The government has indicated they will publish some guidance this week.  Until then we are all waiting!

I would also recommend that you read SHP Online article by Simon Joynston-Bechal in terms of Health & Safety criminal law obligations - some good tips in the article.

Originally Posted by: Holliday42333

Extra hygiene (read the cleaning rules carefully, 72hr quarantined waste, PPE and strength of cleaning products etc).

What Document are you referring to please ?

is it just this one 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings/covid-19-decontamination-in-non-healthcare-settings

Chris

Edited by user 11 May 2020 14:48:01(UTC)  | Reason: missed link

Any idea what "covid-secure" entails?

To my literal mind this means an area where covid cannot enter which by extension, and in the absence of a vaccine, means no humans are present.

Another non-sensical use of the English language which beggars the question have the cabinet been watching Monty Python and decided upon establishing a Ministry of Silly Talks?

I have just read the piece from Simon Joynston-Bechal and I just don’t think he is right. If he is right then the way we do H&S will dramatically change. We have always assumed that H&S duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act only arise due to risks caused directly by the work activity. In the case of Covid-19 (we have discussed this on the forum) the legal duty only covers those situations where some is directly exposed due their work. For example working in lab testing for the virus or working with people known or suspected of having the virus in a health care or social care setting.

What the author of this article seems to be proposing is that the employer is responsible for ALL risks in the workplace even those that are caused by a public health issue like the current pandemic. We have always said that someone coming into work with a cold and spreading it about is not a risk that has to be managed by the employer under H&S law.  If it is, then all such risks will in future have to be managed including, for example, violence amongst staff. So if Fred is having it off with Jack’s wife and Jack assaults Fred, at work the employer could be liable as they should have known and taken steps to prevent any risk to Fred. This could be a real can of worms.

People will of course say that Covid-19 is more serious than a cold or a punch up over Fred’s missus but the law is not about the seriousness of the risk, it is about the type of risk and in particular whether the work activity creates the risk. Where does the risk stop; can the employer be held liable for locating their works near a busy road with no safe place to cross?

Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel

I have just read the piece from Simon Joynston-Bechal and I just don’t think he is right. If he is right then the way we do H&S will dramatically change. We have always assumed that H&S duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act only arise due to risks caused directly by the work activity. In the case of Covid-19 (we have discussed this on the forum) the legal duty only covers those situations where some is directly exposed due their work. For example working in lab testing for the virus or working with people known or suspected of having the virus in a health care or social care setting.

It is an interesting point and previous discussion on this point, but would it not be similar to someone working near a river and lake where a work risk assessment would consider weil’s disease. A disease brought into the environment by a creature you expect to be there, but this would not be part of your actual task (unless you are employed as a rat herder). So, would it not be similar now we know this virus is brought in to our work areas by a creature we expect to be there!

I’m sure the other day on one of the news programs, there was a discussion on this point and it suggested there was a legal duty. Again, this morning they were interviewing someone from a trade union, who were suggesting that people in a union should walk out if appropriate controls to cover employer’s duty of care were not in place and the union would back them.

Now it will be hard to prove where covid 19 was actually caught, but easy enough to suggest workplace controls were inadequate and so employer negligent in their approach.

Chris

As I understand it there is a difference between 'beyond all reasonable doubt' and 'the balance of probabilities' so we might not have to worry too much about a criminal prosecution but about a civil law case. 

Having read the HSE guidance on RIDDOR I tend to feel that unless there is some fairly substantial evidence that the infection was due to the actual work being done, e.g. caring for COVID sufferers in a hospital setting, and it could be shown that the employer had implemented measures to manage the risk in the workplace they would be unlikely to prosecute.  But then, I am not a lawyer!

Can we please stop with this social distancing in the workplace hang-up.

It is not practicable unless we significantly alter all existing buildings, production lines, transport modes, infrastruture etc.. and then duplicate them all to make up for the less efficient use of space and equipment.

The only positive from reduced numbers in existing workplaces is we can move away from the welfare debate about 11m3 per employee.

