Nation Hairdressers Federation - Salon Focus March - April 2008
Article date: 25/02/2008
Up to Scratch
[Extract from Salon Focus, March-April 2008]
Andrew Day tells salon owners how to reduce the risk of personal injury claims
The case reported in the press in January in which a Lancashire woman allegedly suffered chemical burns after using a L\'Oreal product focused on hair colouring applied by a mobile hairdresser in a customer\'s home. This did not occur in a professional salon but it easily could have done. So this is an opportune time to remind salon owners of their ongoing obligations 10 protect their customers and staff from being harmed by the products they use in the work place. The areas that provide the most concern for salon owners and employees are the risks associated with burns caused by undue exposure to heat and the possibility of adverse reactions from certain shampoos and hair dye or cuts drawing blood.
The first can happen under heated hood hairdryer, steamer or by contact with hot irons. The second, which is the focus of this column, can potentially lead to skin conditions such as dermatitis and allergic reaction through sensitisation to a substance. This is something that is increasingly worrying salon owners.
The burgeoning variety of hair dyes and the increased use of hair dye treatments is reflected in the fact that 68% of the turnover of UK salons arises from hair dye treatments, according to patch-testing company Trichocare.
OBLIGATION
The law recognises the significance of this. You should be aware that all UK salons have an obligation to take all reasonable precautions to protect the health and welfare of clients under Section 3 of the Health & Safety at Work Act1974. What is reasonable is open to question and may include the manufacturer’s recommended precautionary skin tests, or \"patch tests\", on their customers.
Alternatively, reasonable action may possibly include questions designed to establish whether the client was prone to an adverse reaction to the treatment.
What is not acceptable is to do nothing. It is worth noting that sensitivity testing may lead to misleading and false negative results giving individuals who are allergic to hair dye substances the false impression that they are not allergic or not at risk of developing an allergic reaction by dyeing their hair.
Also there is potential risk that the skin test itself may result in induction of sensitization to hair dye substances. However, it may offer protection to those who develop a positive reaction and thereby avoid more intensive exposure.
The safest way to minimise your exposure to risk would be to sensitivity test a customer before every treatment of any hair care product but in reality most salons would find that prohibitively onerous as would their customers.
I have included, in light of this, a list of hints at the end of this article to help you with a practical approach to compliance. We should not forget that exposure to irritant products may not only affect your customers, but your staff as well.
Businesses should be aware that they owe a duty of care to their employees to provide a safe environment in which to work. This, in a salon context, includes taking reasonable steps to ensure that staff are not exposed to unsafe products.
Common-sense steps can go a long way to helping salon owners with their obligations in relation to staff exposure to skin irritants, not least ensuring staff are properly trained to use products in accordance with manufacturers\' instructions and by providing them with protective gloves when handling products and suitable barrier creams and moisturisers.
CHECKLIST
The following checklist provides a basic set of guidelines to protecting your business:
• follow the manufacturers’ recommendation
• If this is not possible or reasonably practical, implement a generic sensitivity test procedure and inform staff of the requirement to follow the procedure before treatment. You should note that it is not legally permissible for your business to exclude liability for the personal injury of a customer caused by your negligence but that a sensitivity test can reduce the risk of injury occurring by establishing that you had taken reasonable care given all the circumstances
• Try to establish whether or not the client is likely to be prone to an allergic reaction to the chemicals by a series of probing questions similar to those devised by L’Oreal for use with some of their products and base on the replies, use professional skill and judgment to assess whether or not the treatment should go ahead. If in doubt, do not undertake the treatment
• Consider whether you are providing your staff with adequate training and protection to comply with health and safety legis1ation
• Provide customers with relevant information to enable them to assess the risks inherent in a product through the normal or reasonably foreseeable period of its use, where such risks are not obvious
• Have a satisfactory post-marketing vigilance system, including capture and assessment of enquiries and complaints, so as to identify safety issues as soon as possible in product use and where necessary make changes
• Ensure that your business has up-to-date public liability insurance cover.
This article does not constitute specific legal advice. Andrew Day is a solicitor at Spring Law, a business law firm in London’s West End.