healthscotland.com

Workplace Smoking Policies in Scotland

Contents:

Executive Summary Executive Summary 1. Background to study and method 1. Background to study and method 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 2. Views about smoking and the risks of passive smoking 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 3. Attitudes to smoking and smoking policies at work 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 4. Smoking policies in the workplace 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 6. Views of current smoking policies 7. Cessation support 7. Cessation support 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives 8. Views of legislation and policy initiatives Appendix A Appendix A Appendix B Appendix B Appendix C Appendix C Appendix D Appendix D

5. Implementation, communication and enforcement of workplace smoking policies

• The quantitative study investigated how employees were informed of their employer's workplace smoking policy (if at all), to what extent employees complied with the policy and the methods of enforcement used for non-compliance. The qualitative study explored what implementation of smoking policies meant in practice for employers and employees.
• The quantitative survey found that employers tended to rely on verbal communication of their smoking policies, with 42% of those with a policy relying solely on this method. Larger organisations were more likely to include policy compliance as a condition of employment, and to signpost smoking areas.
• Despite this limited level of formal communication, most workplaces reported little non-compliance (90% saying rarely or never), and enforcement tended to be informal with managers asking the employee to stop smoking. Where the policy was a condition of employment, disciplinary action was more likely to be used. Following enforcement, most felt that their employees then complied with the policy.
• The qualitative study found there was a general acceptance of the smoking policies in place in the case study organisations visited. There was some 'rule bending' in all of the businesses but this was not usually considered to be serious. However, a clear distinction was drawn between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' rule bending, with managers expected to act if they were aware of unacceptable behaviour.
• There were also examples of branch or local managers adapting a company policy for their part of the business. The issue of division between smokers and non-smokers was not raised very often and was only identified as a problem when smokers were inconsiderate in shared spaces; when different types of workers had different provision; and when policies were introduced too quickly or with little or no consultation.
• A number of factors emerged as either helping or hindering the introduction of such policies. These included; the size and culture of the business; the individual style of managers; whether consultation was undertaken; the space and layout of the premises; staff attitudes to smoking at work and to their managers; and customers' views and expectations.

5.1 Quantitative Study

5.1.1 Policy communication

Before considering policy enforcement, it is necessary to consider how policies are communicated to employees, if at all. By far, the most commonly used method was verbal communication, for just over two thirds (68%) of workplaces (Table 5.1). Three in ten informed employees by having the policy as a condition of employment (31%) and by using signs and posters (29%). Other methods of communication used included staff handbooks (3%), company inductions (3%) and other written forms of communication (2%). Only 2% said that they did not inform their employees of the smoking policy. The qualitative case studies also emphasised the importance of informal communication. Even where there were formal methods of communication, staff often recalled finding out about the policy from other staff or following their lead in terms of smoking practice.

Table 5.1: Main policy communication methods by size of organisation (%)

	All (1355)	SME (838)	Large (517)
Verbal communication	68%	70%	60%
In employment contract/condition of employment	31%	27%	53%
Signs/posters	29%	26%	44%
VERBAL ONLY	42%	47%	15%
Base: All workplaces with employee smoking policy

As shown in Table 5.1, the method of communication adopted varied greatly between the SME workplaces and those in large organisations. SME workplaces with a policy were much less likely (27%) than those in larger organisations (53%) to have the employee smoking policy as a condition of employment. Half of SMEs (47%) relied solely on verbal communication of the policy compared with 15% of workplaces from large organisations. Furthermore, all those who said they did not inform their employees of the smoking policy were from SME organisations.

Whilst SME organisations were generally less likely to have the policy as a condition of employment, the size of the SME workplace also affected its choice of communication method. Those with less than five employees were least likely (20%) to use the employment contract to convey the smoking policy, rising to 57% of SME workplaces with a policy with between 50 and 250 employees. The size of the workplace had less of an effect on workplaces belonging to larger organisations.

