Posted By Hilary Charlton If they are at danger of contracting tetanus from their job then I feel it is your duty to ensure that all the tetanus jabs are up to date. You have an absolutely duty under Section 2 of the Health and Safety At Work Act to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. Failure to provide tetanus jabs and keep these up to date when a risk assessment has shown that this is a real possibility, would be a failure under the requirements above.

Posted By Chris Turner This could be viewed in similar vein (no pun intended) as an employee who refuses to wear ppe. That is the employer must be seen to have done AFARP to get the employee to co-operate.

Posted By Steve Armstrong MIOSH As a Health and Safety Manager working for an Oil & Gas Drilling Company overseas, I refer to a case a couple of years ago, of a similar contractor based in the UK. The company had identified that there was a risk to their employees sent to work in Nigeria of contracting Maleria . The company had also identified the controls necessary to reduce the risk ALARP, i.e., they had sourced an approved occupational medical centre and obtained their advise on what they should do; in this case the advise was to provide anti-Maleria tablets. The company, however, choose to ignore this advice and an employee whom had just returned from his first trip to Nigeria died from maleria. The company were prosecuted under HASAWA and fined £100,000 after being found guilty. The widow also recieved a 'substantial' out of court compensation settlement. The Maleria tablets would have cost the company around £20 - 30 and a lot less court and media attention! Our company provides all our employees working overseas, or otherwise identified at risk from viral or bacterial hazards, with the appropriate vaccinations, including Tetanus. Take my advice Julie and provide the vaccinations.

Posted By Dave Wilson Think that "He who introduces the risk, controls the risk!" Is there a risk of getting this 'at work'? NO - Don't bother. YES - Then supply to those who want it.

Posted By Diane Thomason Andy has got this spot on. This is outside a safety adviser's remit as it is a medical matter and the advice of a medical practitioner is needed. Dave, sorry - I have to disagree with you about "provide to those that want it" if it's a risk connected with their work. This is a bit like providing PPE on the basis of risk assessment, and then allowing people to choose whether they want to wear it! You have identified the risk and the appropriate control measures - now you must apply the controls. BUT only as advised by a medical practitioner i.e. an occupational health physician/nurse. Diane

Posted By Diane Thomason Dave, I agree totally that this can't be enforced. But I think that IF the risk assessment indicates that people really should have this immunisation as they are at risk of infection, then the employer's attempt should be a bit more than to supply it to "those who want it", whilst stopping short of compulsion. Actually I think we probably in agreement here but expressing it differently! To me, "to those that want it" sounded like you say "anyone want a tetanus jab? No? Oh OK then, just carry on doing this hazardous job unprotected". Which obviously isn't what you meant! I stand by my comment that Occupational Health or some other medical practitioner should be the one making the recommendation - as they are the only ones qualified to judge whether someone needs an immunisation or not. best wishes Diane

Posted By Dave Wilson Diane, Was just trying to be to the point, of course an OH person in conjunction with the Company / H&S make the relevant Assessment and subsequent Risk Management decision in consultation with the workforce etc etc. Still can't make then have one though! This is not PPE etc Are we getting into the realms of Human Rights V Safety and Employers Liability? Also think people use Sect 2 to the Letter, would the HSE prosecute under this because an employee refuses a tetanus injection? Probably not, Sect 2 is a catch all, if we can't prosecute under anything else then Sect 2 will do fine.