IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Risk Assessment Regulations with voluntary unpaid staff
Rank: Forum user 
|
With an organisation that has voluntary staff i.e unpaid, are these personnel classified has employees?
I ask this question because there is a dispute with an organisation stating that they are exempt from the Risk Assessment because they have less than 5 employees and there is no need to make a recording of risk assessments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
They would be classed as employees. Your question is in two parts.
The regulations require documented risk assessments etc be in place where there are 5 or more employees.
This is irrespective of them being voluntary.
Son of Skywalker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The law (MHSAWR) also requires all employers (irrespective of size) to communicate the significant findings of all Risk Assessment to all employees.
Which can be somewhat difficult to do if you haven't written anything down!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just to be clear: the <5 employer is NOT "exempt" from Risk Assessment, only the recording of same. (which IMHO is just bad law)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Ron, you just beat me to it. In fact the said regulation states:
3. — (1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of—
(a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and
(b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,
(6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record—
(a) the significant findings of the assessment; and
(b) any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
If it helps, I had this issue with a Church of very large size. The thought that H&S legislation did not apply because they only paid 4 people......300 volunteers though!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi,
you could download the HSE publication
HSG 192 - Charity and Voluntary Workers. It has some useful stuff.
PH2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
As far as the RR(FS)O is concerned, employees are defined as:
“employee” means a person who is or is treated as an employee for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and related expressions are to be construed accordingly;
(that sounds like voluntary staff to me)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
We have several volunteers in our charity - H and S procedures, risk assessments apply to them as our employees, matters not a jot when it comes to H and S - unpaid volunteers or employees, treated the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for your replies, which was most helpful.
To clarify matters this organisation is a sports club which has several committee members on board, would these be classified has employees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Committee members would not normally be classified as employees in the strictest sense of the word. If they undertook certain duties for the benefit of the club which went beyond administrative roles, then yes they could be deemed employees. It should not matter a great deal anyway because the purpose of risk assessments is to identify who may be at risk and regardless of their status. In other words, employees, visitors, contractors and general public.
Incidentally, one or more of these committee members eg Chairman/President would also be deemed responsible and accountable for health and safety of the institution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I strongly advise U to disregard the 'less than 5 employees' thing as a person making a claim against U is a person making a claim against U and thats that! Because there are only a few people working for U does not exempt U from the law nor them from making a claim nor having an accident - This 5 person thing was put in at the time for political reasons
When U get to court they do not say 'O U only have 4 employees so the person here making a claim cannot make a claim!' and the claimants legal brief will go for U irrespective so U need as much info U can muster for a defence and risk assessments are one of your defences
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have been a member of a voluntary service in the past and it took us a long time to get to the bottom of this. But we did!
The question is based upon whether or not anyone is actually an employer or employee (and thererfore whether anyone is "at work").
If so much as one single individual person within the organistation receives payment for their services, no matter how little (excluding legitimate expenses), in benifit or in kind, they are an employee, the organisation is an employer and has such holds all the duties associated with it. Voluntary workers then become unpaid employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Safety Smurf wrote:
If so much as one single individual person within the organistation receives payment for their services, no matter how little (excluding legitimate expenses), in benifit or in kind, they are an employee, the organisation is an employer and has such holds all the duties associated with it. Voluntary workers then become unpaid employees.
Is this information available on any legal documentation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Employer = "One who has engaged or hired the services of another".
Payment, expenses etc. are entirely irrelevant and voluntary work is therefore captured within Section 2. Section 3 of the Act provides a further "catch all".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jazzy, you don't ask easy questions do you!
Whether a person is an employee, self-employed, or providing a contract of service is dependant on a number of different factors, including tax status, case law, contract law, etc. From a h&s perspective it is generally accepted that anyone working directly for an organisation whether full-time, part-time, paid in kind or not at all, is deemed to be an employee - job done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ron hunter wrote:Employer = "One who has engaged or hired the services of another".
Payment, expenses etc. are entirely irrelevant and voluntary work is therefore captured within Section 2. Section 3 of the Act provides a further "catch all".
Ron,
With no payment there is no master or servant and therefore who do you hold to account?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jazzy,
Can you confirm whether any of your staff are actaully paid or is the whole organisation voluntary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ken Slack wrote:Jazzy,
Can you confirm whether any of your staff are actaully paid or is the whole organisation voluntary?
Don't forget to consider your accountant if you use one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
But since all anybody would expect you to have nowadays are the "Noddy" HSE low risk ones, the question is almost academic especially for a sports club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Ken Slack wrote:Jazzy,
Can you confirm whether any of your staff are actaully paid or is the whole organisation voluntary?
To put matters straight. I have nothing to do with the club, but I do have a Health and Safety issue with the club. Unfortunately I am getting the statement that there are less than 5 employees (which is a load of nonsense). Because of this I cannot access the current risk assessment or any safety measures that are in operation, which makes it difficult to see if the issue is being addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Jazzy,
Just playing devil's advocaat for the moment (deliberate miss-spelling). If you have nothing to do with the club, why do you think you have the right to see the risk assessment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
LA have been involved with the club's risk assessment and it's amendments. Request was made under the FOI.
And not to sound a busy body the only reason that I am pursing the risk assessment contents are because there are have been no improvements and there is still a safety issue, and from what I can gather this hazard has not even been recorded on the current club's RA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I would think it very unlikely that a sports club would have significant health and safety risks for its employees/volunteers that would require to be recorded! Injuries from cricket balls, hockey sticks and tennis racquets that is another matter but there is insurance for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
It would have been useful if you had explained this scenario in the first place. I wonder how you have determined it is a hazard which has not been recorded by the football club? Risk assessments are not necessarilly the panacea of all hazards - only significant risks need to be recorded; which could mean the club have considered your hazard as insignificant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I thought this rang a bell!! Jazzy you live opposite a football club and have had property damaged by balls coming over what you consider to be a too-low fence.
