Advice sought

15 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Mon, 2004-01-05 13:56

Advice sought

At work I've just had the most unbelievable instructions from management. The background is: I work nights as a security officer at a university. There are a lot of residential students, including under 18's, and a lot of my work is to stop/encourage them not to behave anti socially. Vandalism, bullying and so on. Sometimes it has been neccessary to stop people from assaulting others by physically moving someone away from the incident. Well the instructions from management are that we are not allowed in any way - including speaking! - to prevent a criminal incident from taking place. We are to stand a distance away and phone the police and wait for the police to come. If someone is being beaten up or a young woman is being assaulted then it will be a disciplinary offence for me to say or do anything about it.
I'm absolutely furious about it. One because they have taken away my rights under the law to prevent a breach of the peace (can they do this, is it legal?) and two because it's insane to introduce this kind of thing. I found out about it at the same time that Ian Huntley was on trial for the murder of the two school girls at Soham. If this happened at our place then anyone who saw it and made a move to prevent it would be committing a disciplinary offence. Also there's the issue of loco parentis - would parents who saw their child being assaulted or abused imagine that good parenting involves standing back, saying nothing and making a phone call while the attacker finishes off their work.
I've questioned this policy using a specific incident which happened last term. This was when a visitor to the university was attacked by a drunk student and assaulted. The student was told to stop by myself and a colleague but went back for more at which point he was physically moved away. The reply was that it would be okay to go to the incident once the attacker had finished and moved off but I would need to wait for him to finish!!!! It also means that if I was being assaulted it would be a disciplinary offence for my colleauges to assist me, they would have to wait until the attacker finished at his leisure and then they could approach.

I'm furious about this and will use my union to take it up and am considering my other options against the university. In the meantime I'm interested in how others see this and also, if posssible, any legal references to whether an employer can override the law of the land in this fashion.
Thanks.

Mon, 2004-01-05 15:26

1legspider

Simple really... it will depend on the particulars of the scene unfolding in front of you. If you feel like you should intervene in a situation, then do so.... Provided you are willing to accept your responsibility for whatever consequences will follow.... including the possibility that your intervention may make things worse (for yourself and/or others). Indeed if one believes strongly that one's intervention has a good chance of a more positive outcome and that the stakes are high, in my moral books, one should step in.

Mon, 2004-01-05 15:36

kevin

Thanks for your comments Andrew. I wonder what would happen if I say I can not comply. Not that I will not but that I can not. That I can not say in good conscience that in each and every case which might occur that I could stand and watch but not intervene. Do I not owe a duty of care to our students?

Mon, 2004-01-05 16:01

ely whitley

you could carry a mobile clocking off machine and your card so that if it kicks off you can clock off and go twat the moron on your own time then clock back on again. You would then be intervening as a citizen and not a representative of an employer. this is, of course, stupid. You should be able to protect people on campus. The bouncers of England have gone through a major overhaul in recent times (good!) but they're still allowed to intervene, albeit in quite a passive manner. Maybe you should use their employment terms as security people as a model for your arguments to your employers.

Mon, 2004-01-05 16:07

kevin

1leg, I understand what you're saying and agree. What I want to do too though is not to accept the instructions anyway. To my mind it is insane. I do not want to accept it so it's not simple. To me something sick is taking place which is above and beyond the everyday idocies which are part of working in an institution. If you want to boil a frog then you can not just drop him into a pan of boiling water because he will just jump straight back out. But if you put him in cold water and heat it up then he dosen't realise whats happening and ends up cooked. I think if this kind of thing would have happened thirty years ago everyone would have jumped back out but times have changed and for myself this is a bridge too far and I'm seeking to challenge it. The universities ruling would mean that you could have a situation where a student or member of staff could be having their head bashed in by someone who has lost all reason. It may be quite possible for you to stop that happening. I feel like shouting that to watch another person be injured or even killed when you could prevent it but your employer says it is a disciplinary offence to step in - THIS IS NOT GOOD THIS IS NOT HEALTHY THIS IS SICK.

Mon, 2004-01-05 16:26

kevin

Hello Ely, I still can't believe they can take away my rights as a citizen but it seems like they can. I sometimes wonder if I was talking to the vice chancellor and someone came and started giving him a good thrashing whether he'd think the policy was so marvellous with me looking on saying the police will be here in twenty minutes: 'mind your head professor, he's about to come in with another of those big roundhouse rights' I feel like emphasising though that it's welfare which is what's at issue here really. It's the ability to prevent or lessen or end conflict which is of value, not the ability to take part in it.

Mon, 2004-01-05 17:02

mississippi

I suspect dropping a frog into a pan of boiling water would kill it before it had a chance to jump anywhere.

Mon, 2004-01-05 19:48

sneak

There you go again Mrs. Sippi. If it's not hamsters it's frogs! Pick on someone your own size ya bloody bully. thanks. sneak roast isn't it unseasonably warm?

