Safety in numbers

Regularly sought for his comments by the national press, the Health and Safety Commissioner and TUC senior health and safety policy officer has helped to broadcast the health and safety issue loud and clear — becoming something of a safety guru in the process.

Tudor joined the TUC in 1984 when the congress was out of favour with the Conservative government and had little voice. The situation began to change with the arrival of a new general secretary, John Monks, in 1994, who brought with him a less defensive approach to both media relations and dealings with government.

In this new more co-operative era Tudor says : 'We are now working with the grain on health and safety. Our agenda is being driven by consumer demand — people want to be safe and healthy. We want to encourage them not to accept poor standards and risk getting injured at work.'

Based at Congress House in London's Great Russell Street, Tudor became health and safety policy manager in 1995. He became a commissioner at the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) three years later. Before he arrived at the TUC, he was a committee clerk for Hillingdon council and a trade union activist.

Tudor believes there is a distinct split in the attitude within organisations to health and safety in the UK. 'In some workplaces, it is taken more seriously than ever before,' he says, 'it isn't seen as something additional, more as an integral part of running the business sensibly and part of management responsibility.'

The best industries, according to Tudor, are those in manufacturing or energy production, industries with health and safety at their core. He cites Scottish Power as a particularly good example.

However, Tudor says other companies see safety as either 'something to be got around' or ignored completely. Industries which fall down are those which see their staff as 'commodities'. The worst offenders, he says, are parts of the transport sector.

Like most trade unionists, safety is in Tudor's blood. 'It's like being interested in wages,' he says. 'Health and safety is an essential part of trade unionism.'

Laws proliferate
Over the next year, a raft of workplace health and safety legislation will come into force. According to Tudor, the areas which will have the most impact on the work facilities managers do will include the management of asbestos, corporate manslaughter, violence in the workplace, the Disability Discrimination Act, and a possible Safety Bill.

Asbestos was once considered a 'miracle fibre.' A naturally occurring substance, its popularity as a fire retardant was due to its lightness and flexibility. It could be woven into clothing or mixed with paint and cement to be applied on walls. Now of course, we all know just how deadly this once miracle fibre can be.

While all types of asbestos have been banned since 1999, large amounts are still present in many buildings. Tudor confirms that occupiers and not landlords will be responsible for the management of the asbestos in their buildings under the revised legislation due out next spring.

However landlords who fail to co-operate with their tenants over the type and location of asbestos in their buildings, could find themselves prosecuted under the amended Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations.

Tudor says: 'The proposal is that an explicit duty to manage asbestos should be placed on employers with a subsidiary legal responsibility on owners to co-operate with employers.'

Which leads to the issue of trust. To what degree should facilities managers trust that landlords have thoroughly mapped the asbestos in their building?

More than mapping
Tudor offers this advice: 'You could be reasonably certain things are OK in buildings constructed in the 1990s, but there might still be parts containing white asbestos.' In other words, if in doubt, carry out your own mapping. But be warned; occupiers will have to bear the cost.

Tudor has another word of warning. The requirement to manage asbestos will extend beyond that of mapping under the new legislation. 'It is about developing a management plan to keep asbestos regularly maintained. If it becomes disturbed, a plan needs to be in place to remove and seal it off. The management plan also needs to be communicated to the whole workforce.'

Interestingly, there are cases of asbestos fibres being disturbed through acts of vandalism, as well as through general wear and tear or renovation works. 'This may be an urban myth, but I have heard of kids finding out where the asbestos is in a school and kicking at it,' says Tudor. 'The whole school is closed down and they get the week off.'

While the amended Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations is due to be published next spring, section IV of the Health and Safety Act 1974 states that employers have a legal duty to make the workplace safe. 'Most of what is being proposed is implicit in existing legislation,' points out Tudor. Furthermore, the Health and Safety Executive is planning a publicity campaign this autumn to highlight this fact.

According to the HSC, workplace fatalities in the UK are up 34 per cent in the last year, to the highest level in almost 10 years. In 2000/2001 there were 295 deaths, compared with 220 in 1999/2000.

Legislation is expected next year to introduce a new offence of corporate manslaughter. The legislation will make it easier to prosecute a corporate institution over a case of negligence that has led to a death.

However, there is uncertainty over whether the managing director of a company should be held responsible for workplace-related deaths.

