WRULD Claims heard in England, Scotland and Wales
References to and/or interpretations of HSE Guidance Documents - Horridge & Roberts - v - Gan Insurance Co Ltd
In this County Court Judgment on the 21st September 2001, at paragraphs 6 to 13, HH Judge Brunning says:
The Health and Safety Executive have provided extensive guidance for the use of employers in the interpretation of the relevant regulations. The particular paragraphs of that guidance which have been relevant to my considerations are these:
43- "In most tasks, natural breaks or pauses occur as a consequence of the inherent organization or the work. Wherever possible, jobs at display screens should be designed to consist of a mix of screen based and none screen based work to prevent fatigue and to vary visual and mental demands. Where the job unavoidably contains spells of intensive display screen work (whether using the keyboard or input device, reading the screen, or a mixture of the two) these should be broken up by periods of none intensive, none display screen work. Where work cannot be so organised, for example in jobs requiring only data or text entry requiring sustained attention and concentration, deliberate breaks or pauses must be introduced."
Nature and timing of breaks of changes of activity:
44- "Where the display screen work involves intensive use of the keyboard, any activity which would demand broadly similar use of the arms or hands should be avoided during breaks. Similarly, if the display screen work is visually demanding any activities during breaks should be of a different visual character. Breaks must also allow users to vary their posture. Exercise routines which include blinking. stretching and focusing eyes on distant objects can be helpful and could be covered in training programmes."
45- "It is not appropriate to lay down requirements for breaks which apply to all types of work; it is the nature and mix of demands made by the job which determine the length of break necessary to prevent fatigue. But some general guidance can be given: a. breaks should be taken before the onset of fatigue, not in order to recuperate and when performance is at a maximum, before productivity reduces. The timing of the break is more important than its length; b. breaks or changes of activity should be include in working time. They should reduce the workload of the screen, ie, should not result in the higher pace or intensity of work on account of their introductions; c.short, frequent breaks are more satisfactory than occasional longer breaks, eg, a 5 to 10 minute break after 50 to 60 minutes continuous screen and/or keyboard work is more likely to be better than a 15 minute break every 2 hours; d. if possible, breaks should be taken away from the screen; e. informal breaks, that is time not spent viewing the screen (eg. on other tasks), appear from study evidence to be more effective in relieving visual fatigue than formal rest breaks; f. wherever practicable, users should be allowed some discretion as to how the carry out tasks. Individual control over the nature and pace of work allows optimal distribution of effort over the working day."
Paragraph 46 places a duty on the employer to plan the activities of users so that they are able to benefit from breaks or changes of activity. There is no requirement for a precise and detailed timetable to be drawn up.
Paragraph 47 states that it is generally best for users to have discretion over when they take their breaks and for employers to encourage flexibility.
Paragraph 48 refers to some circumstances where unforeseen emergency or other Health and Safety consideration occasionally dictate that normal breaks are not taken.
There are no stipulations about posture.
The substance of the case is that there were insufficient breaks or changes of activity and that the Defendants imposed on the Claimants work targets which put undue pressure to complete work within a certain time which added to the strain upon the Claimants and were causative of injury.
Having reviewed the evidence, HH Judge Brunning says at paragraph 38:
I am satisfied, having considered the regulations and the nature of the Claimants' employment, that the Defendants were not required to institute a regime of rest breaks and pauses in order to discharge their statutory duty to the Claimants. The nature of the work was so widely varied, and natural breaks occurred so frequently within it, that there was no negligence in failing to take steps of the kind asserted in the Particulars of Claim. Accordingly the claims must fail at this hurdle.
V1.02
Last updated: 14/05/2013