I don't think it is an unreasonable request to ensure transient employees are provided with drinking water whilst at work. If mains drinking water is not available, then providing a container for them to fill when at their depot seems a sensible option. Something as simple as an insulated flask should do the job.

I really do not think s7 is relevant in this particular circumstance as it is the employer's duty to ensure welfare arrangements, including the provision of drinking water.

Supply of wholesome drinking water (and as the Regs state, something to drink the water from) is surely but a part of the issue where your people work in properties with no mains water.
What do they do for toilets? Where do they wash up (particularly the wet trades) at end of task.

To put the question back a step- WHY is there no water supply? What do your people do for light, heat and power?
If we can provide power on-site, water shouldn't be a problem?

maczuga15942

So what you are saying is the people who work in your offices and depots are covered by the regs and the people who work in your properties away from depots and offices are not. Which part of the regulations make this distinction. Utility companies who are working from vans are able to provide the washing and drinking facilities. When working with concrete slides we were still able to provide drinking water for the workforce. You are required to provide water;the operatives whom you employ are not required to relive your duty by providing their own.

Well, I’m going to buck the trend here! I have some sympathy with your situation Maczuga. We’re all clearly aware of ‘welfare reg 22’ and it appears to be an absolute duty, but could I suggest something of a more practical approach? There are allsorts of peripatetic workers, site workers etc who I suggest, depending on the circumstances are more than capable of providing themselves with some drinking water in any number of ways without having to be totally reliant on their employer to do so. I FULLY ACCEPT that there are plenty of cases where the provision of welfare including drinking water is quite reasonably down to the employer but I suggest that there also plenty of cases where it isn’t unreasonable for the employee to use a little ‘nowse’ to look after themselves. Am I to now start providing reusable containers or bottled water for refuse crews, forestry workers, litter pickers, and the numerous other officers that work away from the office for part or most of their day? Isn’t part of our job to look past strict adherence to a regulation, which in this case many workers are more than capable of seeing to themselves?

Nicola - I think Maczuga mentioned 22 in his original post!

Right then, I’m off to get my flak jacket and helmet on!!!!

With regards to Phil's post which has some merit, although I do not agree with all he has said. Surely, it is about what is 'reasonably practicable' given the circumstances. For example, you would not provide mobile welfare facilities for say a road sweeper who is out and about as part of his normal working day. However, you might provide him with a bottle, or flask which he can fill before he goes out from the depot. Whereas utility workers often have basic welfare units installed in their vans, not a perfect solution by any means, but functional.

Welfare on transient construction sites now covered in Construction Information Sheet No 59 “Provision of welfare facilities during construction work”

Activities are probably "construction work" in which case the legal requirements are set out in CDM Regs 9(1)(b), 13(7), 22(1)(c) and Schedule 2. Clauses 11-13 of the Schedule set out the requirements for drinking water.

Oops! my CIS library is out-of-date!

This looks like a typical example of workers bringing problems for the employer to resolve instead of working together to resolve.

How many times is this kind of problem arise by people bringing problems and with no suggestion of solution.... even reasonably practical ones with some common sense as part of the ingredient?

quote=bob youel] This does not mean temporary showers everywhere but it does mean that logic and common sense is in place and we treat people as we want to be treated

Sorry but responses like that don't go down well with me. The poster asked for advice not a quoting of the regs....especially when he already quoted the regs in his own post!!!

Been there with both construction, property repair work, social workers and even refuse workers.

Simply had at the starting point of the day a fridge full of bottled water, coolboxes were made available on request for anyone who wanted one and the staff were informed so they could take bottles as and when they needed (this was UK wide with over 400 vehicles). Most of the staff did not follow up on this but it was used by a select view.

Any crews not able to get back were allowed to purchase water and bring the recipts into their local branch to claim money back and it was pennies.

It worked well and was met with appreciation by staff and slients in audits etc

Returning to the actual question! I'm with Peter. It looks like Construction activity has been identified which means CDM applies, for those still catching up with CDM, they were merged with the Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations in 2007, making welfare requirements for those engaged in construction activity quite explicit.

On the union front if well versed in H & S law i'm surprised the are talking about the workplace regs rather than CDM.

I also echo Ron and Bob's comments.

