Although statistics suggest that violence in the workplace is increasing, there's still no industry-approved course for security officers who have to deal with aggressive behaviour. We call for a change in the status quo.
Over the past decade or so the danger of violence in the workplace has escalated to dramatic effect, such that Britain is now classed as a more violent place than the USA. Indeed, over the last four years we've outstripped our cousins Stateside when it comes to the number of violent crimes against the person, thefts and robberies per capita.

As a by-product of this, "at work" has become a much more dangerous place to be. Projections from the recent British Crime Survey indicate that there's likely to be more than 1.5 million assaults on staff in mainland workplaces over the next 12 months. That represents the equivalent of one assault per every 30 people who are gainfully employed.

Unsurprisingly, health and safety risk assessments carried out in many and varied workplaces have identified a need for reducing the risks. At the same time, more and more clients are turning to the security industry for help. The upshot is that millions of people are now solely reliant on the presence of security officers to protect them from harm.

The practical ability to deliver this protection has become central to the role of thousands of security employees, and in a growing number of cases it's now the primary reason for their deployment on site. However, this is a fact that seems to have been overlooked by service users. Many have not thought to include a specific requirement for these skills in their contractual terms negotiated with service providers and – as I'm sure many of you are aware – what you neglect to specify in a contract with a security company you will definitely not receive!

A lack of transparency
A lack of transparency on the part of service suppliers has worked to veil the problem from attention, while the rather naïve practice of awarding contracts on the basis of lowest cost has probably been a significant factor.

Compounding the problem has been the fact that no industry-approved standard of training has been made available. This has made it extremely difficult – if not impossible – for service users to express their requirements in specific terms, and has also left them unable to compare the qualities of guarding firms.

The bottom line, then, is that the majority of security employees are being left to their own devices when it comes to handling violent situations. That is in no-one's interests.

For some time now, this situation has been depriving those sectors who rely on security companies the level of service they seek. A level of service that the health and safety laws demand. A level of service that employees (including the security officers themselves) and members of the public are entitled to expect.

The penalties of ignorance
Clearly, reform is needed if the penalties of ignorance are to be avoided. And the penalties are wide-ranging. No training means that management teams have no real control over the way in which staff behave. It also means that the guards are less likely to achieve peaceful solutions, and are therefore at an increased risk of being assaulted and – at the same time – are in danger of being accused and prosecuted for the unlawful use of force.

No training for security officers, of course, also leaves the public at risk of physical abuse by on-site security officers, as well as being at risk from other members of the public.

An absence of suitable training in the face of a 'known risk' constitutes a significant breach of the employers' health and safety obligations, while leaving the service provider (and the contracting organisation) not only vulnerable to criticism, but liable for any legal 'fall-out' into the bargain.

Indeed, the threat of litigation may now be considered omnipresent. The promulgation of 'no win, no fee' legal firms has ensured that anyone with the necessary grounds for action can sue for compensation. This includes those employees able to "walk off the job" (and then stay at home on full pay) claiming that the conditions in their workplace are too unsafe to continue working.

Being safe from violence at work is a legal right – and an entitlement that more and more people are going to latch on to in the months ahead. The cost of a single, successful claim would easily eclipse the budget for training the entire security team. There is therefore a very persuasive business case for training security guards to handle violent individuals. If that is indeed one of their roles. UK employers take note. In the States, employers are the defendants in 40% of all civil cases, while 90% of all employees who suffer injury through violence at work choose to sue their employer.

Last October, ACAS – our own employment conciliation service – reported that the number of employees launching tribunal cases against their bosses jumped by a third compared with the previous year.

Facing up to the facts
Statistics suggest that security personnel face the second highest incidence of assaults by members of the public, ranked just behind nurses (whom – ironically – they are now being asked to protect on an increasing scale).

The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) Self-Reported Work-Related Illness Survey, carried out back in 1999, showed that the number of attacks on security employees in the preceding 12 months was the equivalent of one per every four people working in the security industry.

The survey also found that 50% of the people who reported having been physically attacked were assaulted between one and four times in the previous year. A further 10% had been attacked at least five times in the same period – illustrating that nothing effective has been done to reduce the risks.

Quite how many people came to be mistreated while they were being restrained and/or arrested by security officers is not so easy to determine. However, is it likely to be wholly disproportionate? Whichever way you choose to look at them, the figures confirm that a very large number of incidents are occurring which bring security personnel into physical conflict with members of the public. What is also certain is that many of the assaults could have been avoided had the officers been properly trained to handle violent people.

Worldwide, plenty of models are now in existence that categorically prove the case for training security employees in conflict management skills and in methods of holding and restraining violent people. With this in mind, is anything being done to produce a recognised, industry-approved training programme in the UK?

The shocking truth
Notwithstanding the obvious need for a training programme for security officers such that they can deal efficiently and effectively with violent people, SITO appears to be making little or no effort to produce one. Our NTO has withdrawn from the ICM – the recognised Steering Group for appropriate standards in conflict prevention and management training – while SITO's chief executive Ray Clarke has stated that "it's not our intention to become involved in conflict management training".

