Out on a limb?

It’s said that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Sheer weight of irrefutable evidence would suggest we can no longer ignore the fact that UK security officers – and, more than any others, those employed in a lone worker-style scenario – are at an increasing risk from violent assault when on duty.

Work-related violence against security staff has been a significant problem for some time, but it’s one that has perhaps been brushed under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. It will not. There were over 1.3 million violent incidents against staff across the public sector last year , with more than 6,000 companies paying out damages for Health and Safety incidents in 2003. In 2004, one UK city Council was forced to part company with £200,000 in compensation to an employee assaulted while alone in one of its buildings.

The total number of violent incidents across all sectors has risen by 5% since 1997, but in truth the problem is much more acute than that – many incidents aren’t reported, so the figures are very probably worse than we think.

There are very sound business and moral reasons why employers should effectively manage the threat of workplace violence. Even when security staff aren’t physically harmed, repeated occurrences of swearing, threats, racial abuse and other forms of nasty, verbal abuse can lead to depression, stress, reduced morale, absenteeism, staff retention problems – a major issue within the security sector – and sliding productivity.

Employees who’ve been the victim of verbal abuse have suffered a range of symptoms, including feelings of unworthiness, lack of direction and motivation, fatigue, irritability, difficulty in sleeping and even eating disorders. All of which will affect their ability to do the job.

The causes… and the consequences

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has pinpointed several causative factors for violence in the workplace. One is increasing alcohol and drug abuse in our society, which ultimately renders individuals aggressive and their behaviour unpredictable. In addition, certain parts of the UK have a higher risk of violence due to other factors including social deprivation and/or exclusion.

Just in case it may have slipped the mind of clients and contractors, it’s worth spelling out again that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 places a legal duty on all employers to ensure – so far as is reasonably practicable – the health, welfare and safety of their employees.

Added to this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess the risks to their employees, decide what steps should be taken to prevent or control the risks and then provide clear management structures to achieve those aims. Risks covered should include the protection of employees from exposure to “reasonably foreseeable violence”. These regulations call for planning, organisation, control and monitoring.

If acts of violence do occur in the workplace, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 could well apply. This legislation requires employers to report incidents of violence in the workplace that result in death, major injury or an incapacity to take up normal duties for a period of up to three days or more after the assault has taken place.

Employers should always be alert to the HSE’s wide definition of workplace violence: “Any incident in which a person is abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances relating to their work”. Physical attacks, threats of violence and general bullying are all encompassed by that definition.

Corporate killing: employers beware!

Over the years, the issue of corporate killing – or corporate manslaughter – has been raised many times in the House of Commons, often in response to horrific occurrences. March 1997: the Herald of Free Enterprise ran aground off Zeebrugge, killing 192. In the same year, the King’s Cross fire on London’s Underground resulted in 31 deaths. More recently, we’ve had the Hatfield and Paddington train derailments.

These disasters involved different companies and occurred across a diverse range of industries, but the Public Inquiry following each had a common thread: the incidents concerned could have been prevented had the companies involved taken steps to ensure that their organisation operated safe systems of working within a strong safety culture.

Prior to his resignation, Home Secretary David Blunkett had tabled the need for revised corporate manslaughter legislation. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions then said a Bill should be in place by last December. That Bill hasn’t appeared as yet, but the Government committed to a draft Bill which was announced in the Queen’s Speech. Theres’ obviously a strong desire to bring companies to account on this issue.

With a General Election looming, only a select few Bills proposed in the Queen’s Speech will be heard in Parliament. What happens to the Bill on corporate manslaughter rests entirely on Labour’s re-election or defeat. Either way, the draft proposals are designed to make a company’s ‘controlling mind’ accountable for manslaughter by focusing on wider management failings.

The obvious dichotomy regarding the current corporate killing debate – and future legislation – and the need to operate businesses successfully is a complex one to examine. As stated, at present the Home Office’s intention is to make a company accountable in criminal law where conduct falls far below that which can be reasonably expected in the circumstances. The proposed maximum penalty here is for an unlimited fine and a remedial order designed to prevent the original cause of the incident. Directors could be disqualified.

Only last year, a security company was fined £35,000 under Health and Safety legislation when one of its officers died from carbon monoxide poisoning. The company was criticised for its ineffective procedures on lone working.

British Safety Council director general David Ballard recently suggested that “time is running out” for those employers who, through blatant disregard of the law, allow employees to be killed or injured, and yet are punished with fines in the low thousands of pounds. It’s highly likely that we’ll have to wait until after the next General Election before firm measures reach the statute book, but employers should be under no illusions that the Government means business here.