Not got time to elaborate, off to get a cup of tea :)

There would not be a problem if employer provided drinking water as required!

Must make mental note....

Speak to manager to provide me with drinking water whilst inspecting unused builds.

Hi Brian,

I completely agree with you. The poster did mention occasions too.
Thus being the case it would be good for relations to perhaps even consider a large flask type container to accommodate a small group to share use of.

I also wonder what toilet facilities are available with no water?

How does the plasterer mix his plaster?, as far as I was aware there are only two ingredients and one is water ?. You also need additional water to polish the plaster before it is fully dry, don’t you?

Sorry this has been bugging me from the start.

Why not ask the employees what they do currently, or what they think. They may not be that bothered. Just a thought.

Clairel

I do not disagree with you that thread development is good. However in this case I think I think we have progressed from an emanate sensible suggestion which was supplying bottled water to such as carpenters who spend a reasonable amount of time in an empty premises, to supplying everyone not permanently based in one place. I, like you travel around to different site, but I would not expect my employer to supply water for me. Usually when I get to the site they have welfare facilities if I need them. If the travel time is excessive then my employer would have no problems with reimbursing me for a cup off coffee etc at an appropriate location. Once again it is about being reasonable to all employees and working together on such issues and not dismissing workers requests out of hand.

Brian

As its Friday and there is plenty of fresh cool water freely dropping out the sky I’ll wander around this post as well.

1 maczuga15942 has specified that the issue relates to ‘offsite workers in hot weather’. So this only arises a few days a year in the UK.

2 By post #2 Ray suggests a practical water carrying solution which seems sensible, reasonably practicable, proportionate, common sense, is in line with current Government health and safety simplicity and should not put the employer out of business.

Picking up some of the variety of points made after Ray’s potential solution.

3 The issue about workers looking after themselves is a moot point. Bob highlights the issue about treating people with dignity and respect. If only this could happen.

In November 2000 ‘A Commitment to People “Our Biggest Asset” A report from the Movement for Innovation’s working group on Respect for People’ was published under the Rethinking Construction banner. The Strategic Forum for Construction then went on to publish the ‘Respect for People’ Code which had the following vision:

‘People working in partnership, demonstrating respect for the safety and health of others by their everyday actions to create a world-class industry with exemplary working conditions.’

By March 2009 over 40 construction companies were caught using the illegal blacklisting services of an organisation they financially supported, the Consulting Association. A number of these companies supported the Respect for People Code. The blacklist was about ensuring over 3,000 construction workers did not get employed on the respective company sites. Being a trade union activist was a good enough reason to be on the list. However it also included workers who had raised health and safety issues.

Respect for People – except those we don’t like.

The conditions that too many construction workers work in are nothing short of disgusting. It is interesting that in both the Terminal 5 project and on the Olympic Development site, the provision of decent welfare facilities was seen as a key factor and not some side issue. A bit more respect all around may be a good start.

4 My understanding is that the HSE estimates around 80% of accidents in Great Britain are attributable to failures in managerial control. Given the annual HSE statistics reveal that it is mainly workers who are killed, injured, diseased and maimed through work activities - in the control of other people - it might be helpful if more workers did challenge bad managerial decision making. However they may get sacked for their trouble. Which is why – I presume – trade unions still exist and they focus more effort onto management systems than constantly berating their members to comply with poor management decision making. So if the law requires water to be supplied, I would anticipate that trade unions would expect it to be supplied and raise the issue on behalf of their members if it isn’t.

In passing, the HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted about health and safety matters that they should be. This in violation of laws specifying consultation rights for employees in unionised and non-union organisations.

5 It is agreed that employees should take responsibility for their own actions. I understand this is also legally required. And when they are employed on a contract of employment that actually has a balance of power equitably distributed between the ‘master’ and the ‘servant’ – I’ll leave it to the reader to guess which is the ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ in employee contract law – perhaps they should bring a bottle of water to work on those few hot summer days!

6 It is possible that the reason trade unions get to understand the law is that too many of the organisations they deal with don’t understand certain aspects of it – like the rights of workers to be consulted, for example. While many posting comments here work for great organisations that would never dream of employing people in lousy or unsafe working conditions, the statistics indicate a lot of workers are not so blessed.

Cheers and have a good weekend.

Nigel