2 replies to this topic

[lou-lou]

On the day of a recent unannounced audit a burst pipe in the ladies toilets facilities resulted in us having to close both the Ladies and Gents Toilets facilities for the day pending plumbing repairs.

 

We put in place permanent cleaning personnel, signage and quarantine tape to prevent access to these areas, and additional signage detailing where a single unisex toilet was available onsite in an adjacent building.

 

I received a non-conformance in this audit for not having a contingency plan in place for such an event, and specifically for not having specific training conducted on the risks associated with food handlers sharing a unisex toilet.

 

I am looking for guidance on these 'risks associated with food handlers sharing a unisex toilet' as unisex toilets are permitted in small food industry establishments.

 

Any Guidance would be appreciated!!

[clbernard]

The only issue that I can think of would be for men using a toilet and not putting up the seat or not hitting the toilet when urinating.  Perhaps some opportunities with femine hygiene products also?

[Charles.C]

Dear lou-lou

 

You omitted to mention whether the auditor was satisfied with the alternative toilet. If not, specific reasons should have been given. I have assumed the possibility of an (unstated) negative response.

 

No idea regarding local sensitivities / mores but here are a few possible usx hazards–

 

(a) Non-compliance with a specific local regulation, eg -

Where no more than 10 staff are employed, a unisex toilet may be provided

.

 Safe Design Commercial Kitchen.pdf   608.16KB   36 downloads

 

(b) A specific observed defect in the actual unit provided, eg  

A unisex toilet must include one pan, one basin and means of disposing sanitary products

.

(Ibid)

 

(c) NC (inc. [a,b] and previous post)  based on (auditor’s) perceived risk of  significant employee cross- contamination while accessing or utlising the alternative facility eg  

http://www.wisegeek....let-hygiene.htm

(Post2)

 

(d) NC due to (auditor’s) perceived potential for psychological risk. eg

http://www.dailymail...ints-staff.html

 

Rgds / Charles.C