Posted By Narrowboater My friend's employer has banned everyone from eating at their desk which she doesn't have a problem with. However, the only alternative is a pub about 10 minutes walk away. The question I'd like to ask (on her behalf) is should her employer provide an area where staff can go and eat their breakfast/lunch away from their desks? They can't afford to go to the pub every day and my friend has certain dietary requirements so finds it easier to take her own. I believe they have a small kitchen but no table or chairs (apart from their desks). Please could someone let me know if there are any laws or regs on this, or where I could find further information for my friend? Many thanks

Posted By Steven HSE information at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg244.pdf “Facilities for rest and to eat meals Suitable and sufficient, readily accessible, rest facilities should be provided. Rest areas or rooms should be large enough, and have sufficient seats with backrests and tables, for the number of workers likely to use them at any time. They should include suitable facilities to eat meals where meals are regularly eaten in the workplace and the food would otherwise be likely to become contaminated. Seats should be provided for workers to use during breaks. These should be in a place where personal protective equipment need not be worn. Work areas can be counted as rest areas and as eating facilities, provided they are adequately clean and there is a suitable surface on which to place food. Where provided, eating facilities should include a facility for preparing or obtaining a hot drink. Where hot food cannot be obtained in, or reasonably near to the workplace, workers may need to be provided with a means for heating their own food. Canteens or restaurants may be used as rest facilities provided there is no obligation to purchase food. Suitable rest facilities should be provided for pregnant women and nursing mothers. They should be near to sanitary facilities and, where necessary, include the facility to lie down. Rest areas and rest rooms away from the workstation should include suitable arrangements to protect non-smokers from discomfort caused by tobacco smoke.”

Posted By Breezy ...start. The HSE also produce a handy guide on this, which can be downloaded from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg244.pdf Apologies for the continuity problems in my answer there!

Posted By Andy Walker Bit late there wasn't I

Posted By Breezy Yeah Andy, But at least you didn't post your reply before you'd finished responding!

Posted By Granville Jenkins Having recently joined the OSH Chat Forum, I realise that this submission may be a bit like closing the door after the cat has bolted, however, I feel it would be worthwhile to make the following comments with respect to the requirements for welfare facilities in the workplace ... To begin with, let me just mention the three levels of duty placed upon the employer under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 - 1. To do what is reasonably practicable, this is the lowest level of duty. The bottom line is that cost, time and effort must grossly outweigh and not simply balance the risk. 2. To do what is practicable, this is the second highest level of duty, and the employer must carry out an action if it is technically possible or feasible, regardless of cost, time and effort. 3. An 'absolute duty', this is the highest level of duty and the employer has no choice other than to comply with that duty. The verbs used in the Regulations are 'shall' and 'must'. The purpose of mentioning these duties is that Regulation 25(1) of Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare)Regulations 1992 specifically state that "Suitable and sufficient rest facilities shall be provided at readily accessible places"; additionally, Regulation 25(5) further states that " Suitable and sufficient facilities shall be provided for persons at work to eat meals where meals are regularly eaten in the workplace." (the verb in both clauses being 'shall' and not 'should'). There should be no confusion between 'shall' and 'should' - Shall expresses an explicit instruction or commmand and has no relation to other things, whereas 'should' is used in situations where it becomes necessary to distinguish between alternatives. I should also mention that the term 'suitable and sufficient'implies a higher level of attainment than just applying the Regulations - therefore when considering the level of facilities to be provided it will be necessary to seek and apply information from all sources before coming to any decision. The fact that the Regulations specifically state rest facilities 'shall be' provided at readily accessible places, means that the 'rest areas' should be considered as a separate space away from the immediate work area. It is also my personal opinion that 'work areas/work stations' and 'rest areas' are at complete loggerheads to one another. It should be noted that I have only quoted two of the the clauses attached to Regulation 25 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (Facilities for rest and to eat meals) readers who require further details should obtain a copy of the Regulations. One final comment: The employer has an absolute duty of care to provide a safe working environment with adequate welfare facilities; welfare includes the physical and pyschological well-being of individuals at the workplace. I sincerely hope that the above comments provide some enlightenment to all readers. Regards GJ

Posted By John Murgatroyd "Realistically though a lot of businesses don't realise what the law states and this highlights I think just one area that perhaps needs attention from the likes of H+S and HR persons" Realistically, a lot of businesses realise what the law states very well indeed. They chose to ignore it, usually with some extremely expensive advice from said H+S and HR persons helping. How far has H&S come in the last century ? 1878 Factory and Workshops Act: Employment of children under 10 banned. Regulations of control safety, ventilation and meals.