Campaign for roving safety reps

Unions continue to press the case for “roving representatives” to cover small workplaces or workplaces in industries with poor safety rep coverage, such as agriculture and construction to overcome the limitation inherent in the SRSCRs’ demand that safety reps must be an employee of the workplace where they are to carry out their functions (except for the Musicians’ Union and actors union Equity). The TUC points to Sweden’s successful experience of the roving rep system.

Roving reps would have the power to gain entry to any workplace and carry out their health and safety functions. Research for the HSE has found that the use of union-appointed safety representatives in agriculture (and associated rural businesses) in a “roving” or peripatetic capacity and on a national basis is both practical and feasible.

Unions point to the systemic safety risks that result from the growing “casualisation” of the workforce and the breakdown of the traditional “direct employment” model, with greater use of agency workers, as well as both legitimate and bogus self-employment. Lack of continuity and job security in these models greatly increases the risk of workers engaging in risky activity or deciding not to report an accident or near miss. All this strengthens the case for a system based on “roving reps”.

Some teaching, local government and finance unions have already negotiated agreements giving reps some roving powers, but unions would like an amendment to the SRSCRs to put these powers on a statutory footing.

The Löfstedt review of health and safety regulations acknowledged the problems resulting from many small firms with no recognised union representation having no formal structures in place for representation and consultation on health and safety. It cited evidence of a pilot project rolled out successfully by construction union UCATT in 2003 which “found evidence that it could benefit both employers and employees in small businesses”. However, Löfstedt went on to dismiss the idea of legislating for roving reps, speculating that such a system could introduce an extra layer of administration and advice that “promotes excessive precaution, and is also likely to have significant cost implications”.

In practice, Löfstedt’s limited remit — to look at ways of reducing the burden of regulation on business, as opposed to looking at ways of improving worker safety — made it inevitable that he would fail to recommend roving reps.