36 replies to this topic

[googled]

Posting on behalf of a friend.

He's a bus driver with Arriva and up till now (2.5 years) has been allowed to vape on the bus and in the depot, the depot have taken the unanimous (not company wide) decision to ban e-cig use in the depot and on the bus. This in effect, forces him to vape in areas set aside for smokers. The reason given is because 'it looks like he's smoking'. He going to appeal the decision and has asked me to find out if there was any legal precedent set, not only for workplace banning but also forcing vapers to vape in smoking areas, with the obvious health and habit consequences that could present.

[ExFagAshLil]

This will be interesting. The passive smoking card will HAVE to be played. Did he switch because of health problems?

[googled]

ExFagAshLil, on 09 September 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

This will be interesting. The passive smoking card will HAVE to be played. Did he switch because of health problems?

No. Just health concerns. He's (very) overweight and did used to have horrendous coughing fits at times when he used to smoke. I was personally responsible for introducing him to vaping after he'd struggled to quit previously.
Like me he's an e-cig success story and I'd hate to see that reversed due to ignorance.

Edited by googled, 09 September 2011 - 07:46 PM.

[Digisatman]

I shall follow this with baited breath, good luck 

[frog]

I'm sorry to say that I don't think he has a leg to stand on. Private property and private vehicles, if they want to ban drinking soda, eating, or picking your nose then I think they can. Is he not able to walk off site? If not then he could be considered as being forced to go and spend time with the smokers but to be honest, with NRT available it would be hard to establish that his only option in keeping off smokes is to vape with smokers. On a personal note, smoking is banned on all the land my company operates on, so smokers go stand on the roadside off site. I go there too when I vape. I have never asked to vape on company land, there is no need and I suspect that vaping in environments where smoking is not allowed might just anger the anti smoking brigade and be seen as an attempt to get around the smoking ban. I know many here disagree with this view but I don't see the need for a fight if there is no need.

If I give somebody a lift in my car I would not dream of vaping and making them inhale the clouds. Inhaling these chemicals is my choice and I wouldn't submit non smokers to it. It just doesn't feel right.

[Storm]

Quote

If I give somebody a lift in my car I would not dream of vaping and making them inhale the clouds. Inhaling these chemicals is my choice and I wouldn't submit non smokers to it. It just doesn't feel right.

My car I do as I wish , if someone wants a lift their choice !! ( However if it was their car and me taking the lift quite a different story )

As for the conundrum with googled's friend : from what I understand vaping / e-cig smoking is legal anywhere , although the management of any building /establishment / bus/ coach etc have the right to refuse permission , a good example of the right to refuse permission is Wetherspoons stance on e-smoking

Edited by Storm, 09 September 2011 - 08:48 PM.

[buccy]

bit of the reverse for me the company i work for are very anti-smoking (they banned ciggys over 10 years ago)
but i went to the boss of the dept i worked in ( now work in a dept of one me hahahah) and explained to him about e-cigs,
next day i was summoned to the old guy who owns said company (hes 79 year old ) asked lots of questions showed him my titan 510 ,he made the policy there and then ,
no probs ,he did say that would it be ok if any one asked what i was up to if i could talk to any employes that showed an interest ,so far 6 guys have made the switch
and the company mecanick bought me lunch as he recons the vans smell so much better and he hasnt got to open all the windows and let them breath for an hour before he can get things done lols

[HillBill]

Thats a sad tale there. I suspect his union is going to be his best option for support but I'm wondering if ECCAUK might provide a letter of support... sounds like the company has made a decision based on emotions rather than facts to me.

[Storm]

I agree hill but like I said in my previous post it is all down to the management or owners of the property in which you wish to vape , I'm sure I remember a politician banging on about EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION , nuff said

[MIDIManNI]

I tried to get our Company to encourage Vaping as an alternative to smoking and to allow it at desks/workstations and they kind of agreed that it was a great idea but really didn't want to be bothered.

They make the smokers stand out on the street in all weathers and I now point blankly refuse to go out with them - I keep telling them I am NOT a smoker and refuse to be labeled as such...

I have been ignored now and consequently have decided to ignore them...I now smoke in the toilet or at my desk when no-one is about or "stealth vape" whenever and wherever I fell like it - It does not affect my productivity in ANY way whatsoever and IF they push it then they may well have to "give me the push"...their loss!! But It won't be without a fight since I have their Policys and Vaping is NOT currently included on the list of PROSCRIBED activities...! My SOlicitor tells me that they would not have a leg to stand on until Policy was changed.

Later...

[mikrosoft]

googled, on 09 September 2011 - 07:26 PM, said:

Posting on behalf of a friend.

He's a bus driver with Arriva and up till now (2.5 years) has been allowed to vape on the bus and in the depot, the depot have taken the unanimous (not company wide) decision to ban e-cig use in the depot and on the bus. This in effect, forces him to vape in areas set aside for smokers. The reason given is because 'it looks like he's smoking'. He going to appeal the decision and has asked me to find out if there was any legal precedent set, not only for workplace banning but also forcing vapers to vape in smoking areas, with the obvious health and habit consequences that could present.

I worked for stagecoach for three years until recently never allowed to vape on the bus and had to go to smoking area to vape country wide this was.

On a side note I was forced out of my job because of my weight bear in mind I started with them the same weight. One year after starting they enforced a rule on weight limits on bus seats and tried to make me lose weight by sending me to the company doctor and threatening my job if I didn't lose weight. This took its toll 2 years on and I quit my job even the union stood back and agreed as it was health and safety.

Edited by mikrosoft, 09 September 2011 - 11:05 PM.

