Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Employers must take in new code on smoking

by Personnel Today 10 Oct 2000
by Personnel Today 10 Oct 2000

A code on smoking at work puts the onus on employers to control exposure or face constructive dismissal claims

The overflowing ashtray may be a thing of the past in the workplace but smoking is still very much a live issue for many employers.

The Government published a White Paper on smoking at work in December 1998. While it had no plans for a ban, it asked the Health and Safety Commission to consult on an Approved Code of Practice. Consultation has now been completed, with a substantial majority of respondents favouring such a code. A draft is now with ministers for a final decision .

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 imposes a duty on an employer to “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all his employees”.

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) regulations 1992 require that “effective and suitable provision shall be made to ensure that every enclosed workplace is ventilated by sufficient quantities of fresh or purified air”; also that “rest rooms and rest areas shall include suitable arrangements to protect non-smokers from the discomfort caused by tobacco smoke”.

The code will supplement these provisions and build on current HSE guidance in Passive Smoking at Work. It will not be an offence to fail to comply with the new code; instead the burden of proof will be on the employer to justify non-compliance.

The code will require employers to determine the most practical way to control tobacco smoke in their workplace. Top of the list comes a total or partial ban. If that is not possible then there are other options to be considered, such as segregation of non-smokers or a working system which minimises exposure.

Where smoking constitutes a clear hazard – as in proximity to flammable materials – employers are legally entitled to impose a ban. Where the argument for a ban is not so clear-cut there has, predictably, been litigation.

In Dryden v Glasgow Health Board, 1992, IRLR 469, a lifelong smoker argued unsuccessfully that she was unfairly constructively dismissed after a total ban, which included the car park. She contended for an implied right to smoke through custom and practice. But in Watson v Cooke, Webb & Holton, unreported, ETcase no 0230/95, a claim succeeded when a ban was introduced overnight without consultation.

In Singh v Walkers Snack Foods, unreported, EATcase no 0412/97, dismissal for breach of the no-smoking policy was held to be fair. In Marks & Spencer v O’Connell, unreported, EATcase no 0230/95, the employer was not so fortunate, dismissal for a first offence being considered outside the band of reasonable responses. Dismissal for a first offence should therefore be regarded as wholly exceptional.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In Waltons & Morse v Dorrington, 1997, IRLR 488, a non-smoker successfully argued that there had been unfair constructive dismissal when the employer ignored her complaints about smoke drifting from a smoking room into her no-smoking area.

By Nicholas Moore, head of employment at law firm Osborne Clarke OWA, which has offices in the City of London, Bristol and Reading

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Testing H2 and H3 with hyperlinks
next post
The six key qualities for interims

You may also like

FCA to extend misconduct rules beyond banks

2 Jul 2025

‘Decisive action’ needed to boost workers’ pensions

2 Jul 2025

Business leaders’ drop in confidence impacts headcount

2 Jul 2025

Why we need to rethink soft skills in...

1 Jul 2025

Five misconceptions about hiring refugees

20 Jun 2025

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

Occupational health on the coronavirus frontline – ‘I...

21 Aug 2020

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+