Table 5.2: Main policy communication methods by type of policy (%)

	All (1355)	Formal written (637)	Informal (530)
Verbal communication	68%	51%	82%
In employment contract/condition of employment	31%	55%	12%
Signs/posters	29%	39%	22%
VERBAL ONLY	42%	20%	57%
Base: All workplaces with employee smoking policy

As shown in Table 5.2, perhaps unsurprisingly, there was a clear difference in the way formal written policies and more informal policies were communicated. Workplaces with policies that were not in writing were much more likely to rely solely on verbal methods (57%), with much greater use of employment contracts by those with formal written policies.

There were also differences amongst the sectors, with those with a policy from the manufacturing (36%) and construction (37%) sectors being most likely to have the policy in the employment contract, with those in primary industries such as agriculture, forestry and mining least likely (19%).

Whilst three in ten (29%) used signs and posters to communicate their smoking policy, it was also important that designated smoking areas were clearly marked. Under half of workplaces with designated smoking areas had the areas signposted (43%), with workplaces in large organisations being more likely (68%) to signpost smoking areas than SME workplaces (39%). This is likely to be related to the higher proportion of large organisations with a formal policy.

However, it is not just the size of the overall organisation that appears to have made a difference here. The number of employees at the workplace level also seemed to affect how likely the workplace was to clearly mark its smoking areas, both within SME and large organisations. Given the small number of respondents, and the similar pattern within both SME and large organisations, the pattern by workplace size is shown for all workplaces with smoking areas in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Percentage of workplaces that restrict smoking to designated areas with sign-posted smoking areas by size of workplace (%)

Size of Workplace	% with signposting
2 to 4 employees (56)	26%
5 to 9 employees (98)	33%
10 to 49 employees (190)	48%
50 to 250 employees (151)	72%
251+ employees (53)	74%
Base: All workplaces where smoking is restricted to smoking rooms/designated areas

As the number of employees at the workplace increases, so does the likelihood of having clearly marked smoking areas. Organisations where employees tended to work off-site and outdoors were also, perhaps understandably, among the least likely to signpost their smoking areas (35% of those with smoking areas).

5.1.2 Non-compliance and enforcement

A policy that restricts or bans smoking in the workplace is only effective if it is consistently enforced whenever employees ignore the restrictions. The majority of respondents with such a policy (90%) felt their employees rarely or never ignored the restrictions, with only 3% saying employees often ignored the restrictions. Across the sectors, those from the manufacturing (6%) and construction (7%) sectors were more likely than average to say that employees often ignored the policy restrictions.

Those with policies that restricted smoking to designated areas were also more likely (14%) to have employees who often or sometimes ignored the policies than those with policies banning smoking everywhere (5%). This seems to suggest that a full ban is easier for employers to enforce than smoking restrictions. It is interesting to contrast this finding with the earlier finding that workplaces with more employees were more likely to opt for a restriction than a ban, and the fears of employers around conflict with employees, should a ban be implemented.

The qualitative research found that there was some bending of the rules in most workplaces. This tended to include both rule bending which managers were aware of and accepted, and occasionally, rule bending which was not viewed as acceptable or which the manager did not know about. This is discussed further in Section 5.2 below.

In those workplaces where non-compliance was reported in the survey ever to be an issue, four in five (80%) said that the manager would ask the employee to stop smoking, while just over half (53%) said that another member of staff would ask them to stop. A third (37%) would take disciplinary action of some kind, and only 5% would take no action at all.

In general, workplaces from large organisations were more likely to take each type of action than those from SMEs, as shown below in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Percentage of workplaces taking each type of enforcement action by size of organisation (%)

SME workplaces were, in particular, less likely (33%) to take disciplinary action than workplaces of large organisations (58%). This probably reflects the fact that SME workplaces were also less likely to have acceptance of their smoking policies as a condition of employment.

Those most likely to say they would carry out disciplinary action tended to be those who had their smoking policies as a condition of employment. For instance, organisations from the

manufacturing and construction sectors were among the most likely to take disciplinary action as well as being most likely to have the smoking policy as a condition of employment. Furthermore, organisations sign-posting smoking areas were over twice as likely to take disciplinary action (56%) as those who did not (24%). Generally therefore, it does seem as though formal enforcement tends to be carried out with clear, prior warning.

The vast majority (97%) of those who had taken action to enforce their policy said that employees complied with the policy after enforcement, with only 1% saying employees continued to flout the rules.