My original advice still stands - If you feel you have suffered a detriment, sue in the Small Claims Court and let the judge decide.
You do not have the right to see any of the club's documentation under FOI - they are not a public body. The Council does have duties to disclose information under FOI - but only its own, not other organisations, generally.
You seem to have become focused on whether or not an assessment of risks has taken place and whether that assessment has been recorded. I suspect you will never know if one has been carried out or not. It won't stop balls coming over the fence. The club may or may not have made an assessment, but it is obvious from its lack of action it considers the risk not to be significant. What are you going to do if you get a copy (if one exists)? Only a judge can decide if it is suitable and sufficient.
Was the club there when you bought the house?
Time to move on (or move house).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
With all respect my original post question was what are the "Risk Assessment Regulations with voluntary unpaid staff"
Which was answered politely by some of the forum members, of which I am very grateful.
However this thread appears to be changing direction from my original question. There are assumptions being made that I have am reporting an insignificant risk when you have no knowledge of the full facts and background of my complaint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jazzy
Ian A-H has made a valid point and your original question was answered by several members of the forum. Since then you have asked several other questions which have all be answered. You are correct, we do not have the 'full facts and background' because you did not come clean from the off, rather with each question you have provided tit bits of information as a means of soliciting an answer.
Time to blow the whistle on this thread me thinks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Absolute requirement under section 3(1) of HASAWA (1974) irrespective of how many employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Burrowsa wrote:Absolute requirement under section 3(1) of HASAWA (1974) irrespective of how many employees.
Sorry, but you are wrong. If there are no employees this law cannot be applied (and I mean employees by the legal definition, not the dictionary one).
Nobody gets paid in benifit or kind there are no employees and no employer. No master and no servant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I apologise for raising another question, but I am sure that this request will be of benefit to other members.
I was recently informed that sports clubs that come under the authority of the LA for the enforcement of the 1974 HSWA are exempt from the 1974 HSWA, because the act only applies to work activities. Non-work activities and social interactions are not covered.
Surely this information is incorrect with regards to 74 HSWA Reg 3 - General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
How did this awful thread get re-energised?
For the record, whether a person is deemed an employee will depend on a number of variables. As a rule of thumb, anyone working for an organisation, profit making or not, with or without pay, benefit in kind, etc; will be deemed an employee for health and safety purposes - especially if there is an injury!
Any organisation or institution regardless of the activity may be subject to s3(1) HSWA. The clue is 'undertaking.'
1)It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I don't think this is so straightforward as it first seems. I understand that the HSWA does apply to employees of the sports club/organisation, for example if and when there is an injury etc.
But does the act still apply when the grounds are being used for non-work activities? There is a known Health and Safety issue at the grounds due to inadequate fencing which is causing a hazard to traffic. The club is aware of this problem but are refusing to construct a higher fence and are denying any responsibility under the grounds that it does not come in to the HSWA because this act is for work activities only and not non-work activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If a 'gain' is had by one party because of the actions of another party then a relationship exists and with that relationship comes responsibilities, liabilities and duties; the point with regards to being a paid or unpaid person does not come into the equation --- civil law ----- so a master servent relationship does exist and this can be extended to criminal law
NB: Environmental law also exists and applies as the producer [owner] of the waste etc is always the owner of that waste irrespective of who is moving /interfacing with that waste on behalf of its owner irrespective of if they are paid or unpaid people
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
bob youel wrote:If a 'gain' is had by one party because of the actions of another party then a relationship exists and with that relationship comes responsibilities, liabilities and duties; the point with regards to being a paid or unpaid person does not come into the equation --- civil law ----- so a master servent relationship does exist and this can be extended to criminal law
NB: Environmental law also exists and applies as the producer [owner] of the waste etc is always the owner of that waste irrespective of who is moving /interfacing with that waste on behalf of its owner irrespective of if they are paid or unpaid people
Which backs up what I said originally. If nobody gains they are all volunteers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thank you for your replies.
I am still no wiser if the 1974 HSWA does apply for non-working activities. There are ongoing disputes if the 'reasonable and practicable' rule applies in this case, which is part of the 74 HSWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The HASAWA'74 Part 1, S1.3:
"For the purposes of this Part risks arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work shall be treated as including risks attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the condition of premises so used or any part of them."
I was taught that this clause extends the scope of the Act to many activities that are not classed as work, in line with the "etc" bit of the title.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
stuff4blokes wrote:The HASAWA'74 Part 1, S1.3:
"For the purposes of this Part risks arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work shall be treated as including risks attributable to the manner of conducting an undertaking, the plant or substances used for the purposes of an undertaking and the condition of premises so used or any part of them."
I was taught that this clause extends the scope of the Act to many activities that are not classed as work, in line with the "etc" bit of the title.
I think you will find that the "Etc" part was included to cover construction sites so as to avoid confusion over whether or not it was "At Work" (refering to a place of work, a construction site might have been argued as not being a place of work until the building was finished and occupied)
"At work" is now commonly excepted as meaning 'doing work'.
'Work' has been defined in law as the provision of services in return of reward. In benifit or in kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The "etc" in the Act was to do with Part II (Employment Medical Advisory Service) and Part III Building Regulations, and Amendment of Building (Scotland) Act 1959
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Risk Assessment Regulations with voluntary unpaid staff
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.