Our agenda is being driven by consumer demand — people want to be safe and healthy. We want to encourage them not to accept poor standards and risk being injured at work

'The TUC would like an individual to be held responsible,' says Tudor, 'but there is a question over how possible it would be to prosecute owners of large companies.'

By contrast, it has been possible to prosecute the owners of small companies under existing legislation. Tudor cites the Lyme Bay canoeing tragedy in the early 1990s which resulted in the deaths of four children. The managing director of the activity centre went to prison for three years. Also, there was an incident at a road haulage firm that saw the owner prosecuted and sent to prison for a year, when an employee was run over by a truck in the yard.

While Tudor does not know of any comparable incidents among largely office based companies, he warns this is no reason for complacency. He hopes the new legislation will make it easier to clarify what duties individuals have and to prosecute those at the top.

'In a sense this legislation would be shifting responsibility higher up the chain,' says Tudor. 'For facilities managers it could be a good thing. Take the example of a facilities manager wanting to implement a safety measure but being told by the board that they don't have the money.'

The government is planning to publish its response to consultation this autumn. The timing of the actual legislation is unclear, although October 2002 is thought to be a likely date.

A big burden?
With all this legislation waiting in the wings, does Tudor not believe there is a danger of over-burdening facilities managers? 'If people adopt a 'tick box' approach to legislation, then yes it is a burden,' he responds. 'But if they follow the spirit of it, the legislation can give facilities managers the tools to manage their workplace, actually relieving the burden.'

This winter, the revised Code of Practice on implementing Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, is due to appear, yet it has already been accused of ambiguity.

The ambiguity lies in the term 'reasonable adjustment'. While the intention is to provide a degree of flexibility in altering premises to ease disabled access, it will be left to the courts to decide if these adjustments were reasonable.

The code will prevent employers from saying the lack of facilities for disabled staff in a workplace is the reason why they cannot employ disabled workers,' says Tudor. 'For example, they can't say a person would be a health and safety risk because we couldn't get them out if there was a fire.

Tudor says there are many simple ways to make reasonable adjustments to a workplace. Flashing lights rather than a ringing bell could be used to alert deaf people to a fire, or more simply, an employee could be delegated responsibility for ensuring a deaf person is helped out of a building in the event of a fire.

Of all the upcoming legislation, the most eagerly anticipated is a Safety Bill. It is not, however, entirely clear if one is in the pipeline, though the consensus is that one will be forthcoming. In June 2000, John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, indicated that legislation would be required in some key areas of safety. A Safety Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech over the summer, and the prime minster's website has flagged up the possibility.

Tudor believes the issue of passive smoking will feature in any Safety Bill, as will incorporate responsibility, in particular a requirement for rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means ensuring that adaptations are made to the workplace to accommodate the return of injured workers.

While slips, trips, breaks and burns are obvious culprits, it is more difficult to prove certain injuries, such as a repetitive strain injuries, have been caused at work. In these cases, it will be down to the individual employer to decide.

Violence in the workplace is an increasing common phenomenon. Unlike in the US, where worker-on-worker violence has hit the headlines in recent years, British workers don't tend to take out their frustrations on each other. Workplace violence is limited to violent acts committed by members of the public on employees, particularly on those who work in the public sector. Specific legislation is not being considered, since the Health and Safety at Work act 1974 is considered adequate.

Controlling aggression
Tudor believes facilities managers can be instrumental in helping to defuse ugly incidents by considering the design and layout of the workplace. At job centres, for example, screens could be erected put up staff and the public. The positioning of car parks should also be considered, as well as the lighting outside the building since it is known that many attacks take place when staff are leaving the premises for the evening.

'There have always been incidents in places such as hospitals,' says Tudor, 'unions have been concerned for a long time.'

He believes there are two factors which have compounded the problem in the health service; resource constraints and the Patients' Charter.

'Waiting times are increasing and people can get irate in casualty. Added to this, people have been told they have a right to be seen quickly. The Patients' Charter has created expectation.'

Research shows that tempers are rawest on weekend nights and on the day before giros go out. Again, facilities managers can help diffuse tempers through the design of casualty waiting rooms.

'We know the more welcoming a casualty unit, the less chance there is of violence. There are lots of small things that can be done. For example having the latest copy of Hello on display and not last week's is important — if people are busy reading, they are not getting annoyed. The layout of a casualty department is also important, colour schemes make a big difference.'