Hi - what is the basis of your question?

RIDDOR, legal and/or moral duties?

Hi Peter, Neil, 

Thanks both for your responses.  Certainly moral wise as we don't want anyone getting hurt while away on business (and we'll risk assess certain elements from selection of hotel, travel distances when driving, any existing health conditions etc) but from a legal aspect, if someone has an accident whilst staying in a hotel, would that be classed as "at work"?

Thanks both. Jon.

From the legal point of view it is entirely up to you what you record as a H&S incident, as opposed to what you need to report to the HSE,  which is described  under RIDDOR. As I keep saying, and will say again, RIDDOR is not an admission of liability, it is simply a report to the HSE  about a work related incident involving your employees or an incident involving someone in your  workplace.

As to recording incidents it’s down to you as why you want to record incidents. You might want to record an incident involving an incident with an employee staying in a hotel because you have a policy that says you will not allow staff to stay at hotels that put them at risk. At my previous employer we had a black list of hotels that we had stopped using for things like: a guest comes back drunk late at night   and has lost their key guard. The person at reception gives them a MASTER key so they are able to gain access to a room where one of our employees(female) was asleep. Another employee found themselves in  a hotel that was totally devoid of staff when a fire alarm went off in the middle of the night. 

Essentially  it is only worth recording this sort of thing if you are willing and able to carry out a follow up action; you don’t get brownie points just for collecting information.   

"you are still working for us so you cannot drink alcohol, please go to sleep and get a good 8 hours sleep........"

.....is the sort of stuff that some organisations reach the point of dictating, particularly when they are paranoid about what counts as an incident.

Not likely to be conducive to staff retention.

This person is likely to be "at work" within the meaning of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 if they e.g. use the phone for work purposes UNLESS they are categorically told not to and might then be classed as "being on a frolic of their own". 

However, if as example you have a lone worker procedure that requires this person to confirm that they have arrived safely e.g. by making a call or sending a text, then that categoric instruction has just been negated!

....and in the modern era, it is almost the norm that such a person may make some notes on what they have done during the day, or will do some preparation for the next day. That would be "at work".

That said the duty on the employer is to do what is "reasonably practicable" and that is limited by the level of control the employer has on the state of the premises. Can't expect the person's boss to do an inspection of the bedroom nor to check food safety standards in the kitchen!

P

The location of the hotel and the court jurisdiction may have a bearing - I recall the case of an employee having a heart attack whilst travelling for work and his wife suing the employer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49662134

It often amuses me that just because a company dictates behaviour for the 40 or so employed hours in a typical week they then start to develop ideas about the 128 private hours.

As to dictating a set sleep period personally I find it difficult to nod off in new surroundings with different noises (aircraft, road, rail, doors banging, kitchen extractors) and smells along with a mattress / pillow / bedding not of my choosing - particulary in those one night stays.

In Europe the law works differently, particularly in civil  case. In the UK to be able to make a claim for negligence, the employees must show that the employer failed in their duty of care and of course that means that the employer must have some control over the situation where the employee suffered their loss/injury etc. In Europe if you are injured at work you get compensation from the statutory insurance scheme, irrespective of whether it was due to the employers  negligence or not. In the French case the question was, whether the employee was “on the job” or not.  The court( I think it was tribunal actually). There was no question as to whether the employer was responsible for this incident.  In most European countries employees are on the job as soon as  they leave home, which is why they can get compensation for accidents during the daily commute.