of care towards the students.

Certainly they should be protecting themselves against the sun. The only really effective way to do this is by covering the skin with the appropriate clothing. Sun creams are at best a compromise and, unless properly applied and of the correct type and strength, may actually not provide the protection needed.

Note also that the protection factor for sun creams only refers to protection against UVB. There is a separate rating for UVA, a star system.

If you need more on this feel free to contact me direct (01386 832 311 or chris.packham@enviroderm.co.uk)

Chris

Posted By Rob T
Gary,

if they are over 18 then warn them of the dangers and about how best to cover up. Maybe even have sun cream available. Other than that it's up to them, you have no liability to an adult for the scenario you are talking about.

Let's not get into overnannying or you'll lose the very people you are trying help.

Posted By Dan Malone
Hi there Gary,

I have advised some agricultural institutions that they have a duty to all workers to protect from adverse weather conditions. This would include cold, wet, and sun.

They should be advised to wear a wide brimmed hat as well as sunscreen.

Some personal that I know who work in a garden centers are issued with sunscreen and advised that they wear it every day. It is not only when the sun is out that you need to protect yourself for sun burn.

Hope that this helps
Dan Malone

Posted By Dave Wilson
HSE Free leaflet

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg147.pdf

Posted By Rob T
Ok Bob - how does this equate with your comments (especially the last line) regarding the Isle of Man TT race -

Quote:

"We are running the risk of losing the point here. Those who take part in the TT do so knowing full well that it is dangerous, therefore volenti non fit injuria comes into play for those taking part in the race. Those who act as marshalls etc must be treated as employees even though they may be doing it voluntary and siutable and sifficient risk assessments should be undertaken and suitable controls put in place. These people also need to be trained and have facilities in place to control the risks involved. It does not mean that the TT does not go ahead. It's about being reasonable. IOSH is asking for conkers bonkers reports, why on earth does the H&S profession keep on pushing the myth that if its slightly risky we don't do it, get a life."

Also DRB you got slaughtered in the same discussion - why can't you see that sometimes adults have a right to do something that doesn't quite fit with your thinking? And then you either tell people that they're wrong or make sarky comments. Just because you've got MIOSH/MIIRSM or whatever doesn't make you always right. Get over yourself.

I may take a controversial line occasionally but if no-one else is going to proffer another view then this chatroom will become an elbow patch and clipboard site. This is what "reasonably" practicable and behavioural studies is all about - not only black or white but many hues of grey!

I will answer the initial question again - you will not be found liable for the sun burn of students over the age of 18 in this scenario if you have informed them of the risks and made PPE available. The ADULT will then be able to make up their own mind. Volenti etc. I still haven't seen a law that say's you must wear protective clothing in the sun!

I have recently been working in the Arab Empty Quarter where the temperature is over 140 degrees (or 56 celsius). Overalls, helmets some sun block on noses etc. but I am not going to insist that the workers cover their arms and faces in gunk - I'd be laughed off site - that's not to say that I don't strongly advise it as often as possible.

Posted By Rob T
That way madness lies! No you couldn't use Section 2 for this. See if you can find a better one. I do despair when people quote legislation at you and get it totally out of context!

Posted By Rob T
No problem - as an accredited court expert witness for International H&S and hostile environments (including hot & cold extremes) and Chartered Fellow of IOSH I will take my chances and haven't actually lost any case yet including UK cases against enforcement authorities. I will say here publically that if a case comes up for Gary on this specific scenario and he has done what I suggested re hazard warnings and PPE availability - I will take the case for free.

Also read my postings again - I didn't say that I don't encourage covering up and indeed everything you say regarding the hazards is correct - what I am saying is you shouldn't always ban or force people to do something against their will. You lose all credibility when it comes to something you NEED to take the hard line with. You can cry wolf once too often.

Posted By DRB
Rob

I'll happily agree and endorse your latter paragraph but not too sure about the former.

Perhaps you've always been fortunate to work with good barristers. Who knows I may even have been at Bar school with some of them!

Posted By Bennie
Hi - can I offer my humble opinion.
I agree with Rob that in this case if the hazards are explained and the options of cream etc provided, then it is up to the adult employees to exercise some reasonable behaviour. Do we really need to do risk assessments for employees drinking tea etc while at work?
And if we are going to quote legislation, what about sect 7 of the HASAWA - employees responsibilities?

