Risk assessment and retail security officers are the topics for Blessing Isaackson, BA (Honours) University of Keele, CeMAP, BL and a former Metropolitan Police officer.
Risk assessment is a mandatory legal requirement for employers. Employers who fail to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessment of their staff and work environment do so at their own peril. On May 24, 2011, the Health and Safety Executive successfully prosecuted a construction company and a security manager after a security guard died of carbon monoxide poisoning at work. They were found to have breached section 4(2) and section 3(2) of the Health and safety Act 1974. Also, in 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld an appeal brought by an employee against his employer on the grounds that the employer had failed to provide suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk of injury to the employee when carrying out a stock-take.
An effective risk assessment of the retail security officer’s work should form part of the business continuity plan of any retail security company. This is precisely because the retail security business is based on providing efficient, well trained and able bodied workforce to the retail sector. Without the retail security guard the retail security company effectively has no business in the retail sector. Retail security companies largely earn their living from providing security officers to the retail sector. It therefore makes business sense that front-line security officers work in safe environments, have the tools they need to carry out their work efficiently and are trained to deal with the risks they face daily. The continuity of the retail security business depends on the number of security guards that are happy to return to the shop floor of their retail sector client.
In preparing this paper, I conducted face-to-face interviews with 20 retail security officers in three separate retail companies. Whilst the views of these guards have been taken into account in this article the ideas expressed in this work are entirely mine.
Right of self-defence
Some of the retail security officers (RSOs) I interviewed have clear instructions to restrain an attacker only as a last resort, however, they express concern at the lack of clarity as to what last resort means. The issue of applying force as a last resort has been covered in my article titled “self- restraint or Self-defence- A tricky dilemma for the retail security officer”. I am reiterating this point here because the lack of definition is a risk to the security officer and his employer. It is a risk to the security officer because it leads to prevarication and ultimately docility both of which may be harmful to the guard. A security guard must be assertive and decisive in defending himself and those he is protecting. If he waits to the last resort, in certain circumstances, he may end up in a mortuary or in a hospital bed seriously injured.
Also, the absence of clear guidelines may open the employer to claims of not taking steps to avoid risk of injury to their front-line RSOs. How do retail security officers know whether they have reached the endpoint where force becomes necessary? The answer does not lie in the employer’s instructions but in the guidelines set out in the law.
It is submitted that the proper direction to RSOs is to avoid confrontation at all times, but apply reasonable force when they honestly believe the application of force is necessary in the circumstance to defend themselves. This direction is a reinstatement of the current law on self-defence. This will require the employer to comply with the legal requirement to provide training to refresh the physical intervention skills of each retail security staff employed by the company. No matter how perfect the security officer’s physical intervention skills are, they are unlikely to stop a determined attacker bent on stabbing him. Despite this risk, most retail security officers have no protection against stabbing in the abdomen or other vital organs.
Providing PPE
Considering the high level of risk of violence which retail security officers face daily, few RSOs are provided with stab-proof vests despite the requirement that employers provide personal protective equipment to their employees. It is unclear whether this is a risk which all retail security companies take quite seriously and, if not, why not? One can only speculate as to why this very important personal protective equipment (PPE) is not more widely available to RSOs. It may well be that employers believe that they fall under the exceptions created by the EU directive which excludes PPE worn by the military, the police and “public order agencies” from the requirement to wear PPE. “Self-defence or deterrent equipment” is also excluded from the purview of personal protective equipment.
If that is the reason, then retail security companies may well be interpreting the law wrongly. A stab-proof vest is neither a deterrent equipment nor self-defence equipment under the EU directive. It is worn to protect the officer from stab injury. If cost is the reason for not providing the vest then this too cannot be justified because the average cost of a stab-proof vest is about £100 per vest, but security companies with thousands of staff can get the vests cheaper through bulk buying. Research in the course of writing this article should spur the reluctant retail security employer to take steps to provide this basic personal protective equipment to their front-line retail security staff. The average damages awarded to claimants who suffer injury to the bowel is about £40,000 and because such claimants often suffer post-traumatic stress disorder as well, the claim rises to about £98,000 – the average claim for post -traumatic stress from injury inflicted in the bowel is about £58,000. This excludes legal costs for the claimant and the defendant which are normally borne, in any clear case of negligence by the defendant. This is a tax deductible expense which makes sense and portrays the retail security company as a responsible employer who has done all that is reasonably practicable to protect its staff from injury.
Where there is risk to internal organs of a guard, an employer will be of breach of duty in failing to provide body armour.
This was the decision reached in Henser-Leather v Securicor Cash Services (2002). In that case an employee employed to collect cash from commercial outlets was shot in the stomach. He was not provided with body armour. The employer was found to be in breach of the Personal Protective Equipment at work Regulation 1992 regulation 4.
Any risk assessment of the RSO must consider the location of the store where the officer works. Is it a hot spot for violence? Have the security officers in that location been subjected to violence or threats of violence? Are they prone to violence in a particular location because of their race? Assigning a black or Asian security officer to a store near the office of the BNP, for example, will be the height of negligence. If all these questions are answered affirmatively a risk assessment of that environment must be undertaken and re-deployment arranged if to do so would avoid or reduce the risk.
Where vulnerable
A retail security guard who had reported on a number of occasions through the employer reporting channels that he was threatened with risk of violence or was the actual victim of violence should be redeployed or provided with PPE to reduce the risk of injury. Redeployment and the provision of body stab-vest would offer a stronger defence to any claim of employer negligence. In R v Securitas 2006, Securitas was found liable for injuries to an employee sustained by him during a “cash in transit” robbery.