5.2 Qualitative Study

5.2.1 Implementation of policies

The qualitative study explored further how smoking policies translated into everyday life. In the case of larger organisations, there was generally consistency across the company, with HR departments or head offices providing policy frameworks which were expected to be adhered to. In places where there were different facets to the business, different rules usually applied to staff within each area. For example, staff working in the company offices of a construction firm were subject to different rules to those who worked on outdoor sites. Also, staff who were contracted out to work on other sites were expected to follow the site's smoking rules. Staff were generally satisfied that the rules were applied consistently across the company. In a few cases, some employees felt that certain people were 'taking liberties', or that managers had a more comfortable smoking area than the general staff. Some staff also said that they had not seen management using designated outside areas and wondered where they smoked. This gave rise to suspicions of unfairness.

Where there were policies determined by a head office, exceptions were also sometimes made by managers to meet the needs of their staff. For example, in one case study, bar staff were officially not allowed to smoke in their uniforms or on the premises. In reality, staff could not go outside for breaks in case they were needed to serve, and it was impractical for them to change out of their uniform if they needed a cigarette. Therefore, the manager allowed staff to smoke in the bar area at a secluded table whilst wearing a communal cardigan to cover their uniform from customers.

In most businesses, some bending of the rules did take place. However, this rule bending can be divided into that which was viewed as 'acceptable' and that which was perceived as 'unacceptable'. Staff knew where it was acceptable to smoke even if it was not officially allowed. Generally, they smoked in places near to the designated areas, particularly if these were at the back of buildings.

Normally, staff using outside shelters stayed within these, although one company which provided portakabins for smokers did find that some employees smoked just outside them. Often, such areas had been used for a long time, and staff and managers had become accustomed to seeing people smoke there. If this was the case, such a bending of the rules was seen as acceptable within the organisation. Often, the example set by the manager was followed by staff; if the managers smoked when they were not supposed to, the staff followed their lead.

"Technically you can't smoke on the premises...because it is a disused fire exit corridor and doesn't really affect other people; we probably are slightly more tolerant about that. We do let people stand just inside providing the door is left open and I suppose that I am aware that the legislation says that we shouldn't be doing that either." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, retail).

Some rule bending did also occur without the knowledge of the manager, usually when they were out of the office or off-site. Staff took more cigarette breaks or smoked in more sheltered areas. This was not normally resented by non-smokers as it did not affect their comfort or workload.

Unacceptable rule bending was reported to be unusual. Certain staff were known to smoke in the non-smoking toilets on unofficial breaks, whilst others took extra or extended breaks. In smaller companies, unacceptable policy breaking was sometimes known about by the manager, but was not acted upon. This was resented, in particular, by non-smoking colleagues. These cases were often those where there seemed to be a deep division between smokers and non-smokers, or broader problems between staff and management.

The implementation of some policies seemed to be confusing for staff. They did not always know exactly what the policy was, whether it was written down or how they could see it. Smokers generally had the greatest understanding of the policy as they followed the example of other smokers each day. In some cases, policies were provided at the time of interview or induction of new staff, whilst longer serving staff had less idea of them. Some organisations provided handbooks, intranet sites or general notices to convey policy, but others relied on showing staff what to do.

In larger companies, where the HR department was involved, enforcement seemed easier than in smaller businesses. Large companies had a formal procedure to follow if staff smoked outside designated areas, and these were generally reported to be followed. Misdemeanours were treated seriously by head offices, with one member of staff in a large company being sacked for smoking where it was not allowed. This did not always seem to be the case in smaller companies. Managers tended to deal with rule breaking through threats or negotiation, and the ease of dealing with unacceptable rule breaking depended on the personalities involved. Some admitted they would never sack somebody for smoking, although it was not always clear whether staff knew this.

5.2.2 Effects on smokers

The views of smokers as to how smoking policies affected them varied greatly. Some felt that providing the option to smoke allowed them to smoke more and would have preferred not to have the encouragement of smoking rooms or shelters. It was considered by some that, the easier it was to go for cigarette breaks, the easier it became to smoke more cigarettes. However, others felt that less formal breaks allowed them to become more relaxed about how many cigarettes they smoked, in the knowledge that they did not have to smoke lots at once. There were also cases where smokers admitted that their need to smoke took precedence over meals when they took breaks, meaning that they often missed or skimped on breakfast or lunch.