Protecting the lone worker

Knowing that the gears of Westminster can up-shift in slow time, what’s being done now to protect security officers sitting within a group of 7.5 million UK citizens who work alone, well away from any line manager supervision?

The formation of the Lone Working Steering Group is a good place to start. This organisation comprises senior level representation from the Home Office, the HSE, the Police Scientific Development Branch, the NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the BSIA and the Trade Union Congress. It’s chaired by independent security and management consultant Patrick Dealtry, and is aiming to set the standard for lone worker protection in the UK.

The basic purpose of the Lone Working Steering Group is to promote awareness of lone working issues, and provide practical guidance to staff and employers on how best to improve personal safety while working alone. The Group will do so through a web site designed to provide employers and employees with the information and practical guidance they need to make their own decisions on how best to deal effectively with personal safety issues.

Meantime, the HSE has published guidance for employers on how to deal with violence at work, focusing on coping with dangers posed by members of the general public. The HSE stresses the need for carrying out risk assessments to identify the dangers facing security officers working on one-man assignments (during which the main activities may include patrolling, controlling access to buildings and perhaps key holder responsibilities). Staff should be interviewed on a regular basis to understand if they feel threatened, and records examined to determine the extent of the problem to date.

Steps that might be taken to reduce the threat of staff-on-staff violence – in addition to attacks from members of the public in the workplace – would include:

• emphasising to staff that there will be zero tolerance of bullying and physical violence in the workplace, and spelling that out in the company’s Code of Conduct;
• a psychological analysis of staff to determine if there are any risks of employees either initiating violence or unreasonably responding to it;
• rotating lone worker assignments so that no one officer is subjected to a potentially confrontational environment on each shift;
• counselling for the victims and perpetrators of violent assaults.

The basis for all systems-related solutions is the risk assessment, which itself will be the guide to the appropriate solution. Training in how not to get into difficult situations and how to handle them if they do is essential for lone workers.

In truth, training should form part of any lone working solution because if the occupation is deemed sufficiently hazardous for telephone or location-based systems to be used, then training is an essential part of that solution also.

Where assistance is requested from the emergency services it can take two routes – by way of the 999 system or through a professional Emergency Response Centre accepted by the police as operating to their standards.

Technical support systems generally fall into one or more of five types, namely telephone-based systems, site-based locating, cell location through the GSM network, location by way of global positioning satellites (GPS) and locating through RDF (Radio Direction Finding).

Telephone answering systems are a further, systems-based solution. Using a mobile phone, the employee registers their intended movements and a time by which they will be finished. If they then exceed that time, the system alerts a manager or colleague who will access the database, retrieve the message and take whatever action they think is appropriate.

All-too-often, though, employers believe that giving their lone worker security officers a mobile phone will help safeguard them from trouble. However, should a security officer find him or herself to be in a dangerous situation, and attempt to use a mobile to summon help, they may find that their aggressor becomes even more agitated (which could exacerbate the situation and lead to a violent or aggressive episode). Using a mobile in such a situation is often futile in any case, as they’re easily knocked to the ground.

In truth, mobile phones neither protect nor provide a means of covertly notifying an employer if a lone worker is entering a potentially threatening or abusive situation. Mobile phone location remains an imperfect science, while SMS messaging is prone to problems associated with busy or downed networks – as exemplified by the tragic murder of Cambridge University student Sally Geeson. In cases of verbal harassment and abuse, offenders often feel they’re immune from prosecution since a mobile cannot be relied upon to capture evidence of abuse.

Site-specific location systems are widely used, and operate on two levels. Panic alarms are discreetly located buttons which, when pressed, send an alarm message to a selected number. They’re often part of an intruder alarm set-up.

Internal receivers and transmitters, meanwhile, encompass a network of ceiling-based receivers linked to a central control in or near the building, and individual hand-held alarms. An individual in trouble can press the button on the hand-held alarm. This sends a message to the ceiling unit, which then relays it the central control. An operator receives a call indicating where the trouble is and despatches someone to investigate.

Cell-locating systems work on the triangulation of a cell phone from information received by way of each cell mast it may be connected to. This technology is convenient, but lacking in accuracy (particularly in more rural areas).

Finally, there are GPS locating systems. GPS location is the most accurate, and is based on a network of US military satellites designed to provide locating information for a variety of commercial navigation, commercial and sporting as well as military purposes.

It’s worth noting that technical developments of late have made it possible to include this technology in devices small, powerful and cheap enough to be carried by security officers.

RDF locating is a well-established technology with mainly military applications based on locating through triangulation thanks to radio direction finding technology. Commercial services require a network of masts which is very expensive but, once established, can provide a variety of locating and communication benefits.