New research would appear to fly in the face of government policy built on the notion that the retail sector is a low-risk workplace environment where health and safety is concerned.
In a survey of 125 of its members, who handle a combined 20,000-plus personal injury claims a year, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) found that shops are the third most likely location for workplace injuries (employees and customers), after factories and building sites.
Although the organisation accepts that retail is the largest employment sector in the UK – with more than 4.8m people working in shops – it is adamant that retail employers need to take greater responsibility to prevent injuries in the workplace.
APIL is also concerned that proposals contained in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will block access to justice for employees who have legitimate claims for compensation following an injury at work.
The group’s chief executive, Deborah Evans, said: “Although the retail sector employs a large number of people, it shouldn’t be the third most common place for workplace injuries. Retail employers need to take greater care to protect their employees. The right to redress afforded to employees within the current legal framework should remain in place because people [injured at work] deserve legal protection.”
In his report Common sense, common safety, Lord Young defined shops as low-risk workplaces for health and safety and advocated the launch of simplified risk assessments for the retail sector to cut down on bureaucracy.
In May, the HSE and the Local Government Group published joint guidance, advising local authorities on how to concentrate on higher-risk companies and reduce the number of inspections of well-run premises by 65,000 a year. The guidance details how councils should put greater emphasis on reactive work – dealing with complaints, investigating incidents and providing advice and support for businesses on managing workplace risks.
However, shopworkers’ union Usdaw believes that the APIL research, the summer riots, and the recent £1m fine for Marks and Spencer for asbestos failures highlight the flaws in the Government’s approach to health and safety in the sector. Health and safety officer Doug Russell said: “We are concerned by this idea that shops are low-risk workplaces where you don’t have to worry about health and safety legislation. You just have to look back at the recent riots, where hundreds of staff were attacked.”
He added: “When you look at prosecutions, all the big retailers crop up quite frequently. There is no room for complacency as far as health and safety is concerned.”
At last week’s Labour party conference in Liverpool, Usdaw proposed a motion condemning cuts to the Police and branding them a threat to the safety of all public-facing workers. The union will use its annual Respect for Shopworkers Week, which takes place between 7 and 11 November, to urge shoppers to sign Usdaw’s petition.
Addressing delegates at the conference, Usdaw general secretary John Hannett said: “Every minute of every day a shopworker is assaulted, threatened, or abused, so, during my speech to you, at least five shopworkers will have been on the wrong side of an angry customer, a shoplifter trying to get away with it, or a youngster who has been refused a sale of alcohol.
“That is why one of Usdaw’s major campaigns is called Freedom from Fear. Shopworkers should be free from the fear of violence, threats and verbal abuse and it should never be accepted as just a part of the job.”
Approaches to managing the risks associated Musculoskeletal disorders
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, we hear from Matt Birtles, Principal Ergonomics Consultant at HSE’s Science and Research Centre, about the different approaches to managing the risks associated with Musculoskeletal disorders.
Matt, an ergonomics and human factors expert, shares his thoughts on why MSDs are important, the various prevalent rates across the UK, what you can do within your own organisation and the Risk Management process surrounding MSD’s.
For the association of personal injury lawyers and USDAW to do anything but push this line of reasoning would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. What proportion of the claims were by customers? How many customers walk through the doors of said retailers? It is this type of article that gives “safety” a bad name, when really the bad name should be shouldered by ambulance chasers and insurance companies….it is they who are driving the “bonkers conkers” revolution!
Quite ironic that this story comes out at a time when Solicitors are to be deregulated and Supermarkets wil be able to offer legal services. I wonder if anybody will have the bottle to use Asda legal services Ltd to sue Asda for a slip in their own supermarket!
Previous history of deregulation and Supermarkets involvement would suggest that if you think that there is such as thing as the ‘compensation culture’ now then you haven’t seen anything yet.
I don’t know about shops, but I am currently working for a firm of solicitors, that deal with all sorts of claims for a variety of injuries, etc.
They have 4 offices, they do not have a H&S Policy, no idea about Manual Handling, DSE etc.
They do not even have a H&S Law Poster displayed, or a copy of their employers liability insurance certificate displayed.
If this is the standard for the ‘legal’ profesion what chance the rest of the SME’s out there.
Charlie.
Look at the effect: 30,000 people with minor injury taking a couple of days off work equals 60,000 lost days. ten major injuries in a factory with staff off for a year is 30,000 lost days. – obvious where we should look to the economy.
30,000 people sue and get £10,000 (and lawyer gets £5,000) = £450M compared to 10 at £500,000 (and lawyer £300,000) = £8M any wonder small claims is so popular or scary to business!
I don’t think using the riots is a health and safety matter as such. However, retail is considered low risk, and I don’t agree with this at all. The amount of RSI complaints, manual handling and slips that occur is actually unacceptable in these workplaces. Employers are trying to find ways around the regulations to not comply and that has to stop.
Given the turnover of people and the amount of staff working in retail outlets combined with the consumables on sale ie liquids and perishable goods, it is not too surprising that there are so many accidents in this type of environment. Fortunately, most of these accidents are not life threatening or changing injuries. A non-story in my book.
Perception probably depends on your own working enviroment and personal experience, agreed shops aren’t as dangerous as coal mines; but the shop accidents are generally avoidable and tediously predictable.
Surely we should seek any economic and viable solution to all accidents rather than just concentrate on avoiding (or exporting) only the worst industrial disasters.
It is a valid story, but not necessarily the most serious or urgent one.