IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Employees 'refusing to work on the grounds of safety'
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Rob Mair Does anyone have any experience of managing situations where employees refuse to work on the grounds of safety?
This is a legal right where employees reasonably believe that to continue to work would place themselves or others in serious and imminent danger.
Employers are required to have procedures for managing serious and imminent danger under Reg 8 of MOHAS.
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone whose organisation has such procedures, or whose employees have exercised this right in recent times.
Thanks
Rob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT Rob
Can't say I have, but can we help you rectify the problem, or are you already sorted?
CFT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman Happens, but I would want their reasons in writing with their version of a risk assessment and ideas on how to do it safely.
OHSAS 18001 has a quite understandable chapter on risk assessments and action priorities based on risk levels.
Placing an employee in a situation which is, in the employee's opinion, dangerous is a serious matter and shold be treated accordingly.
Employees do have the right to withdraw from any situation which they judge to be of grave and imminent danger.
It is then up to management to evaluate the situation, take action if necessary and negotiate a return to work.
Both sides need to document their opinions
Merv
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By L.Hayes Where I've just left, we fully encouraged staff to refuse if they believe that they could be injured by completing a task, this has resulted in stopped production lines and deliveries not being sent out on time. This was fully endorsed by the site management.
Whilst we have a duty of care to our staff, as a 24/7 operation with 450+ employees we also acknowledged that they would spot things that we could miss as they were doing the job 50+ hours a week (exempt from EU directive). I won't pretend that I lived in the elusive blame free environment that we all dream about, on this point there was no fear of retribution. From memory we only had one person try and take the mick and the union guy stepped in and done the job himself to prove that is was safe if you done it the right way.
We also had an anonomous hazard reporting line, so if the guys saw a problem they could let us know and hopefully we could get if sorted before it became a refusal of an unreasonable request. Most of the reports were of managers taking short cuts on nights - a lesson to be learnt?
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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"?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer This is not as strange as some may think. Within the industry I work there has been right to refuse to work on the grounds of safety for many years now. Everyone has the right to raise the question of safety and to refuse to undertake a task if they believe it is unsafe. Management have a duty to investigate the problem and decide on the rights and wrongs of doing the task. Often it leads to a revision of the work process that reduces the risk and is seen as part of the risk control mechanism employed within the industry. Thankfully the number of times it is raised is small now comared to a few years ago, thanks mainly to those who undertake the task being involved in assesing the risk. A refusal to work onthe grounds of safety is a good thing and it works.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Welch Rob,
There are no specific legal requirements relating to this issue. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 does however require employers to take reasonably practicable measures to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees (and others).
Clearly when concerns are raised which the employee feels are serious enough to warrant a refusal to work the employer must ensure that no disapproving reaction (reprisal / unwarranted discipline / employee made to feel uncomfortable) occurs as a result, however it is necessary to ensure the concern raised is a valid one.
I can forward you a process map which may be useful to build a procedure around if you haven't already been supplied to one?
Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Edward Shyer may be worth looking at:
Employment Rights Act 1996- Section 44
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Welch Ray,
The debate is the difference is the procedures to stop work (MOSH Reg 8) and the refusal to start work.
The aim of Reg 8 is to have procedures that workers can follow if situations present themselves of serious or imminent dangers that make it clear that employee should stop work and move to a place of safety. Refusal to work on the grounds of health and safety has an implication that the employee has not even started work, which would fall under H&SAW Etc Act 1974, in various parts of section 2.
Yours and others views welcome, this could become and interesting topic.
Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Welch Ray,
Threads often twist and turn, it adds to the learning process to see things from other people’s perspectives and often helps to build a fuller understanding. I appreciate your view and don’t imply your wrong in any way, just merely adding a different slant on things.
Regards
Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp Brian
No problem. I am all for people having their say and providing a different slant if they so choose.
However, and with respect, I would like to point out the incorrectness of your previous comment - 'There are no specific legal requirements relating to this issue.' What was all that about?
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Welch Ray,
Worker 1 turns up and starts working, finds it to be unsafe to continue and stops.
Worker 2 turns up and refuses to start work because it’s considered unsafe to do so.
Does Reg 8 cover both?
Reg 8 clearly covers worker 1 and H&SAW etc 1974 broadly covers worker 2 without being specific? i.e s2 does not mention refusal to work directly
Brian
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ghaam OOPS! my bad (look at the 1992 regs)
Still Para 2 b is pretty clear
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer Ray
The reference you have made to Management Reg 7 is about emergency situations and how these are managed not a refusal to work thing.
There are no regulations relating to refusal to work, but sense dictates that whenever an employee raises a thought of risk the employer takes it seriously and investigates the issue and changes the method of work to achieve as safe a position as is reasonbaly practicable.
Where an employee is asked to undertake a specific task he considers is unsafe that does not mean it is an emergency.
In short anyone can refuse to undertake a task. Either as a beligerent or from a serious concern about the safety of the task in question. As a beligerent it is liable to normal discipline, but if it is a safety concern it should be able for the employee to raise it without fear of retribution and with the aim of finding a safe method of completing the task. This is right of anyone asked to undertake a task and must be managed without fear of retribution.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp Brian
Yes, in my opinion reg 8 does cover both the scenarios you have highlighted. It is about protecting staff and empowering them to control their own destiny - regardless of the circumstances.
Whether some people abuse the good intention of the regulation is another matter, but clearly a company procedure must include some form of arbitration.
Bob
Once again I am not really sure what your points is. With respect, the regulation and compliance with it is basically quite simple. Is it Friday...?
Ray
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Karen Todd Ooo...I think I'd have to lodge a grievance and say I was being victimised for asserting a statutory right if someone tried to discipline me for stopping work where I believed that there was serious and imminent danger! And if you dismissed me my dismissal would automatically be unfair!
*stir, stir*
KT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By martin gray1
With you on that KT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd Yes...but it is frequently worth the "employment court" "penalty" of a few grand just to get rid of someone....and there is no great problem with not paying it anyway....leaving the "injured party" to lodge a civil claim......and in any case, many never pursue the claim....
There are quite a few legal companies that specialise in such cases....
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
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
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Employees 'refusing to work on the grounds of safety'
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.