Should I employ in-house door staff or use a security agency?
Many of our nightclub and bar clients have brought to our attention that they are considering employing door staff rather than using an agency. In-house door staff pose separate risks to security agency, which will therefore impact insurance and liability.
Stuart Dobbins, Technical Claims Director, has outlined a full explanation of the comparative risks, and the benefits of each decision. His outline includes the lawful responsibilities afforded to venues, and examples of scenarios where employers are found liable. To read Stuart Dobbins full explanation of ‘In-house Door Staff vs Agency Door Staff – Risks and Benefits’, see here.
At NDML, we have summarised Stuart Dobbins’ findings, as well as the teachable outcomes of claims we have handled in the past. The following includes the risks and benefits for nightlife businesses, measuring the pros and cons for both in-house door staff and using a security agency.
As Stuart Dobbins says: “When considering the advantages and disadvantages of employing one’s own door staff directly, as opposed to utilising the services of an agency, the main question to take into account is that of control.”
“An assessment of the competing risks and rewards will be necessary for any business in establishing what is the best option for them.” Becoming an employer of door staff “places a greater duty of care on the venue for both the safety of these security personnel as well as vicarious responsibility for their actions.”
The Benefits of Directly Employing Door Staff
Control over behaviour and quality of work – Employing door staff enable the venue more control. The venue can instruct how security staff should interact with customers, how to appropriately handle escalating situations, and consistency on refusal of entry. By having full control. Venues can remain consistent, professional and align staff with the venue’s culture.
Tailored Training – The venue can tailor training programmes for their staff. Training will include risk assessment, effective monitoring and improving performance. If your venue has unique risks, tailored training can cater toward those vulnerabilities.
Accountability – Because of a clear line of leadership and authority, security staff will fully understand who they answer to. Accountability over actions will improve clarity over day-today- actions and incident response.
Reduction in incidents – Because of the greater control, higher accountability and closer supervision, staff will likely perform better and remain compliant. Due to the structured and supervised environment, the likelihood of an incidents occurring is reduced.
The Risks of Directly Employing Door Staff
Vicarious Liability – Employers are legally exposed to a greater degree. Venues are liable for the actions of employees, known as vicarious liability, even when those actions were not necessarily condoned.
Duty of care – The venue takes on the responsibility for the welfare of their employed staff. Employers must understand their legal obligations when employing door staff.
Resource costs – Recruitment of qualified prospects, training of new starters, disciplinary processes are all aspects of employment which cost time money and resources. Venues must consider whether they have the internal capacity to manage door staff.
Blame likely lies with the venue – For mistakes or incidents, the venue must shoulder the blame. They are often found vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. There is little scope to place the blame elsewhere. Venues must shoulder the reputational consequences of a misaligned employed individual.
The benefits of employing door staff are clear, involving both agency and adding to the company culture. Venue must weigh up the risks – rather than going with, what Stuart agrees, is the safer option of utilising the services of a security agency.
Be aware: choosing agency services is not riskless. Venues can often be found liable for the actions of their agency supplied security staff. “Venues might think that they are not responsible for the agency door staff – however if the buck stops with the venue management for the actions of these door staff then this venue will be deemed to have sufficient control over these agency employees to render the venue liable in the courts for their injuries or damage arising from their actions.” says Stuart Dobbins.
The Benefits of Utilising Agency Door Staff
Third party takes on some responsibilities – Agency door staff are employed by a third party, meaning that the agency business is responsible for recruitment, HR processes, pay, and welfare of their staff.
Lower Vicarious Liability – With the venue presenting minimal direction and the agency staff exacting broad autonomy, then liability is significantly lesser. Upon an incident and claim, it could be argues the relationship between venue and offending door staff is not akin to employment, and therefore the venue would not be found liable.
Scaling – But using an agency, venues should be able to scale their security personnel depending on their needs – depending on the capacity of the agency. Special events are easier to cater to when utilising an agency, and licensing requirements can be quickly filled without committing to long-term structural changes.
Qualified and specialised – Agency security are likely to be well-experienced and able to manage risks without supervision.
The Risks of Utilising Agency Door Staff
Lack of Control over door staff selection – The venue will not be able to grasp the characteristics, temperament or history of individual door staff members before placement. This may impact on company culture or promote uncertainty in high pressure situations.
Legal risks – Liability does not disappear. If the venue closely supervises door staff and directs their actions, therefore treating them akin to an employee, they will trigger vicarious liability.
Contractual terms with the agency – When purchasing the services of an agency, the venue will be made aware of the contractual terms. In agreeing to these terms, they must be followed, including standards and working conditions. In the event of an incident, if the venue is found to have executed close managerial support for the door staff, they are likely to be found liable for their actions.
Inconsistent application of standards and practices – Because agency security staff may work across multiple locations and different types of businesses, their training is likely to be universal. Universal practices may well not align with the specific nature of your business or your culture. And if you are discovered to direct or convert the agency staff to your ‘way of doing things’, you are likely to be found vicariously liable for their actions.
Which is better, direct employment of door staff or using a security agency?
For most intents and purposes, Stuart Dobbins would agree that using a security agency to supply door staff is better, as it is more risk averse than employing door staff.
There are a plethora of risks and responsibilities when taking on any individual into your employ, but the high risk nature of security will likely require insurance policy stipulations. The one benefit is that because of increase control over employees, it is hoped individual would be less likely to act negligently. Either way, in a sense of risk, using an agency for hospitality is better and is preferred by insurers.
Yet Stuart is keen to remind: “Using an agency does not allow the venue to ‘dodge’ questions of liability – instead it will depend on the contractual conditions and ‘general practice’ in their dealings with these external staff as to whether the hospitality business could be held vicariously liable for an injury sustained to a customer. If the venue exerts a certain level of authority over these door staff, a claim could still be made against the venue on the basis that they had a relationship ‘akin to employment’ with the agency doormen.”