Conflict Management Training - Working with potentially violent people

Working with potentially violent peoplethey are visiting. This is where the Data Protection Act
Frequently when running conflict management trainingoften gets cited in the wrongly held assumption that
courses we hear vociferous complaints from staffemployers are unable to hold information about
who feel vulnerable because they have to visitpotentially dangerous people. Whilst care must be
potentially dangerous people; often with little or notaken with the information held, employers do have a
advanced information about the people they areduty of care to set up a coherent system to inform
visiting. One gets the impression that organisationsstaff if they are visiting high risk individuals. The
would never expose their staff to common health andInformation Commissioner's Office have
safety risks but often have a blind spot whenproduced guidance on this topic.
expecting staff to visit people who are in known highWe encounter a great many staff finding difficulty with
risk groups.this topic when working in multi-agency environments,
The alleged reasons for this are:such as staff from a building company who are
1. It's 'part of the job'contracted to a housing association. Which organisation
2. It's against the Data Protection Act to holdis responsible for supplying information on potentially
information on potentially dangerous peopleviolent tenants? While the ultimate responsibility to
3. There is confusion about who is responsible, ifkeep staff safe rests with their employer (the building
working in a multi-agency environmentcompany) it is the housing association that has access
The key legislation relevant to this area is the Healthto the tenant information. In this case the agency must
and Safety at Work Act 1974. It states thatinsist on the information being made available from the
'employers have a legal duty to ensure, as far ashousing association, even if this might rock the boat in
reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfarethese difficult economic times.
at work of their employees'. Employers may feel theEmployers also need to proactively manage risks
words 'reasonably practicable' provides them with awhere risks are known. Large payouts have been
get out clause.  However, the courts take a dim viewmade where employees have been injured by people
of employers who knew the risks but ignored them.who had shown high risk behaviour yet the situation
As with all Health and Safety at work the starting pointhad not been properly managed. Sharon Lewis, a
for an employer is to record, assess and keep aNottingham teacher, received 280,000 for a violent
record of the risks inherent in the job. In fact, this is aattack by a pupil. The pupil had previously attacked
legal requirement for all employers who have moreother members of staff.
than 5 employees. Depending on the risks identifiedWhilst we all aim to provide the customer with an
some more localised risk assessments may beexcellent service, let's not provide that service at the
required (i.e. on a case by case basis). However, this isexpense of staff safety. When staff feel more safe
only possible if management and staff are aware ofand secure, they are more motivated to provide a
the background and risks associated with the peoplebetter service - everyone wins!