[acousticvillage]

I am sorry to say that I think the management will win this one...I believe managers / HR etc are entitled to set policy (not necessary to deal with legislation - company policy and local garage policy). Local managers may also have local policies. They will play the H&S game and "professional appearance" game.

As long as it is not discriminating against someone because of gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, race or an employee's existing terms and conditions, a policy can be implemented.

It is a real shame that this is being implemented by his local garage...his fellow workers in other words....

It would be great if your mate had the energy and drive to resist this on the grounds of his own health being put at risk, and also on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent to implement any policy on the basis that something "looks like" something else....

Having said that, managers must ensure that policies are in themselves legal...i.e. not going against corporate or HQ policies. Also managers must ensure that they are reasonable and proportionate. If your mate could play the "this is my version of a nicorette..." game, it would be interesting to hear managers' explanation of why they feel it is a reasonable and proportionate policy.

It is up to managers to demonstrate this, not the employee. Managers need to think how they would defend themselves if they took any disciplinary action. Can you imagine a tribunal..."well, I disciplined him becase he looked like he was smoking"

"and was he smoking?"

"No".

"So what was he doing wrong? Which company regulation or policy was he in breach of?"

"Look, all I knows is this, he looked like he was smoking and smoking is not allowed. If everyone went around vaping we would have claims against passive smoking"

"So he looked like he was smoking, but you knew he wasn't. But you are afraid if this continues that others will be in danger of passive smoking?"

"Yes, that''s correct"

"But you have just agreed that he wasn't smoking...."

etc.....

[buccy]

acousticvillage, on 10 September 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

I am sorry to say that I think the management will win this one...I believe managers / HR etc are entitled to set policy (not necessary to deal with legislation - company policy and local garage policy). Local managers may also have local policies. They will play the H&S game and "professional appearance" game.

As long as it is not discriminating against someone because of gender, sexual orientation, beliefs, race or an employee's existing terms and conditions, a policy can be implemented.

It is a real shame that this is being implemented by his local garage...his fellow workers in other words....

It would be great if your mate had the energy and drive to resist this on the grounds of his own health being put at risk, and also on the grounds that it sets a dangerous precedent to implement any policy on the basis that something "looks like" something else....

Having said that, managers must ensure that policies are in themselves legal...i.e. not going against corporate or HQ policies. Also managers must ensure that they are reasonable and proportionate. If your mate could play the "this is my version of a nicorette..." game, it would be interesting to hear managers' explanation of why they feel it is a reasonable and proportionate policy.

It is up to managers to demonstrate this, not the employee. Managers need to think how they would defend themselves if they took any disciplinary action. Can you imagine a tribunal..."well, I disciplined him becase he looked like he was smoking"

"and was he smoking?"

"No".

"So what was he doing wrong? Which company regulation or policy was he in breach of?"

"Look, all I knows is this, he looked like he was smoking and smoking is not allowed. If everyone went around vaping we would have claims against passive smoking"

"So he looked like he was smoking, but you knew he wasn't. But you are afraid if this continues that others will be in danger of passive smoking?"

"Yes, that''s correct"

"But you have just agreed that he wasn't smoking...."

etc.....

this sounds like a good argument to me

[vapemylungs]

He should lawyer up. Basically Health and Safety are forcing non smokers to breath in cigarette smoke or encouraging them to go back to cigarettes.

Edited by vapemylungs, 10 September 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[frog]

Isn't vaping still a choice? I truly don't see how this is forcing somebody to inhale secondhand smoke or go back to fags. I'm not saying that the company are making an enlightened decision but I suspect that claiming that they are forcing somebody to inhale tobacco smoke is an argument that is unlikely to end in a win. Surely they will counter with the notion that he can choose not to go and sit with the smokers and go off site during breaks like so many other employees do? Or is this a secure compound with nowhere else to go?

[HillBill]

Storm, on 09 September 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

I agree hill but like I said in my previous post it is all down to the management or owners of the property in which you wish to vape , I'm sure I remember a politician banging on about EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION , nuff said

Yes I was advocating persuading the company to change their policy to a more rational one based on better information that might be available through ECCAUK with the support of the union. Lawsuits are always bottom of the list of ways to change things in my book because it means normal human interaction has failed. Its better than guns at dawn though!

[googled]

I think the point here is do employers or businesses that host the public have carté blanche to create whatever rules they see fit? Could an employer ban farting or nose picking or pen sucking and would those be grounds for dismissal if the person refused to comply and how would that stand up in a tribunal ? Vaping is completely legal, if a member of the public was vaping on a bus and refused to stop then the driver would have to contact the police. Under what law could that person be arrested? Disturbing the peace is a huge stretch and would be pandering to ignorance. I can't think of another activity that is condoned, even encouraged(RyanAir) in some businesses and banned in others...with the exception of maybe strip joints.

[sid]

Big companies like this usually have health and safety directives about promoting healthy lifestyles (eg no smoking) so I think his best bet would be to go down that route. A quick trawl on google shows that the company are keen to alleviate driver stress etc. I can see that they might not want him vaping in view of the customers, but in the depot is a different kettle of fish.

[frog]

Eating and drinking spring to mind. For instance, many service industries do not allow receptionists to eat their lunch on the reception desk. Many shops do not allow food or drink to be consumed on site. However both are perfectly legal and encouraged in some other environments.

[Rusty]

My productivity increased when I switched to ecigs because I didn't need to use my breaks to walk to the smoking area, fit as many fags in as I could in the allotted time, then walk back. As I could have a puff every now and then during the working day, I did not NEED a break, so I continued working. Plus as I would just have a single toke when stressed, I wasn't continually THINKING about when I could have my next cig, so I was more focussed on the task in hand.

I reckon the productivity card is under used by vapers - I see it as a major benefit of companies allowing it.