Security officers accept the risks which are inherent in their work, but not those risks which the exercise of reasonable care on the part of those who owe them a duty of care could avoid. This was the view taken in the recent case brought by fire-fighters against their employers. The duty of care to avoid risks applies generally to security officers but extends specifically to the pregnant retail security guard.
Risk assessment
The work of the retail security guard is arduous and dangerous and it is even more so for a pregnant retail security guard. Any peculiar risks that a pregnant woman would face by reason of her pregnant condition must be assessed specifically by the employer in addition to the risk assessment required by law. Where an employer has carried out the risk assessment required under the law but the risk to the pregnant retail security guard cannot be avoided, the employer must, if it is reasonable to do so, alter her working conditions or hours of work. If altering her working conditions and hours will not avoid the risk, and a suitable alternative work is unavailable, the employer will be acting within its rights to suspend the pregnant retail security officer for as long as is reasonable to avoid the risk. The suspension must be on full pay. The retail security employer’s duty to avoid risk to the pregnant retail security officer is not absolute. The retail security company is obliged to avoid risk to the pregnant retail security guard to the lowest acceptable level, but it is not duty bound to avoid all risks .
Shop floor
The most effective way to assess the risk that RSOs face is to analyse and evaluate the risk they encounter on the shop floor. Supervisors visit stores to evaluate the performance of security officers, however, the remit of such visits must also extend to assessing the safety of their work environment. In other words, the line managers can kill two birds with one stone. A visit can reveal the effectiveness of a guard as well as the risk he faces. How else can a security company claim compliance with section 4(2) and section 3(2) of the Health and safety act 1974 if they have no verifiable record that the store where a security officer works has been assessed for avoidable risks?
Tail-gating the customer
The need for regular risk assessment of the stores where retail security guards work cannot be over-emphasised. This will reveal what I would describe in this paper as tail-gating the customer. This practice adds to the level of friction between customers and security guards on the shop floor. I will define ‘tail-gating’ as following too closely a ‘suspicious’ customer in the hopes of deterring them from shoplifting. In my experience, while most customers ignore the security officer on the shop floor who tags along at close proximity, a significant minority hate being followed too closely. This is a major source of friction on the shop floor. An officer needs to be close enough to observe ASCONE (Approach, selection, concealment, observation non -payment and exit), but must maintain a reasonable distance from the customer to avoid being an irritation.
If an officer strongly suspects a customer is about to engage in shoplifting they can act pro-actively by offering assistance, “May I help you, sir?” Offering help to a suspicious customer sends a clear message to the customer or the prospective shoplifter that you have noticed their suspicious behaviour and you are watching. In small stores with just one guard, the security guard could use the CCTV to monitor the customer instead of following the customer around. Admittedly, this is not always possible as the security officer do not have direct access to the CCTV room which serves, in some smaller stores, as the store manager’s office and home to the store’s safe. Any friction between customers and security officers that can be averted must be encouraged as less friction means less verbal abuse and violence. But the security officer’s job is made more dangerous by retail staffs counting money on the shop floor.
Counting money
Retail staffs who count money in full public view during opening hours endanger the lives of customers, staff and especially the retail security officer who is often asked to stand nearby to offer unarmed protection in the case of an armed robbery. Where this practice happens, the risk of attack by armed assailants must be assessed and the steps that the retail security officers should take in those circumstances to minimise risk to themselves, staff and customers clarified.
Spitting, bites
Retail security officers encounter angry customers who spit on them during verbal exchanges. Occasionally, this happens intentionally and in most cases unintentionally when customers come too close during heated conversations. The saliva of an individual infected with hepatitis B can be particularly harmful if it gets into an officer’s body. The injection of saliva from the mouth into the blood stream can happen when an officer is bitten by an infected person. As a control measure, new security officers must be advised to get vaccinated against hepatitis on a voluntary basis. Current staffs are also to be informed of the risk of hepatitis B.
Slips and trips
Security officers who work on the shop floor of retail stores are just as prone to slips, trips and fall as the retail staffs. They walk on the same floor on a wet day and when the melt water from the freezers spreads over the floor this can also lead to accidents causing fractures or other serious injuries. If retail staffs are required to wear safety shoes that will protect them from falling or reduce the risk of injury so should the retail security guards. Retail security officers must wear safety shoes with sufficient grip on the shop floor. When security guards buy their own work shoes this leads to lack of uniformity which harms the professional image of the employer and heightens the risk of accidental injury from slip or fall.
Reporting
Whenever a security officer is threatened with violence, verbally assaulted, physically abused in any way they must report the incident. Most security companies encourage their staff to report the incidents in the daily occurrence book or in an incident report book. Security officers are encouraged to report such incidents to the control room. But there is need for a more creative system of reporting incidents of violence. Any threat of violence on an officer must be reported separately in what I would describe as VIRB (Violent incidents Report Book). A dedicated mobile phone line can be set up by the retail security company to receive texts reports on all violent incidents. These texts, when analysed on a weekly or monthly basis will provide a clearer picture of stores that are more prone to violence and the risk matrix of officers working in those stores can be determined in a more accurate and consistent manner. The information obtained from the reports can be used by security companies to make informed decisions as to whether to move particular officers to ‘quieter’ stores with lower violence profile. If this is not done, the employer could be liable as was decided in R V Securitas 2006.
Conclusion
There should be no hiding place for cowboy retail security guards who by their actions attract violence to themselves through confrontational intemperate behaviour. Whilst the highest standard of care is required from retail security companies many of whom work assiduously to assess the risk of violence to their security staffs, retail security officers owe their employers a duty to show maturity in equal measure by providing the highest quality of service at all times. If you want to be a cowboy then take off the security uniform and go to the countryside riding horses. To whom much is given, much is expected. In the security industry, this should apply to security guards as well as to their employers.