"...we must go out there anyway for a smoke but it's like you're rushing your breakfast to get a cigarette in time before you get back in." (Smoker, 251+ employees, manufacturing)

Many smokers expressed a desire to quit smoking. In companies where a smoking policy was in place, some felt that this had helped them to reduce their smoking. Those in companies considering changing policies believed that having to go outside might reduce the amount of cigarettes they smoked.

5.2.3 Factors facilitating or hindering policy introduction and implementation

The reactions of staff to the introduction of smoking policies did not appear to depend only on the policy itself. Other factors also influenced them including; the way it was introduced; how it was implemented; the provisions made for smokers and non-smokers; the type of company and culture present; and the approach and style of individual managers.

Business size and culture

As was shown in the quantitative findings, larger companies often with Head Offices or HR departments tended to have a structured, formal policy in place. The qualitative case studies also found that bigger organisations found it easier to implement or introduce policies. This seemed to be linked to these companies having a culture in which staff were used to policies or expectations in relation to behaviour being articulated across the whole company. They were also used to these being backed up not only by managers and disciplinary procedures but also by their peers. In the same way, companies, which were part of a chain or group, implemented the policies laid down by their parent company or head office, meaning that local managers were not viewed as being 'to blame' for them.

Smaller businesses tended to have a less formal set up, depending more on the personal views of the boss and relying on relationships with staff. Often, there were no overarching policies or frameworks within such companies. Managers relied on the team 'pulling together' rather than following a company culture or head office policy. The personality of the manager and their relationship with staff became far more important. Disagreements often seemed to become more personal, making it more difficult to introduce a policy, which inconvenienced staff.

Consultation and gradual introduction

In one instance, a business which had taken a relatively relaxed approach to smoking within the workplace was taken over by another company. It seemed that staff accepted the imposition of the new smoking policy fairly easily, due to it being 'eased in' and consultation and education taking place. In this and other businesses, the views that the wider culture was moving towards smoking restrictions or bans aided acceptance of a policy introduced within the workplace.

"I think that's something that's going to come, that they're not allowed to smoke in a public place..." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

Future legislation

In a similar vein, some bosses (often those in smaller organisations) remarked that they used supposedly imminent government legislation as an excuse to bring in the smoking policy that they wanted. Other managers reported their wish for legislation to be introduced by the Government, in order that they could apply it in the workplace without fear of retribution from customers or employees.

Space and layout

The question of facilities for smokers and non-smokers also affected the ease of introducing a smoking policy. The physical space and layout of organisations was therefore a big concern, particularly for smaller companies. These businesses did not have the space to provide a designated room for both smokers and non-smokers. Larger organisations were better able to provide a designated space for smokers but, where they chose not to do this, the company culture made it more acceptable to send people outside to smoke. Within smaller companies, where staff were not already smoking outside, it was felt that creating a new policy where they were expected to go outdoors would be badly received.

"...I suppose, if it was a big enough shop, we'd have a designated area for the smoking...I've never really tried, but I don't think they'd [smokers] be very pleased about it...if you maybe enforced it rigidly, they need to know there's a designated area for them to sit rather than sitting outside and smoking." (Non-smoker, 2-4 employees, retail).

Smokers said they would have felt they were being treated unfairly in being made to stand outside, particularly in poor weather. When shared staff rooms in small companies became non-smoking, with no other provision given to smokers, the latter group felt unfairly treated because they believed that their right to choose had been removed.

Staff expectations

Where requests from staff had led to the introduction or changing of a policy, this had generally been accompanied by a wider consultation (not just with those who had made the requests), which had assisted in the acceptance of the policy.

Directors' and managers' own views on smoking also sometimes affected policy. In some cases, those in charge did not like smoking or were ex-smokers and decided to implement their own views through their policies. At the same time, some bosses who smoked led by example by not smoking in certain areas, whilst other bosses who smoked set the example of smoking anywhere on the premises. It was clear in discussion with some owners or managers that they did not have the smoking policy in place, which they would like to introduce. Usually, the owner would have liked to ban smoking or severely restrict it, but did not feel able to do so because of the risk of conflict with staff.

