Posted By holmezy Hi, Although you haven't said if the "do" is work related,I would say yes. Even though they are volunteering and not getting paid, they would still be, as you stated, there to "help in all manner of work activities" and therefore you would have a duty of care under the act. Even if they were there and weren't doing anything, you would still have to look after them as visitors to your "site" or "place of work". If however you are organising a bit of a knees up in your back garden purely for social purpose, then no. Going for some beer now. Holmezy

Posted By Tony Brunskill This would depend on whether the individual or organisation were an employer. Operating costs were mentioned, do these include salaries for ANY employees? regardless of whether they are employed directly in association with this event. Examples might include bursars, cleaners, social club bar staff etc. If this is purely voluntary i.e No EMPLOYEES WHATSOEVER then no one is at work and the Act would not apply. Civil liability may exist and liability under the Occupiers Liability Act. This would provice a route for civil litigation if someone were injured through the organisers or property owners/managers negligence.

Posted By holmezy I have re read the posts and realise they wernt saying what I thought they were saying. however my point still stands..... even if they are volunteers, then there must be a duty... unless they are ALL volunteers.....erm...but doesnt that then become a social event,,ie a private party type affair? But what if its organised by a company, but run by volunteers, not necesarlily from that company, they're not being paid?..... Going now...got a headache... a simple "yes" or "no" answer would have been nice.... Catch you later Holmezy

Posted By Chris Knagg Without being too specific! The challenge I am facing is this: A Local Authority EHO is arguing that at events were the event is set up and run by volunteers he can not enforce the requirements of the HASWA because there is no one being paid and there is no employer/employee relationship. As such this argument is being used as a reason for not taking proactive action in resolving deficiencies that have been discovered and that the event organisers are reluctant to take action because of cost and are testing the resolve of the Local Authority. The circumstances are such that the number of visitors arriving and leaving events at a particular site do so from a field gate onto a very busy and fast trunk road. Because of the speed of the road and the potential of congestion and standing traffic there is a high probability that a Road Traffic Collision will occur and on a road were there have been 40 deaths and 1800 injuries in the last ten years. No debate that something needs to be done. This is a very simple description of a complex situation. My view is that Section 3 of HASWA applies in terms of the legal duty. There is no problem in terms of understanding the problem or the solutions. EHO's view is he can't enforce HASWA if no one is employed so is reluctant to get involved. Organiser is reluctant to pay the cost of traffic management unless he absolutely has to and is standing his ground. My question is if the EHO can not or is reluctant to enforce HASWA because of this lack of strict legal duty but there are clearly circumstances and activities involved in this event that would in a work environment fall squarely under HASWA, what is the solution? From a safety professionals point of view it is very difficult to try and pursuade someone to do something without this ultimate back stop being in place. What are the lawful remedies for this dilema?

Posted By Chas Having read Chris Knagg's explanation of the 'event' wouldn't a 'Temporary Events Notice' be required from the Local Authority (EHO's)before the event is held. This should deal with the safety issues raised.

Posted By Chris Knagg In this case there are no licensable activities. The EHO insists he can't enforce the HASWA where there is no employment.

Posted By Chris Knagg But would they? And if so how and what? Thats my dilema! The HSE are not the enforcing Authority in this case. I don't want to be in a position where we need a fatality to work this out.

Posted By Tony Brunskill Hi All, Many are missing the key point. IS THERE AN EMPLOYER. If there is no employer there is no duty under the Health and Safety at WORK etc Act. Agreed the duties of the employer extend beyond thier employees, i.e members of the public, visitors etc but these sections would only apply where the EMPLOYER exists. The EHO is correct but he should not look at the "Organiser" and this "Event" in isolation. If the facts remain that there is no employer the Act does not apply and therefore cannot be enforced. It is not a question of whether there is a strict liability simply a fact that there is no duty holder and therefore no offence. If there is a Road Traffic Issue then this needs to be addressed by the Police under the Road Traffic Act. Rgards Tony

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, Agree entirely with Tony, just want to add my two-haporth (now there's an archaic turn of phrase!!) on the question of volunteers and at work. Prince's Trust was done under s2 HASAWA for killing volunteers because the courts decided that the meals, out of pocket expenses, accommodation etc that they were in receipt of made them de facto employees, irrespective of lack of employment contract etc. Juts be careful with how you engage volunteers, is all I'm saying, and my employer has thousands of them. Nonetheless, in the case above, no employer = no employees = no HASAWA, as Tony says, John

Posted By Tony Brunskill Chris, While the appointment of a concession to sell "bacon buttys (butties)" complicates the issue the question would still arise as to whether there is an employer/employee relationship before the act would apply. This is outside my expertise but I would suggerst is more likely to be a contract issue rahter than an employment issue. I do not know whether a concession relationship has ever been interpreted by the courts as satisfying the requirements for an employer/employee implied contract. I doubt it personally. I thinjk you would be better positioned to make the argument on the basis of risk from a civil liability angle. Is the event insured, does the policy provide legal expenses cover. etc

Posted By J Knight Hi Chris, That may be a good way forward, Insurers do tend to have views about risk.... John

Posted By Ian P Depends on the insurers and the normal activities they were informed of when the policy was set up or last renewed. If it isn't an activity they already know about theymight be willing to accept payment of an additional premium or they might refuse cover . Unless it is a specialist events insurer they would normally frown upon amything with a "thrill element" and want to see risk assessments etc. before agreeing to anything. They will consider employees, volunteers and members of the public as all being potential insurance risk, the only difference is which insurance would cover them. employers or public.

Posted By Brian Hagyard Chris. For my two-penny worth I agree with your EHO – If there is no work activity/employment involved then HASAW does not apply. That doe’s not mean that safety can be ignored however it may be a civil duty rather than a criminal duty. In an effort to try and clarify this (and apologies if I am trying to teach anyone to suck eggs) in a past life(s) I have been a SCUBA instructor with a BSAC branch and also a dive school. The way I conducted a dive was no different but as a Branch instructor it was in accordance with a Dive Plan and I had a civil duty of care for my dive buddy, as a paid instructor it was in accordance with a risk assessment and my duty was now measured by criminal Law. Your “event” sound similar to me – any employment anywhere in the link – HASAW applies action can be taken before, no employment Civil duty only and recompense only after an event occurs (Duty, Injury, Negligence – test) sad but true. Brian.