It's not just SITO that's adopted such a stance, though. Not one organisation – be it the BSIA, BSI, ISI, JSIC, IPSA, ACPO, the Home Office, The Security Watchdog or the Health and Safety Executive itself – has publicly called for SITO to offer a recognised training course. And this list is by no means exhaustive. The shocking truth is that there is no impetus whatsoever towards instituting the kind of training programme that is obviously needed.

The silence of all of these organisations arouses suspicion. It even calls into question their motives. It most certainly demands an explanation. There can be no credible justification for this apparent lack of action.

The advantages of providing training would by far outweigh the negative consequences of not providing it. There are numerous advantages to be realised. Training that protects security guards against violence will lead to higher efficiencies and improved productivity through: improving employee morale and motivation, strengthening employer-employee relationships, decreasing absenteeism, reducing the rate of staff turnover and helping to promote a positive image of a caring organisation.

An image that's far more attractive to clients and new recruits alike.

Home Office Minister Charles Clarke has stated that the Private Security Industry Act is all about ensuring that the security industry operates in such a way that everyone will have the utmost confidence in its ability to 'do the job'. Under the proposals outlined before Parliament, the soon-to-be-established Security Industry Authority (SIA) will have the powers to introduce minimum training requirements for security staff.

So can we expect an about-turn when the SIA is up-and-running? It seems unlikely (if Ray Clarke's expectations are realised). Ray anticipates that SITO's Council is going to form the committee that will be established by the SIA to oversee the training of security staff, and to draft any minimum requirements for training. He has been reported as saying that he doesn't believe the SIA or the Home Office can do anything else.

"We already have a qualification network that runs from top to bottom," he will say. Little chance of a change there, then.

Only three ways left to turn
Employers have a reputation for not acting right up until something really bad happens in their workplace. This kind of 'event-led' risk management is commonplace. So, although many service users may see the sense of insisting that the security guards being sent to work in their premises have had some standard of training to deal with violence, it's unlikely that they would pressure the security industry to design a suitable training programme.

That's not to say that there isn't a case for making the lack of training plain to them.

If people were more generally aware that the security guards they were relying on had no training an outcry might well be forthcoming. The cries might get a little louder as more people switch on to the fact that the streets are going to be patrolled by private security guards who have not had any proper training to deal with the problems they are going to meet. Sadly, those cries will be nothing like loud enough to reverse the stranglehold influence that the governing bodies and the other major players have on the situation at present.

The biggest impact that the public is likely to make is by concertedly suing employers on the grounds of negligence (wherever the absence of suitable training has been a contributory factor). Eventually – and after a lot more people have been hurt, of course – those responsible might just be stung into action. Focused litigation is a very powerful tool.

Preparing for the cascade
The abject failure of management to address the need for an industry-approved training programme has brought about a situation which could – and may well – result in serious country-wide disruption. Under present conditions, literally thousands of security personnel would be entitled to walk straight off the job they are in, and be able to remain off work – on full pay – until their employer ensures that they have a safe way of working.

Employees claiming this right would have the option of returning to work at any time and, in the event that the employer fails to institute satisfactory reparatory measures, it would be open to them to claim for constructive dismissal – not to mention compensation.

If this were to be done en masse, it would have a very persuasive effect – sending employers scurrying for a means to offset their liability. In other words, an industry-approved training programme...

Complying with the law
At the end of the day, employers must "do everything reasonable and practicable" to eradicate or minimise the risk of violence that could result in harm to health.

Under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, employers must ensure that all security staff are:

  • advised in easily understood terms about the risks they face;
  • suitably qualified to carry out the role;
  • properly supervised;
  • trained to a standard that is "commensurate with the level of risk being faced";
  • guided against practice known to be unsafe;
  • informed of the procedures for "serious and imminent danger", and for entering so-called 'danger areas';
  • monitored for signs/symptoms that they may be suffering harm (eg stress).
Jim O'Dwyer is chief training consultant at Aegis Training

  • Aegis Training has drafted its own training programme for security officers that's dedicated to the management of violence in the workplace.

    The Government, workers’ rights and statutory obligations

    The Government has been steadily strengthening workers’ rights. The past couple of years have seen the powers-that-be upgrade the limit of compensation available under the Employment Rights Act from £12,000 to £50,000. Similarly, the time needed to be spent in a given job to be able to qualify for the protection available under the terms of the legislation has been cut back from two years to just one month. For large numbers of employees working in the security industry and at the sharp end of abuse, threats and assaults, the package is a very attractive proposition indeed. Uninjured, off work, on full pay...and in line for a payout. For their part, employees are usually only told that they have statutory obligations to: take reasonable care of the health and safety of themselves and of others who may be affected by their acts, co-operate with employees and others to meet statutory requirements and inform their employer of any situation at work which may involve the risk of imminent danger. What they haven’t been told is that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 endowed all employees with a legal right to a safe way of working – or that the law incorporates incentives that positively encourage claiming the entitlement. Section 44.1(d) of the Employment Rights Act prescribes the conditions when an employee should withdraw their services as being: “…in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, and which the employee could not reasonably have been expected to avert…” Many security personnel will recognise that the situation in their jobs permanently amounts to a fulfilment of ALL of these conditions.

    • Source

    SMT