'I personally don't agree with disclaimers as I don't think you can disclaim your way out of a legal duty e.g. Section 7: duty to take reasonable care of your own H&S and co-operate with with the employer etc...' Correct, but don't forget s2(1)! Legal disclaimers are not worth the paper they are written on. I suggest you first find out why your staff do not wish to wear headsets. Are the headsets PPE as defined in a company Risk Assessment? I'm not sure what advantage/disadvantage wearing them is, so I can't comment further.

No wonder you have a headache! There is no such thing as a disclaimer that would stand up in a court to mitigate you in this case. You have conducted a risk assessment and your findings have indicated a risk, brought in adequate equipment/measures to reduce the likelyhood of harm. You provide training and instruction of their correct use. You then ensure employees work safely, use the equipment they have been provided in the interest of their safety Employees have a legal obligation too

Weigh them (phone against head set) then, watch how they are used. With a hand held the person has only one hand free to use the key board and is therefore out of balance and twisting, using left had to bring phone to right ear etc. Take a peep at car drivers for proof of that! (try it yourself) or wedged in the shoulder, again a problem. Head set, lighter designed for, and fit for, purpose.

Image is everything? Its sounds a classic case of the tail waging the dog. In so far as the issuing of a waiver is concerned read: Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In particular section 2(2) & 2(3) “Negligence liability.” Paint balling etc is different, unless you are actually employed as a marshal. So I would exercise caution when making a comparison with someone at work and another engaging in leisure or sporting activity. If it were me I would write up a tool box talk presentation (include the line managers) on why you want them to use the headsets and slip in a crafty quote on sections 7 & 8 of the HSWA74. Depending on how co-operative they were I would consider quoting other legislation, maybe MHSWR99, Reg 14. Then make it HR’s and the line manager’s problem.

Ivor, We did this in the 90's. We just unplugged and removed the handsets from site, end of.

volenti non fit injuria sailed with Noha. Stand your ground Bob

For the men..Avoid pink! Having said that... Zimmy (Don't like pink honest)

On the first point about the headsets. You have identified that the issue is essentially one of vanity. I don't think that that is a 'valid' reason for not complying with a precaution that has been introduced to reduce an identified and assessed risk. If this was a building site and the employee refused to wear a helmet, safety footwear etc, would you accept the same 'vanity' argument? On the second point about disclaimers. You can't absolve yourself or others from a statutory duty by the use of a disclaimer. In respect of this case//scenario, a disclaimer would be inappropriate and essentially worthless. As already pointed out, those disclaimers that attempt to restrict liability for negligence are generally unenforceable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. However, many disclaimers are perfectly legal and enforceable in law, although the extent, might be arguable on the facts of each case. For example the IOSH site itself has a disclaimed at http://www.iosh.co.uk/te...f_use.aspx#Liabilitydisc which I suggest is perfectly reasonable, 'legal', and enforceable!

Interesting one, what type of call centre is it? We have had problems with both people screaming loudly down the phone and also occasional system-generated very loud audio spikes, both into people's headsets. A handset may be easier to drop or otherwise get rid of in these cases of sudden high volume. We can't do much about the screeching callers, and some of the finest telecom minds have been working for some time to get to bottom of the audio spike problem. Depending on your sector, the chap might have a valid arguement (who said vanity doesn't have a purpose?!).

Ivorheadache It's easy to confound compliance with procedures about technology, in the absence of relevant reliable evidence. One of the critical considerations in the situation you outline is that available research on safety ergonomics in call centres is not clear-cut about the absolute need for wearing a headset, as a means of safeguarding against injury. Compare it, for example, with the evidence about managing use of ladders, scaffolding, edging and so on when people are working at height. An alternative approach is to introduce the elements of what is commonly called 'behavioural safety' in two ways: 1. negotiating definitions of 'safe behaviour' about all key aspects of call centre operator behaviour; 2. creating and sustaining processes of documented VALID observer feedback by TRAINED peers on the percentage of safe behaviour. This has the combined effect of creating a trail of evidence of safety compliance with relevant regulations and of practical reinforcement of 'a safety culture'.

Gents, the original question asks in relation to a claim which will be a civil action. I don't disagree about criminal acts but in this case could we realistically argue, say at a tribunal, that we had taken action against/dismissed an individual who chose to use a phone rather than a headset? What is the decision based on? Have we got evidence of an issue? Is it law that headsets must be used?

Ivor, you say 'some' of the male staff don't want to wear them(as its an image thing I assume they haven't even tried them) and the manager doesn't want to go down the disciplinary route (how many do unless absolutely necessary?) - is this because he's 'one of the boys'? At the end of the day you have done the RA and identified a control, if these have been agreed and endorsed by the management team it's their duty to implement, they cannot back track to suit a few individuals because it doesn't fit their 'macho' image. It's managing change again and the employees have their own duties to comply with. I hold with most others here that the disclaimer doesn't hold water. (People have tried the same argument on our site for other issues). I've got no real experience of call centres so don't know what evidence there is for or against the use of headsets for controlling the risks. I would like to offer some food for thought. Look at the NaW regs, we have the two action levels. The higher, being a significant (certain?) risk of hearing damage requires mandatory ear protection. The lower level (some evidence of a potential risk) only requires the employer provides information and PPE but wearing it is voluntary. There's no need for any form of disclaimer. Could this argument be used in the case of Headsets - another post refers to unproven evidence. You provide but don't require the employees to wear them. You would of course have review in the light of any new evidence on the subject and change controls accordingly. I may of course be way off the mark! So fire away!!