Teachers cannot socially distance from pupils particularly where such pupils have special needs or are very young (particularly those who mum & dad have failed to toilet train before dumping their off-spring on state sponsored child care). If teachers cannot distance then parents cannot work.

Originally Posted by: Accidentia

Social distancing and the altering of workplaces to accommodate it is exactly what is now expected. See examples in the government guidance at

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/working-safely-during-coronavirus-covid-19

Yes, and it's a mix of the patently obvious and the completely impractical.  It tells me for example, that it will usually be becesary for offices to provide more car parking.  Oh, OK, I'll just whip out my spare car-park, shall I?

I presume that all the bees carried photography ID?

Originally Posted by: Accidentia

I suspect that in workplaces where this guidance is not followed there will be significant resistance from employees and union representatives.

Personally I suspect the workplaces where the guidance is not followed hire and fire on a whim and have no union representation. Unscrupulous businesses are using this event to trim their workforce and get rid of trouble makers and the non-productive given business downturn is a suitable defence against dismissal claims.

I see in construction news trades are being asked to take a 30% cut in rates

Some of the problems in complying with guidance and the call to get back to work are down to the way we work and accepted norms in society. Some workplaces might lend themselves to social distancing, many will not. I suspect the only other way is the use of face masks/coverings, not to protect the wearer but protect others from the wearer. Interesting to read an account of the social measures put in during the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic; which included the promotion of face masks.

Part of the drive to get children back to school is to enable parents to go back to work, since for many the schools have become childcare facilities. Will we need to change this?

Ideally, a return to work for all who cannot work from home would have been delayed until we could conclude that the coronavirus crisis was over, which is not the case at the moment, but economic considerations are now taking front centre. I thought it was only a matter of time for the much trumpeted furlough scheme to be wound down, forcing people to re-enter workplaces of varying degrees of safety.

I am sure the legal fraternity will jump on the bandwagon of employer liabilities; it will be just too tempting a target for the civil law lawyers. As for criminal law liabilities, who knows?

The guidance does answer one of the age old forum debates "who a risk assessment is written for" - this states it should be shared with the employees and even suggests publishing to a company web site where there are more than 50 employees.

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham

In relation to car parking, whilst only a handful of people are in the office people are maintaining distance with their parking.  However, if your organisation has a reverse parking policy then when the office is at full capacity again, there should be no need to alter parking arrangements.  Given that a parking space is recommended to be a minimum of 2.4m x 4.8m that means if everyone adheres to the reverse parking policy they will be at the required social distance.

I think the issue with car parking is that if no-one is using public transport and no-one is car-sharing, there are going to be twice as many cars turning up, not the spacing of the drivers.

The thing I found with the guidance is it didn't make it clear what they define as a critical worker in an office. So I guess that is open for debate. We are managing as a company working at home and have found ways around things but there are a number of workers struggling with it. Either because of personal circumstances (e.g. one person is in the call centre but her other half works nights and needs to sleep during the day in a flat, or their mental health), or because they don't have very good internet access where they live. It's not critical that those roles are done in the office but it would make their lives easier. But where do you draw the line? Should we actually tell these people they have to continue working from home until the government advices us differently? it could be over a year until we have a vaccine or a treatment. So we just leave our offices sitting empty until then?

In some parts of the country the local authority extorts a tax upon workplace parking spaces so you do find some people who can drive but had chosen to travel by public transport to avoid this taxation.

Reverse parking systems forget that certain vehicles have tail gates and/or lifts which need additional space beyond the bumper line for access. Thankfully I no longer work where rapid car park evacuation is required so am free to park naturally.

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham

Originally Posted by: achrn

I think the issue with car parking is that if no-one is using public transport and no-one is car-sharing, there are going to be twice as many cars turning up, not the spacing of the drivers.

I understand that but from my experience those who take public transport do so because they can't drive or don't have a car themselves.  Therefore that shouldn't change in this situation.

