Posted By Jonathan Breeze Yesterday, the Merseyside branch had a discussion on violence in the workplace which raised the following question: How far (and to what level) are employers responsible for the health, safety and welfare of their staff outside of the workplace and normal working hours? Do forum members have any thought or suggestions?

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Jonathan As you pose the question in terms of 'How far (and to what level)', I think the first two elements protocal of risk assessment in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 may be helpful in determining the levels of risk exposure. 1. Particular forms of hazards of violence depend on who can be foreseen as likely to cause violence, the times and places involved, and the degree of reliability of controls on them. Exposure will be higher where lone working is involved 2. To whom relates to a variety of personal factors including gender, fitness, height, weight, ablebodiedness and physical disabilities. In some public sector settings (e.g. a female psychiatrist called out for a home visit), it is now standard for the employee to be in frequent liaison with the police when she is at risk of violence - and they intervene PDQ if need be. Outside the public sector operations of this kind, some private firms provide a 24/7 emergency alarm service

Posted By Kevin Walker But what if the violence is between two people who work together at an after hours function where others from the same work place are gathered. Then this too would be the same as at work. Or is this just an argument for the sake of it. Kevin

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Thanks for the responses folks, I was beginning to think the question was a non-starter. Yes, obviously risk assessment is the basic starting point and findings will vary on context etc. However, consider the following scenario: 1) An employee meets with an unwilling client who has been referred to the organisation by another agency. 2) The employee sticks to the script througout & follows standard operating procedures. 3) Later, the client sees the employee outside of work and threatens them because of what occurred during the work setting. It seems to me that while the employee is not at work at that time, the altercation has arisen as a direct result of work as the client does not make the same legal distinction of 'at work' & 'outside of work'. So what would be the employers responsibilities and duties to the employee in that circumstance? (PS - I will be varying the scenario throughout the discussion)

Posted By Jim O'Dwyer Hi, The HSE define violence at work as: 'Any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work’. The incident Jonathan has outlined is definitely violence and whether it happened during working hours or not it was certainly work related. But, there is (as yet!) insufficient information to make a judgement as to legal responsibility - and liability. This is because legal responsibility for any "injury" sustained by the employee would very much depend on the foreseeability of such an incident happening. For a case of negligence to succeed there needs to be: 1. A 'duty of care' For a duty of care to exist it must be reasonably foreseeable that in taking (or not taking) a particular action the victim would be harmed. The case of Stokes v Guest, Keen and Nettlefold (Nuts and Bolts) Ltd., 1968, provided a 'statement of general principle' that the overall test is ... "the conduct of a reasonably prudent employer, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know." 2. A breach of the duty It's always a question of whether the degree of care shown was "reasonable in the circumstances". 3. Consequential damage The plaintiff must suffer some sort of loss. The loss must be consequential to the duty failure and it must be reasonably foreseeable that it would follow from the 'injury'. The circumstances described do not make it clear whether or not the employee suffered any 'injury'(i.e. physical or psychological harm). But, in any event, my gut feeling from the comment "an unwilling client" is that the kind of incident that has been described was probably strongly predictable from the nature of the employee's work and from the client's history. If that was the case and harm had resulted, then it would be a matter of whether or not the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent the harm from occurring etc. The organisation may well have done everything reasonable and practicable and be able to excuse themselves from legal liability. However, my guess from experience is that the "average employer" would be unlikely to be able to demonstrate that they had exercised due diligence etc - especially if there was no mention of "the risk" in the Organisation's Risk Assessment - and liability for what happened would be likely to follow! Best wishes, Jim O'Dwyer

Posted By Jim O'Dwyer Thanks for your kind comments Kieran. The 'formula for success' you've put forward is soundly based. What would also help is fully appraising employees of the risks they face and giving them advice on what steps to take if they feel threatened. I'm thinking now of a form of "work related violence" that too few organisations have addressed, which is - the potential for employees to become the victim of a stalker as a conseqence of a work related encounter. It is a really huge problem. BCS indicate that more than 1 in 10 adults have been victims of stalking. So, you are more likely to be a victim of stalking than burglary! (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors210.pdf) How much of it is workplace initiated isn't clear, but it is not going to be an insignificant number. Is it? Think of all the occupations where employees would be at high risk - GPs, Nurses, Carers, Security Guards - and, well, everyone really! Not knowing that help and support is available from the employer organisation can lead to victims suffering in silence and not taking appropriate action. The worry and stress involved can deprive the victim's employer of a useful staff member's services for a long time, if not completely. Advising employees is vital. Another absolutely crucial protective measure is a means for people (not just employees) to use to raise / discuss any issues or concerns that absolutely guarantees anonymity. The goal has to be "to gain information from any source that might affect the way the organisation conducts its affairs." I'm thinking now about the potential for domestic violence to spill over into the workplace. It would be best to know in advance that an employee's ex was coming to the workplace to cause trouble. Wouldn't it? In summary, if the employer acts "reasonably prudently, taking positive thought for the safety of his workers in the light of what he knows or ought to know", they should be OK! Best wishes, Jim O'Dwyer

Posted By Kieran J Duignan In relation to Jonathan's question 'To what extent would an organisation have a duty of care to ensure it's employees remain untraceable?', I think you're into one of the imponderables, at a general level. Probably a good source of guidance on how to protect staff from stalkiing and harassment would be a police officer with experience of child protection; they do some very sensitive work and have to learn to protect themselves against serious risks of harm. One form of support that I would think would be advisable is your company hasn't already made it available free of charge is access to counselling and/or post-traumatic incident debriefing on an anonymous basis from suitably qualified independent counsellors. In my experience, trauma can be reasonably quickly resolved as long as is addressed soon after the event before the traumatised person loses practically all hope of 'recovery'.