Companies and their directors must minimise the risk of attack on their staff. Mark Dawes explains how, and why The most frequent cause of a violent attack on a staff member is their attempt to stop thieves making off with stolen goods. The British Retail Consortium's 2000 Retail Crime Survey showed that 75% of all attacks on staff arose from such incidents ­ an increase of 15% since last year's survey. The risk of theft, and the accompanying violence, is foreseeable and the Health and Safety at Work Act states that if workers have a contract of employment, their boss must ensure they are not exposed to unnecessary risks. This requires company directors to assess the risks to their employees and any third party who may be affected. Where there are risks that are deemed "foreseeable", the company must provide information, instruction, training and supervision so staff can deal competently with them. So what is a foreseeable risk? It is a hazard that has the potential to cause harm balanced against the likelihood of it occurring and the severity of harm it will cause. It arises from the nature of the job and therefore can be identified so that preventive measures can be taken. In retail, the risk of assault and injury when dealing with customer theft is significant and foreseeable. If company bosses want to reduce their liability they must undertake a risk assessment of the activity and then implement measures that remove or eliminate the risk from the activity as far as is reasonable, and eliminate the risk of injury to staff and to any third party who may be affected by the actions or omissions of staff ­ including the thief. So where do the risks lie in preventing customer theft? It is often argued the larger supermarkets have more resources for cctv and guards and therefore the smaller independent and often isolated stores are more vulnerable. This is true to an extent. However, in both cases there are many consistent factors that place staff at risk. Many retail staff who try to deal with customer theft are left to their own devices. They make mistakes by knowingly doing the wrong thing but believing it is justified. For example, many staff do not understand how theft is defined in law and are expected to use their initiative in apprehending thieves. Many are more concerned with stock loss than their own safety, believing they could reduce theft by teaching thieves a lesson. And even where there is guidance, staff will break the rules to regularly restrain thieves who are attempting to resist arrest or who are becoming violent. Common reasons are normally due to lack of staffing levels, poor physical security, stock loss pressure and inadequate training. Health and safety law requires all employees to be competently trained for the tasks they undertake. Yet in retail the employer often makes the assumption that staff will use their common sense in dealing with thieves, and so fails to provide training. However, the law is now tightening up on companies and their directors to make them more accountable and responsible for staff safety. To support this, mounting pressure from the European Commission has forced the government to agree to amend the ban on UK workers from taking civil action against employers. A consultation document due in the autumn will set out proposals to amend the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 so employees can instigate civil proceedings under the regulations. An example would be where an employee has suffered a work related injury as a result of their employer failing to make a suitable risk assessment. Therefore, companies and their directors who fail to act under the law only serve to increase their liability which, in the case of a director, is a personal liability. When the next person is seriously injured or killed it will be hard to prove that they were going to improve a policy that doesn't exist. To minimise the risk and comply with the law, companies must ensure that they: - Accept that staff safety and competency is a management responsibility - Issue a clear and concise policy for dealing with customer theft, including a statement of purpose from the board - Include guidance on the use of physical force dictating what is and what is not acceptable - Ensure a current risk assessment has been made and that clear and competent guidance exists that staff are aware of - Ensure that those staff who are expected to deal with customer theft are competently trained in what they may and may not do when attempting to prevent customer theft - Continually monitor, review and evaluate the activity, making changes where necessary to ensure continual compliance. - Mark Dawes is an independent consultant and a director of the National Federation for Personal Safety. {{MANAGEMENT FEATURE }}