Not in my workplace - it's lack of parking (the office I am in has parking for about 10% of the people in the building, if they are one-per-car) and comparative ease of public transport that means people don't drive. Those that can't park at the building park in  public car-parks, but they will now be filling up, and our clever-clogs government has published a document saying employers should provide parking for workers - offices will usually need to do so, it says.

Some of our city-centre offices don't have any car-parking at all - the vast majority of staff in those offices arrive by public transport (a few walk or cycle).

Originally Posted by: Natasha.Graham

Originally Posted by: achrn

Not in my workplace - it's lack of parking (the office I am in has parking for about 10% of the people in the building, if they are one-per-car) and comparative ease of public transport that means people don't drive. Those that can't park at the building park in  public car-parks, but they will now be filling up, and our clever-clogs government has published a document saying employers should provide parking for workers - offices will usually need to do so, it says.

Some of our city-centre offices don't have any car-parking at all - the vast majority of staff in those offices arrive by public transport (a few walk or cycle).

I must be really lucky then! My site has almost enough parking for everyone so lack of parking isn't an issue we've experienced. If an organisation doesn't have parking facilities then they can't be expected to magiv spaces up from thin air! Unless the organisation is expected to pay for parking in a public car park instead?! 

That's exactly what I'm concerned about - employee now announcing that the government says employers should provide parking - claiming that it's in the government guidance, and the government televised briefing said that only rogue employers will not follow this guidance (and those rogue employers are going to have enforcement action taken against them).

Access to the limited on-site parking already caused large amounts of grief before the government decided to announce that employers should provide additional parking.

I thought the Gov announced that you should go back to work if you can’t work at home. You should try to avoid public transport when possible and to walk or cycle to work. I haven’t actually seen a statement you should necessarily drive. They have acknowledged people will. My personal preference would be to car share with a colleague, who I may be interacting with through the day anyway, than use public transport with god knows how many others (and those on the trip before you). Of course, where are you going to put all the bicycles as well as the extra cars, then sweaty employees for the day. For a decade now people have been pushed to go further and further to get a job and can only realistically do it via public transport, people even buy hoses based on closeness to a train /bus route. They live in a different world to the rest of us though.

 I try to watch all the briefings including the 5pm one.  I like watching them try and slither out of answering the question asked, which is normally waffle waffle, umm and arrr a bit.  Then answer a completely different question than was asked, as by this point everyone watching has forgotten the question anyway. They then cut off the person and go to the next. One day I would like to of them to ask “what is the point of asking you any questions as you don’t answer what was asked anyway” – of course they will never be allowed to ask another question ever again, but would go down in history.

Just wait for the chaos this new app will bring (anyone know how close you have to be for it to register? one person on the train or bus, the office, the next isle over in the supermarket then 14 days at home for everyone on ssp). So, you could lose your entire office staff in one go. I’m so glad they have thought this through.

Chris

Originally Posted by: rs10

Have your organisations now started displaying COVID secure posters?

A very bold, very dangerous claim, and yet another ineffective placebo.

To make such a statement will lead to a false sense of security and when someone frequenting the premises catches Covid a lengthly legal battle.

You should not declare unknowns at this moment in time you will never know if those present have or do not have the virus.

Originally Posted by: rs10

Also, the Government documents state if more than 50 employees it expects the RA to be published on your website.  

Can you share a source of this, I can't find mention of it anywhere? Our website hasn't been updated in years, so this could be fun ;)

I found the mention in the document, thanks. I feel this is yet another of those government "ideas" that they haven't thought through. Many companies still don't use the internet like that.

Still makes it easy for other companies to just "borrow" somebody else's RA now.

The new guidelines quote

"safety representative selected by a recognised trade union or, if there isn’t one, a representative chosen by workers. As an employer, you cannot decide who the representative will be. "

Does every company need this? For example our company, we are an insurance broker of about 150 people. We has a H&S manager (me) but do we still need a rep appointed by the workers? - I cant find anything on HSE saying thats a requirement for low risk companies.

Thanks in advance