Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Safety Officer
Hi there all. I would like to enquire that in a UK workplace if you have 5 or more male workers and only 1 female worker, but only one toilet for all to use, is there ay breach of regulations here?
I have been told that in such a situation you need seperate male and female toilets, please could anyone advise?
Thanks
Jan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By stephen d clarke
Hi,
As far as the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations are concerned where possible there should be separate toilet facilities for men and women. If that is not possible then toilets should be unisex i.e. rooms with lockable doors with a bin for sanitary dressings.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
No breach if only few employees. Not reasonably practicable to have seperate toilet for one female staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Richards
But they should have locks !
And what about provision for disabled staff ?
Under Part II of the DDA 1995 an employer has a duty to ensure that any disabled members of staff have employment opportunities that are equal to those enjoyed by non-disabled employees. If you currently do not have any disabled employees, you do not technically need to consider making provision for disabled employees. Bear in mind however that you cannot use your lack of disabled staff facilities to influence any decision on whether to take on new staff with a disability, this would lead you wide open to a potentially expensive claim.
And female staff will not be happy to use "male" toilets anyway....there is usually a puddle on the floor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin H
On the same lines, we currently have 66 male and 3 female employees. What are the requirements on toilet facilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By S T
Martin,
you must be kidding.
If you have over 65 employee, surely you can afford the a seperate toilet for female staff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch 1
Hi Safety Officer and others.
Firstly' the legislation which revoked the Workplace Regs, principally Factories Act 1961 and Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 [in each case if I remember correctly, by subequent regulations or equivalent] set a limit of 5 for a unisex toilet.
Workpace Regs and associated ACOP less prescriptive.
Provides guidelines as to number of facilities for each sex assuming needs equal. This is a strange conclusion since all the evidence as regards public toielet indicates that the need for female facitities is greater.
This is NOT a sexist comment. Think about it guys - two thirds of the time [guestimate -please do not think this estimate is based on statiscally significant analysis!] all we need is a quick visit to the urinal.
In contrast, the females of whatever age have to go to the WC every time. Hence in many enviroments where equal provision has been made - much longer queues.
Regards, Honorary [Self-certificated] Feminist!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin H
My question was asked because over the last ten years, the gender balance of our workforce has shifted dramatically. We now have two sets of 5 toilets for 3 women, and two sets of 5 toilets for 66 men. Is it acceptable to reallocate one set of female toilets to the male workforce?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Martin
Surely it must be as the women have over three toilets each and they can only use one at a time.
Do you think you need to install more urinals as well?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JWG
Just to extend on Stephen d Clarkes comments, if shared, it is the whole room that has to be able to be locked ie at the entrance to the WC. Therefore everything which is normally in a WC (even multi-use WCs) will be behind a lockable door e.g. urinals, toilets,sinks, dryers, bins etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.