Managers worried about the effect on motivation and team working, if a policy were introduced that staff were very unhappy with. They felt that having staff who were 'miserable and resentful' would be very bad for productivity and team spirit. They feared that some smokers would spend much of their time in the toilet taking unofficial cigarette breaks. There was one example of a company with manual employees that had introduced a policy of no smoking on the shop floor, but had later removed this policy as staff had taken too many breaks. Managers also believed that staff who had to go elsewhere in the premises to smoke might lose productivity walking there and back.

Those managers who were especially worried about introducing a stricter smoking policy often identified particular employees who smoked and were already difficult to deal with. It was thought that this individual or small group would cause particular problems, which could affect the authority of the manager and their ability to motivate and manage their staff. Although they accepted the health risks of allowing smoking inside, they did not feel that the benefits outweighed the difficulties that would be caused.

"Customers don't realise there's a problem, but disapproval between me and [the staff] can cause problems." (Non-smoker, 50-250 employees, leisure and hospitality).

Policies were also affected by staff expectations in relation to previous jobs and organisations they had worked for. Some staff had moved from a job where smoking was banned to one with a more relaxed view. They smoked more because they had the opportunity to do so, but wished there were stricter policies to curb their habit. Age was also believed to influence expectations. Younger staff were said to expect that they would not be able to smoke inside. Older staff also mentioned the changes in attitudes to smoking over the last 20 or 30 years. For some, this led them to accept that new rules were probably inevitable.

Those in the leisure and hospitality industries saw customer smoking as part of the job. They understood that smoking was central to some customers' enjoyment. However, smoking and non-smoking staff wanted the atmosphere they worked within to be less smoky, especially around the bar area.

"It's a very smoky job anyway...no smoking at the bar that would be quite good..." (Smoker, 250+ employees, leisure and hospitality).

Staff expectations also had a bearing in other industries. Those working within offices generally expected not to be able to smoke inside, and particularly not at their desks. However, those within construction or those who worked outdoors were used to more relaxed policies, allowing them to smoke anywhere. They often did not believe that many of the health risks were relevant for them.

"They [staff] are not in a closed environment where they could be affecting someone else with passive smoking." (Smoker, 5-9 employees, construction).

Individual management style

The management style of those implementing smoking policies was particularly important in smaller companies, or in small branches of larger companies. Staff were much more accepting of the policy, if the manager was viewed by their employees as being fair, relatively relaxed and approachable. One example was that of a bar where a new manager was enforcing the same policy as a previous manager. Staff remarked that the way in which the new boss went about enforcing the policy was much easier for them to accept.

"It's very easy going, [the manager's] really relaxed, I think people realise that, so it makes them take just the amount of time it takes to have a fag and then go back to work...before, when it was a different manager, you know, if someone bosses you around all the time it makes people want to stretch out their break time." (Non-smoker, 250+ employees, leisure and hospitality).

Customer expectations

Those working within the leisure and hospitality industries often allowed customers to smoke where staff were working. This affected the rules which were felt to be reasonable in relation to staff. Likewise, if customers were not allowed to smoke or had requested non-smoking areas, staff smoking was also restricted.

Customers' wishes often contributed to the choice of policy. In pubs, bars and hotels, they requested either smoking or non-smoking areas for themselves. Other companies who worked with the public also felt bound by the needs of their clients. One manager explained that they were providing a service to people from fairly deprived communities. The manager felt that completely banning smoking would prove detrimental to their customers' enjoyment of the attraction.

Customer expectations also related to how organisations were viewed outside their company. It was generally considered unprofessional to be seen to be openly smoking in front of customers or clients.

"You see people standing outside a nice entrance, they're all standing there having a cigarette - it's not a good welcome to the building." (Non-smoker, 10-49 employees, construction).

Within some catering establishments or restaurants, where smoking was allowed in the kitchen (contravening Health and Safety regulations), staff ensured that no trace was left of their cigarette break, and understood that they must never be seen by customers due to the hygiene issues.

If the organisation allowed children onto its premises, it was seen as particularly important that the management consider the issue of passive smoking in relation to children's health and well-being.