health and safety policies
Companies that employ security personnel must make workers understand how they could be in breach of health and safety regulations if they take action against a suspected perpetrator.
That's the warning from health and safety advisor and employment law specialist Bibby Consulting & Support following a case in which a security officer lost his job after tackling a shoplifter.
Working at an HMV high street store in Sutton, South London, the guard saw a youth leaving the shop with 20 stolen DVDs. After a chase through the shopping centre the offender was caught and taken back to the store. But the guard was later sacked, partly because the company's health and safety policy stated that security guards had to avoid confrontations with suspects that could develop into something more serious. HMV introduced the ruling nationwide after an employee was stabbed to death while catching a thief.
Even though the company said that in the Sutton case the guard was asked to leave "for an accumulation of reasons", it was clear that a key factor was his breach of rules designed to protect the health and safety of employees.
Michael Slade, Managing Director of Bibby Consulting & Support, said: "Cases like this are not clear cut. That's why companies need to make sure they have clear policies in place, that their workers are fully aware of them – and reminded so on a regular basis.
"It might be expected that security guards should be able to chase thieves but if they are running at speed through a public place, there is a very real chance that they could collide with someone and cause them serious injury. Employers also need to consider that guards could be set upon by a thief's accomplices and sustain a serious injury themselves."
Slade added: "As with the vast majority of health and safety regulations, there are usually very sound reasons for them. However, businesses that employ security personnel need to make it crystal clear what their role entails and specifically state what sorts of things they are not permitted to do because it may risk injury to others.
"If the employee then chooses to operate beyond those guidelines, the company would be within its rights to take disciplinary action if it felt the employee had put other people’s wellbeing at risk, as was possibly the case with the guard in the Sutton store.
"This might lead to claims that a person was sacked for doing their job, but this argument would simply not hold up if the boundaries governing that job had been clearly communicated beforehand and then breached."
