Posted By CFT Rob Can't say I have, but can we help you rectify the problem, or are you already sorted? CFT

Posted By Ian_P I have had experience of this before through trade union action. It is extremely important to try, hard as it may, to make such a situation positive. Work with the employees and, where possible, get them INVOLVED with coming up with a solution. Obviously the employer has a duty of care under HASAWA but the employees also have a duty under section 7. They cannot just 'wash their hands' and refuse to work. They need to be involved, and take responsibility for their own, and fellow employee's safety. Such involvement, and listening to employees concerns, can prevent a similar reoccurence of unrest.

Posted By Ron Hunter Rob, What you refer to as a legal right is essentially an act of self-preservation. At least it sounds as if the organisation you refer to has a culture which would accept a down tools/stop work approach. Sadly, the SHP magazine routinely reports on tragedies in appalling work conditions where the culture is one of "get on or get out"?

Posted By Raymond Rapp The provision for an employee to refuse to work in the event of serious and imminent danger is a legal right under the MHSW reg 8. Organisations should have a specific procedure in place to comply with this stricture. Those who have inferred otherwise had better get cracking. Regards Ray

Posted By Raymond Rapp Brian 'No specific legal requirement,' I beg to differ. The following is an extract from the MHSW reg 8: 8. — (1) Every employer shall— (a)establish and where necessary give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to persons at work in his undertaking; (b)nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation from premises of persons at work in his undertaking; and (c)ensure that none of his employees has access to any area occupied by him to which it is necessary to restrict access on grounds of health and safety unless the employee concerned has received adequate health and safety instruction. Ray

Posted By Karen Todd Yes, on numerous occasions, but unfortunately it was a union rep stirring things for his own agenda, and there was never "serious and imminent danger". Most of the time poor communication was to blame, and situations were resolved by talking to affected employees and explaining things. Sorry for being so vague, but hope it helps. KT

Posted By Raymond Rapp Brian Without wishing to prolong this debate, the question was about 'refusal to work on the grounds of safety.' Your interpretation between starting and continuing work was not part of the original thread and in any case makes no sense to me. Furthermore, there is either a legal obligation or there is not, regardless of when it may occur. Ray

Posted By Ghaam Raymond with all due respect your quotation is totally inaccurate you have quoted reg 7 procedures for serious and imminent danger, and in any case its actually reg 7 para 2 part b 7.—(1) Every employer shall— (a) establish and where necessary give effect to appropriate procedures to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to persons at work in his undertaking; (b) nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures insofar as they relate to the evacuation from premises of persons at work in his undertaking; and (c) ensure that none of his employees has access to any area occupied by him to which it is necessary to restrict access on grounds of health and safety unless the employee concerned has received adequate health and safety instruction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1)(a), the procedures referred to in that sub-paragraph shall— (a) so far as is practicable, require any persons at work who are exposed to serious and imminent danger to be informed of the nature of the hazard and of the steps taken or to be taken to protect them from it; (b) enable the persons concerned (if necessary by taking appropriate steps in the absence of guidance or instruction and in the light of their knowledge and the technical means at their disposal) to stop work and immediately proceed to a place of safety in the event of their being exposed to serious, imminent and unavoidable danger; and (c) save in exceptional cases for reasons duly substantiated (which cases and reasons shall be specified in those procedures), require the persons concerned to be prevented from resuming work in any situation where there is still a serious and imminent danger. (3) A person shall be regarded as competent for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) where he has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable him properly to implement the evacuation procedures referred to in that sub-paragraph

Posted By Raymond Rapp Ghaam I am not sure where you are coming from. I have checked my MHSW regs 1999 S.I. no 3242 and Reg 8 is the one I cut and pasted! Reg 7 is Health and Safety Assistance. Perhaps you could explain further. Ray

Posted By Ghaam OOPS! my bad (look at the 1992 regs) Still Para 2 b is pretty clear

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Rob In well-managed organisations with a wide range of hazardous situations I've worked in, an ongoing strategy of stakeholder analysis was used to assess the situation you describe and to change the relationship with all stakeholders to a more favourable position (in particular where a manager was not a supportive stakeholder). The tactical responses to such a refusal was determined by the extent to which available evidence indicated that those refusing were 'supportive', 'marginal', 'mixed blessing' or 'non-supportive' stakeholders. By using intelligent communications to manage the social dynamics continually on the basis of evidence, any stand-offs were both rare and relatively straightforward to address.

Posted By John Murgatroyd If an employee refuses to work, treat it as a disciplinary offence and run through the procedures for that. No problems. The phrase "where are you working tomorrow" tends to focus minds a lot.

Posted By martin gray1 With you on that KT

Posted By Raymond Rapp John That may be reality in some cases, but surely not a philosophy that should be espoused by health and safety practitioners! Ray