Posted By Bennie
No - it means that employees have a duty to take reasonable care for their own health and safety.
I also said we explain the hazards and provide cream etc
If we treat the workers like idiots that need employers to wipe their noses for them, we are in a sorry state!

Posted By Pete48
Wow. Some exchange this is then. Almost handbags at dawn.
For me, good H&S in this area is simply about encouraging safer behaviour and I think that means I agree with Rob T? It is not yet a subject where the regulator or society wants to drive forward improvements and work on a risk reduction process. (anyone for brickies umbrellas or erecting sunshades to keep them cool and shady? Come to think, I know a few who are shady already)

As to legal duty or liability or both. Who really knows whether a case or claim involving sunburn is ever likely to come to court or what the outcome would be? We might all have opinions but we miss the point if we simply focus on the law or lack of it.
There is a special context to the question raised by the originator.
This is an FE college where many of the students are under 18 and which is a centre for learning, not a commercial workplace. The importance of minimising risks from working in the sun is documented and supported by guidance from the HSE. Therefore it must surely be acceptable to include teaching about these risks. Students need to clearly understand that the HSE guidance clearly requires employers to "encourage" them to follow the guidance and that they have some responsibility to support their employers safety programmes.
Therefore, the recommended practices should be clearly taught and reasonably encouraged in just the same manner as the teaching of the ability to lay bricks properly is taught. If a student cannot achieve a required standard then maybe that should be reflected in their course marks?
Allowing them to work with total disregard for the guidance cannot be acceptable in a learning environment. Time enough in the real world for such follies.

Posted By Rob T
Funnily enough I think that Bennie has mentioned the only possible legal action that I can see i.e. Section 7 HASAWA. But where do you draw the line at having to cover up? 20 degrees, 21, 22 etc. Cloudy or not? What about if you're Ginger with freckles, what if you're black or brown or blonde? No I don't see how you can be prosecuted really. Too many variants and individual perceptions. Maybe they regularly go sun bathing? Who's to say they got malignant melanoma etc. from work. I'd very much doubt any doctor would be able to say that it was work related.

On the point DRB mentioned about having good barristers (and the implication that he is one) - they know all about twisting and turning law to win their cases but nothing about H&S in practice which is why they use expert witnesses!

If anyone is in any doubt though - and I'll say it again (and again and again if necessary) - I strongly encourage people to cover up, I'm not saying you shouldn't or that it's not potentially dangerous.

My final words on the subject - cajole, inform, provide PPE, encourage, demonstrate by example, give examples of how the sun can cause harm BUT don't ban, force, bully or recourse to quoting spurious law at them - you'll lose them for life!

Posted By steve e ashton
A college has an obligation to provide training that will enable the students to apply their knowledge and behaviours in the industry where they will be working.

A construction employer is obliged to comply with the PPE regs. "Personal Protective Equipment" means all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather) which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects him against one or more risks to his health or safety. (Reg 2.1)

Exposure to UV(A) and UV(B) is known to cause malignant melanoma. Estimates of death rates in the UK vary between 1500 to 2500per annum directly attributable to exposure to sunlight. The risk is significant, it is growing and ignorance is no longer an excuse. HSE has issued clear guidance that covering up is required.

In employment, where PPE is provided (reg 4.1) following a risk assessment (Reg 6) to protect against a risk that cannot be controlled by other means (Sun shades may not be such a bad idea?) he must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the equipment is properly used (Reg 10.1).

So - for employers - the duty should be clear and failure to specify and enforce cover up - is an offence.

For students - Section 3 HaSAWA is applicable and would be used if the college did not insist that students cover up when working outdoors in conditions where sun exposure is required.

And, PPE has to be 'provided' - so all you construction industry employers - when are you going to start providing UV proof shirts and neck covers for your guys (or providing parsaols / sun shades when reasonably practicable?)

Rob - I suspect you have been exposed to too much 'macho culture' in parts of the world where the Ozone layer is still providing some natural barrier to UV exposure, and risk levels may be acceptable. It would be unthinkable these days for people to work outdoors in Australia without covering up.

The only remaining question that I can see is 'when is the date of knowledge' going to be set by the courts? RobT - I guess this one could be down to you in the near future?

Steve