Will plans for roving union safety representatives put... - Power in the right hands?

Employers and operatives look set for a head-on clash later this year with the anticipated publication of an official discussion paper on the introduction of roving trade union safety representatives.

Whatever their differences, both sides would do well to reflect on the fact that the Government is backing one of the targets set in the Rethinking construction report - a 20 per cent year-on-year reduction in the number of accidents. And if roving safety reps are a means of reaching that target, then the Government could well add its backing to the idea.

Against this backdrop is the bitter opposition among some industry leaders to any extension of union power. They fear an irresponsible approach by licensed union safety 'snoops.' They suspect the exercise may be covertly used for recruiting members and fuelling recognition claims. And they are wary of union outsiders interfering with the production process on sites where they may not have even a single member.

Other employers believe the concept is potentially hedged about with difficulties over legal liability and the exercise of power without responsibility.

The unions, on the other hand, will argue that the Health and Safety Executive does not have the staffing resources effectively to police safety legislation. And the existing rights of workplace-based union safety representatives are not geared to a changing industrial structure with a more mobile labour force, often on short-term contracts, and increasingly employed by small- and medium-sized firms. Broader powers for safety reps would bring an extra level of safety checks.

Signs are that the Government is disposed to support the union line on this issue.

The Health and Safety Executive will confirm publication of the discussion document towards the end of the year. It envisages putting subsequent proposals to the Health and Safety Commission and then to Ministers early next year.

A spokesman comments: "The HSE is looking at the broad issue of wider consultation on safety matters and extending the existing role of union safety representatives. The review is likely to include seeing how the executive and the unions can work more closely together and discussing the possibility of introducing roving safety reps.

"It has become clear that Ministers believe that the role of union safety representatives has been undervalued in recent years."

Just what the HSE discussion document will propose is uncertain at this stage. Much will depend on the precise nature of the powers that the projected safety reps might hold. As Owen Tudor, senior policy officer at the TUC, says, this is likely to be the key feature of the consultation process.



Construction employers, however, have already thrown down an early gauntlet on any extension of the powers of union reps to police sites other than their own.

Susie Thursfield, director of health and safety at the Construction Confederation, says: "We don't have a problem with site-based representatives who play a valuable role in increasing safety awareness.

"But allowing them on to other sites potentially gives them a lot of rights and powers without responsibility.

"We don't know what the HSE discussion proposals are at this stage. It may be that they are looking for the right to issue notices to stop work. I am not happy with that. If they stop a job for an invalid reason, who is liable?

"Imagine, for example, a lot of concrete wagons turn up, which need to be poured fairly rapidly, but are stopped by a trade union representative."

Thursfield asks: "Is someone who doesn't hold the Queen's warrant, like HSE inspectors, then responsible for the 100m2 of concrete outside the site? If the action is justified, then OK. But, if not, who is liable?"

Thursfield also questions whether the training of safety representatives will be sufficient to equip them to understand the complexities of sites other than their own.

"They will have received a certain amount of training," she says. "The question is whether it is enough to hold sway over projects with possibly millions of pounds at stake. Not knowing the conditions on a particular site and the activities in an unfamiliar environment could work against the interests of safety."

Owen Tudor says the TUC "hasn't yet worked out every dot and comma" of the role it wants for roving representatives.

"This will come with the consultation process," he declares. "However, the basic assumption is that roving safety reps will have the same rights as workplace-based reps. That is to say, they should have a right of access to the site or premises."

Tudor makes the point that the principle of a 'roving' safety representative is already accepted in the case of musicians and actors.

He continues: "One thing we are anxious to get across is that the key reason we are promoting the idea of roving safety reps is to meet changes in the labour market.

"When the original legislation on worker safety representatives was introduced there was a broad assumption that most of the labour force was in full-time employment and based in a static workplace. That is no longer the case. The labour force is now very much more peripatetic."

The TUC policy chief says the unions have not come to any final conclusions on whether roving representatives should have the same sort of rights as HSE inspectors. But he does note that, in law, workers themselves already have the right to stop a job if they are in immediate and serious danger.

Tudor concludes: "We are more interested in the idea that the roving rep should be empowered to issue provisional prohibition notices. That allows the employer to challenge the notice. It is a system that works in Australia."

Another powerful voice in support of the extended role for union representatives is that of George Brumwell, general secretary of Ucatt, who has recently been promoted to membership of the policy-making Health and Safety Commission.



Brumwell comments: "The issue hasn't reached the agenda of the Commission yet. But the TUC and the construction unions in particular will be strongly pressing the case for roving safety representatives. And I expect fierce opposition from the CBI.

"What concerns us - and this is something that applies to industries other than construction - is the huge number of small- and medium-sized enterprises. The safety inspectorate and local authorities do not have the resources to adequately police these operations. There has to be an additional layer of safety inspection. That would mean there would be a much greater likelihood of a firm getting a safety visit.

"There are at least 150,000 construction sites on the go at any one time. The problem is not so much with the larger, well-organised sites. It is with the smaller firms that may be operating, say, 15-20 sites and whose labour force is constantly moving around.

"We have got to pin these firms down. We have got to make sure they have a safety policy and that it is being put into practice and is not just gathering dust on the shelf.

"I emphasise that we would not be setting out to antagonise anybody. Our aim is to help improve safety.

"We have taken a broad brush approach so far. We haven't gone into full details. But we would support the idea of the roving safety representative being given the power to issue improvement notices. And we would expect any failings to be put right. Otherwise the contractor would be in serious trouble.

"We are not talking about putting an army of safety reps into the field. The roving reps would be fully accredited and fully trained - and they would be responsible people."

Bob Blackman, national secretary of the TGWU and a qualified safety officer, confirms the signs of Government enthusiasm for a stronger role for union safety representatives.

"My understanding is that one suggestion in the short term might be the introduction of a pilot scheme for union safety representatives covering more than one site for a single employer in a set region," he says

"We would look for something broader. The representative has got to have teeth. He has got to be taken seriously.

"The reason we need roving safety reps is because we lack common standards on safety. At least 50 per cent of the fatalities and serious injuries occur on medium and small sites and 80-90 per cent of those accidents are down to a lack of management action. The role of the roving safety rep would be to help fill that vacuum."

Blackman notes that the TGWU has co-operated with the HSE on a pilot project involving roving union safety representatives in the agricultural industry.

He adds: "That was based on a voluntary arrangement involving the co-operation and goodwill of the employers and with the reps having no real powers. I am not sure you could apply it to construction. There the employers say they are totally opposed to roving safety reps. They have fought the idea at every step of the way. But they have come up with no alternative ideas."

By and large, contractors are reluctant to comment until they see precisely what is being proposed. The CBI nonetheless reiterates the broad concerns expressed by the Construction Confederation.

The CBI says its primary concern is that there should be a single person with a permanent responsibility for safety at every workplace. It questions whether a roving representative will be sufficiently familiar with every workplace to exercise an effective role or that they will be sufficiently trained to deal with the wide variety of working environments involved.

Last but not least, the CBI agrees that the issue of roving union safety reps is potentially fraught with legal difficulties. Certain powers under discussion would require primary legislation - and the employers do not see the Government finding room for such legislation on its immediate agenda.

Judging by the lack of action on proposals for a new law on corporate killing, they may well have a point there.