Mon, 2004-01-05 20:23

boybrowne

kevin, you sound like my type of bloke. don't worry i'm all partnered off and familied up. you should ABSOLUTELY make a stand against this type of nonsense. the modern scurge it has to be, it seems like common sense is becoming increasingly redundant currency. this type of preposterous double speak should be ignored by every working person. i had a similar 'you must do as your told' meeting at a hotel i worked at in birmingham. at the risk of sounding like missi i think it is, all the crappy, ubiquitous, talentless stars of today frequented the place..... the english football team, the one with the coverted ****, williams, cher..... etc. so hotel policy was taken extremely serious; they ordered you did. in the fortnightly meeting of most all staff, new policy was coming in from head office that work did not start at your allotted time, oh no. "you never sign off." work was too be considered upon each waking moment. a list of rules were passed round for acceptable behaviour out of work. getting heated, stressed or upset was no longer acceptable from the moment the meeting finished! 'be my guest' it was called. let me tell ya, by this point i began to rock uncontrollably in my seat, the porter sat next to me asked if i was alright. the reason for this new behavioural code? such undesirable feelings may spill over into your work, risking the unthinkable displeasure of the guests. i listened with open mouth some of the head staff give examples of how they would now go about there lives in traffic jams, 'arguments' with partners etc....... the look on the blank faces, of around thirty staff around the huge table astounded me. nodding of heads, 'oh yes, what a good idea........' so i threw my hand up before i yelled uncontrollably and calmly explained how ridiculous this all was, and how i could not possibly be the only one to think so..... "who the hell are head office to tell me how to live my life, how too think! and too tell you the truth, this place is the last thing on my mind when i'm not here." i have never heard such silence, and consequentially never invited too another compulsary meeting. it kind of spiralled on and on from there with other quite bizarre happenings before i left, that i knew i would end up writing about......... kevin, please, as i think you will, disregard any such rule with hauty disdain.......

Mon, 2004-01-05 22:14

#10

kevin

I shall tell them I refuse to be bound by it boybrowne. I'm at work tomorrow night and shall email my managers and I'll post a copy here. I know I could just go along with it and then do what my conscience demands in individual situations but I prefer to put up a fight because the alternatives are so demoralising and moronic.

Tue, 2004-01-06 00:03

#11

kevin

My contract says the job purpose is: 'To provide an effective and efficient security service to the campus in respect of property, estates and persons present on campus property, in order to maintain a safe and pleasant environment at all times.' point 1 under main duties and responsibilities is: 'To ensure security of campus property, estates and all persons present on campus is maintained while on duty and that all property and estates are secured at the appropriate time as directed in order to provide security for all campus assets and persons present on campus.'

Tue, 2004-01-06 10:07

#12

1legspider

What do the punters think about this? Where are the students in all of this? Have you canvassed their opinion? The Student Union may be able to help.

Mon, 2004-01-05 14:09

#13

garth

I'm with you on this kevin totally. It's good there are people like you out there willing to intervene in this way. It is inhumane to stand by and do nothing whilst a thug beats up a defenceless victim. Just be careful.

Mon, 2004-01-05 14:17

#14

andrew pack

It's an employment law thing. Their concern probably is that if a member of staff intervenes and causes injury to the 'wrongdoer', the wrongdoer will sue the company. If they expressly forbid it in their terms of employment, then they may well feel that this exempts them from vicarious liability. What this means is that while you might well take your chances that they wouldn't actually dismiss you - an Industrial Tribunal might well have sympathies if they sack you for being a good samaritan, the bigger risk is that if you did injure the 'wrong-doer' they would be suing you and not your company. (And unlike your company, you won't be insured for causing damage to others) I do wonder what the point of a security guard is if you are not supposed to provide some security, and I have some doubts (though vicarious liability is not my field at all) whether your employers could actually defend their position if they were to be sued for injuries caused by a member of their staff. It is very hard for a member of the public to sue for damage caused by acts of omission i.e turning a blind eye. You can sue the fire brigade for turning up to put out a fire at your house and damaging it with water (this actually happened, believe it or not) but not for them not turning up at all and your house burning down. In negligence terms, your university probably feel that they don't owe passers-by a duty of care to prevent them being assaulted. (Is there anything in your terms of employment to prevent you shouting 'I am taking photographs of you?' to the person committing the assault?) All the usual caveats of me not being your solicitor and not providing you with advice, and that you should seek your own independent legal advice apply - I'm just setting out certain relevant aspects of the law. I think that your employers CAN do what they have done, whether it would stick when it came to the crunch is a different matter.

Mon, 2004-01-05 14:43

#15

marc

I worked as a night security guard at a university for about five months once. I could never be bothered to get involved myself with the fights and scraps. Students fighting is always handbags at ten paces anyway. Provided they cleaned up the mess and gave me something by way of appreciation I never bothered reporting disturbances. Sounds like you're being paid to do nothing, which isn't so bad, is it? The answer, of course, is to get another job if you don't like the restrictions. [%sig%]

Topic locked