News
Unions huff and puff at smoking policy
History tells us that there was a time when smoking was regarded as a sophisticated social activity.
In the 1950s smoking was the past time of debonair film stars and sportspeople. It was promoted as socially desirable - and even healthy.
Even the casual observer of the press will know that tobacco companies are now bearing the brunt of some of the activities said to have taken place during that seemingly halcyon period. Litigation in some overseas countries appears to be rife - addressing matters such as the knowledge of tobacco companies concerning addiction to smoking, and of the dangers of second-hand smoke.
Recent years have, of course, witnessed something of a back-lash against smoking. Far from being encouraged as a social activity, smoking has, in many countries, become something of a societal ill. In fact, one could say that, to a large extent, smokers now face a social isolation in most western countries - being forced to indulge in their affliction well out of both sight and mind of non-smokers.
Steps taken recently by an employer in Australia have caused attention to be drawn to the plight of smoking employees in that country.
Australia's national broadcaster, the ABC, announced earlier this year that it was introducing a strict no-smoking policy at all of its workplaces which, amongst other things, stipulated that staff who wished to smoke at work would be required to do so at least 10 metres from the entrance to any workplace. This policy followed on the heels of strict non-smoking regimes imposed by other Australian employers - notably including Qantas, which in 1996 introduced a policy preventing any of its employees smoking whilst in uniform (even when travelling to and from work).
Perhaps predictably, this latest no-smoking policy has drawn a variety of responses. On the one hand, anti-smoking groups have reported their delight at the steps taken by the employer to safeguard its non-smoking employees from harm. On the other hand, however, the Community and Public Sector Union has said that it has concerns about ABC's policy being "heavy handed" - possibly to the extent that it jeopardises its members' employment.
In light of these recent developments in Australia it is perhaps timely for us to reflect upon the requirements upon employers in this country.
The Smoke Free Environments Act came into force in New Zealand in 1990. Amongst other things, the Act requires every employer to have a written policy concerning smoking in and about the workplace.
The employer's policy must be based on the principle that employees who do not smoke are protected from tobacco smoke in the workplace, so far as reasonably practical.
At a minimum, the written policy must:
- ensure that smoking is not permitted in lifts or in office spaces where more than one person works in common air space;
- prevent smoking in at least half of any cafeteria or lunch room; and
- ensure that smoking is not permitted at any part of the workplace to which the public normally has access.
The policy must also provide a procedure which can be followed by employees who do not work in office space (ie employees who work outdoors) to request that smoking will not be permitted within two metres of that employee's usual work area.
The legislation contains special provisions for certain workplaces - such as licensed premises, restaurants and casinos. It also places particular restrictions upon such things as smoking in passenger service vehicles and aircraft.
It is not impossible that an employer in New Zealand could institute a policy similar to that recently introduced by the ABC. In other words, an employer could introduce a policy preventing its employees from smoking in and around entrance ways to its workplace. A restriction along these lines might be justified on the basis that members of the public would normally have access through these areas, and that there is a legitimate interest in preventing smoking accordingly.
Any such restriction would, however, need to be introduced in consultation with affected employees - and, where applicable, their union. Amongst other things, one would imagine that any such restriction would need to be balanced by an element of common-sense - including the provision of a suitable alternative place for employees to smoke.
In passing, one should spare a thought for the difficult problems which are faced both by employers and by unions. Each has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the interests of employees are protected. There is, of course, a difficulty where these interests are not universal - for example, where some employees wish to ensure reasonable provisions to allow them to smoke at work, and other employees wish to ensure against being disturbed by tobacco smoke in the workplace.
