Health & Safety for volunteers

[Ynot]

As mentioned, the elements regarding duties of employees are harder to enforce; however if you look at amateur sports people who fail to follow rules (many of which apply for safety reasons) are disqualified very quickly - why should theatre be any different when a lot of what we do is just as, if not moreso, dangerous.

This, I think, is the crux of the discussion.

As has been said above, if you are working as a paid employee then the employer has the right - and indeed responsibility - to exert disciplinary measures ranging from a ticking off to suspension/sacking on the spot (in theory) depending on the severity of the transgression.

BUT should a volunteer commit the same error, even a minor ticking off can result in that worker downing tools and walking out - maybe even taking his tools with him.

 

Paid employees are far more likely to have received proper training for their duties, and will also have had far more on-the-job experience prior to being left alone to carry out safety critical tasks.

 

Volunteers MAY have had SOME training, but are FAR less likely to have had anywhere near enough, and the probability is that most/all of that experience will come from 'learning the hard way' - ie getting given a job, then working out how to do it as they go along, often without much backing from the rest of the crew, who may be even less experienced than he is!

 

There are a lot of am dram techs who have a wealth of experience, gleaned over their years getting it wrong in the first place and getting better as they go on. But there are a LOT more who just work on a stage for maybe one or two shows a year, taking up 2 or 3 weeks total. Can you REALLY expect them to be aware of all the dos and don'ts to be observed around the theatre? especially if there are few around with much more talent then they?

 

I see this quite often when we have visiting companies. We have a raft of papers - some available online - detailing key H & S house 'rules' and policies, but can I be sure that they're being read? No I can't, although when they sign the booking form they're officially accepting the T & C that they were sent at the same time!

Do we monitor their working practices? Yes - as far as we possibly can, considering how many suitably 'qualified' techs we have at our disposal.

 

Were we a pro house then we would have without fail a duty technician on hand to supervise and assist.

Sometimes however we HAVE to go on trust that the customer knows what they're about and that a junior tech will be able to recognise anything major.

 

So far we've managed quite well (over 40 years).

[kerry davies]

Tony, I think you have just made the case for training volunteers to the same standards as professionals. For maintaining equal discipline levels for all. For holding an induction just in case your visitors haven't read the H&S "rules". All part of HASAWA.

 

As far as REALLY expecting them to know the dos and don'ts I would say I really do expect them not to water the dimmers, move ladders with people up them and a host of other dos and don'ts. If someone took their ball home in a work situation I would be relieved that a person of such immaturity and so lacking self-discipline was no longer my responsibility.

 

I regard H&S as a common-sense means of getting the job done and yet still being around to do it again tomorrow, not a restrictive set of "rules". Training volunteers and young people has been the most rewarding part of my life and they in turn get enhanced self-esteem when they realise they are no longer just bodgers. I definitely see it as win/win because it saves cash in the long term, allows me to rely on others and enables me to plan without allowance for hospital visits, extra paperwork, replacing injured staff, having HSE decide whether or not they were "at work" or a myriad other things.

 

I am also ever so pleased that BR members in the main believe we have a moral duty, rather than the pragmatic reasons, for treating everyone the same for Health and Safety and Welfare purposes. Note the Welfare.

 

You, personally, have screamed NO at some of the crazier suggestions of young people posting here and that is a perfect example of H&S training of the non-professional in the raw. Stuff the law, let's do it 'cos it's right.

[cfmonk]

Kerry: I know SJA employ people now but I was saying that in the past some of the counties which were autonomous self contained organisations ONLY had volunteer members so would not have been "employers".

 

I think the consensus is that more may need to be done in theatres to induct volunteers but what I find extremely interesting is Scott's contributions about how a prosecution under the HSAW Act would NOT be possible if an organisation did not employ people! It's very strange and with all this "big society" gubbins will probably need looking at again!

 

Edit to get a name right!

[Ynot]

Tony, I think you have just made the case for training volunteers to the same standards as professionals. For maintaining equal discipline levels for all. For holding an induction just in case your visitors haven't read the H&S "rules". All part of HASAWA.

I don't think any of us would dispute that's an ideal target, but my point is that with the best will in the world training a large proportion of volunteers in anything more than a few basics just isn't practical.

You, personally, have screamed NO at some of the crazier suggestions of young people posting here and that is a perfect example of H&S training of the non-professional in the raw. Stuff the law, let's do it 'cos it's right.

And I will continue to do so where I see possible dangers.

To be honest, I've worked in a handful of venues, amateur and pro, and some (not all by any stretch) volunteer run places tend to be FAR more stringent on looking after safety!!

[Brian]

... a prosecution under the HSAW Act would NOT be possible if an organisation did not employ people! ...

But, it's worth mentioning again, that a civil action could still be brought and the burden of proof is often thought to be less in civil cases.

[Simon Lewis]

But, it's worth mentioning again, that a civil action could still be brought and the burden of proof is often thought to be less in civil cases.

 

From my old handwritten notes...

 

In the case of Tort (or civil wrong), the conditions that must be fulfilled are:

A) The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care

B) The plaintiff must prove that the defendant was in breach of that duty of care.

C) The plaintiff must show connection between breach of duty and his damage

 

A ‘Breach’ can be tested objectively:

 

 

• Did the defendant take the same care as a reasonable man would take
  
• If the defendant has an above normal skill, the standard of care is higher
  
• Test is lower for children
  
• A greater duty of care is owed to someone who has an existing condition
  
• What was the probability of the injury occurring
  
• The more serious the injury being risked, the greater the duty owed
  
• How easy or difficult was it to take precautions
  

 

Connection between ‘Breach’ and damage:

• Was the defendant’s act the factual cause of the plaintiff’s loss?
  
• Consider Limitations due to Public Policy or Public Interest
  
• Was the damage reasonably foreseeable?
  
• Plaintiff’s sensitivity is irrelevant
  
• Contributory negligence
  
• Volenti non fit injuria
  

[kitlane]

Don't forget the 'eggshell skull' principal.

[cfmonk]

Care to elaborate?

[kitlane]

"You take your victim as you find him"

 

The defendant is held liable for all consequences for their negligent actions even if the victim suffers an unusually high level of damage. If, for example, the victim had a pre-existing medical condition the defendant is still liable for all the damage even if such damages were not reasonably forseeable.

 

If I drop a relatively light object on the head of someone with a skull as thin as eggshell and break their skull, I am liable for that injury, despite that fact that the object would not have injured a person with a normal skull.

[cfmonk]

Thank you!

 

Chris