Jayne Simpson, Hill Dickinson
In a previous blog, I wrote about an employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment for its employees, which includes taking reasonable steps to protect them from criminal violence perpetrated by members of the public. In that blog I focussed on the law in this area. Here are some more practical tips and guidance on the steps that employers might take to protect their employees and, therefore, also avoid claims.
How far do you need to go?
Case law states that: “a proper approach requires a balance to be struck against a probable effectiveness of the precaution that can be taken and the expense that it involves” and, in one case, that: “the reasonable steps to be taken by the employer were to deter robberies: no employer could be expected to go so far as to prevent any robbery taking place at all.”
What are you up against?
Bear in mind the main statutory provisions which will be relied on should a claim be made by an employee for harm caused as a result of a violent incident:
The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974
Section 1 – It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure so far as reasonably practicable the health safety and welfare of his employees.
Section 2 This extends to:
s.2.2(a) – provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are so far as reasonably practicable safe and without risk to health; and
s.2.2.(c)- provision of such information, instruction and training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees.
Management of Health & Safety and Welfare Regulations 1999
Section 3 – there is the duty of an employer to perform a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst at work.
Section 10 – a duty to provide employees with comprehensive and relevant information on risk to their health and safety identified by the assessment and the preventative and protective measures.
Section 13 – to ensure that employees are provided with adequate health and safety training on their being exposed to new or increased risks and for this training to be repeated periodically.
Health and Safety Executive guidance HSG 133 is also essential reading in this area.
What practical steps should be taken?
1. Policy
Employers must have a view as to how they intend to deal with the issue of violence in the workplace and the actions they propose to take to do so. These should be deployed in a policy and HSE guidance suggests that the commitment must be top down. Employers must decide how to control risk, how preventative measures will operate and how the training and working environment will proceed in light of this. It also recommends
2. Environment
The HSE recommends that an employer look at the environment of its particular operation when formulating its policy and identifying risks. Points to be aware of include:
3. Working procedures
The HSE recommends that employers regularly review procedures to ensure that members of staff are trained to deal violent incidents, involving either an angry customer or determined robber. Staffing levels should be appropriate and customer care programmes considered, as well as staff rotation, and cash control procedures. There should be minimal cash retained on the premises where possible.
4. Security hardware
Security systems and hardware devices should be considered. Typical hardware security measures include CCTV, lighting, high counters, safe havens, protective screens, magnetic locks, high risk areas being monitored, time locked safes and panic buttons.
A proportionate approach is all that is required. You do not need to deploy a top of the range bullet proof screen in the local convenience store. You are required to identify the risks associated with your business premises and systems of work and record why you considered the hardware engaged was suitable.
However bear in mind advice in the case of Winnard & O’Connor —v- Coral Group Trading in 2011 where His Honour Judge Armitage emphasised that “The Court is not concerned with futile gestures, only measures that have or have identifiable potential for having an effect in relation to the risk identified. The relevant risk is that of injury to the employee.” Just having systems in place is not enough – they must be appropriate to the risk and used so as to reduce that risk.
