OEUK Safe Weight Limit Policy: what you need to know

In this episode of Podcasts by Brodies, we explore the offshore energy industry’s response to the new weight‑based safety requirements coming into force on 1 November 2026. 

Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) has set a maximum clothed weight of 124.7kg (19.5 st) for workers being transported offshore, ensuring they can be safely winched in an emergency. With more than 2,200 workers currently above the new limit, the policy has raised significant operational, legal and workforce questions across the sector.

We’re joined by Graham Skinner, OEUK and Will Rollinson (employment law) and Malcolm Gunnyeon (health and safety law) of Brodies LLP to unpack what this policy means in practice, including:

• Key actions OEUK recommends during the transition phase (February–October 2026) and what companies should prioritise ahead of go‑live.
• Industry reaction so far and the practical challenges operators and contractors are facing.
• Health and safety law implications, both direct and indirect, arising from the introduction of a mandated weight limit.
• Recruitment considerations: can weight legitimately be used as an eligibility criterion for new offshore workers?
• Employment law risks for workers who cannot or choose not to meet the new threshold.
• Whether the policy amounts to unfair discrimination, including for workers who exceed the limit due to high levels of physical fitness.

This episode offers essential insight for HR teams, HSE professionals, offshore operators and anyone affected by—or responsible for implementing—the new OEUK weight policy.

This episode was recorded in January 2026, all information was correct at the time of recording. This podcast does not constitute legal advice.

Transcript

00:00:05 David Lee, host

 Hello and welcome to Podcast by Brodies. I'm your host, David Lee, and in this episode, we're discussing weight limits for workers in the offshore energy industry.

 I'm delighted to be joined by not one, not two, but three experts for today's podcast. Malcolm Gunnyeon is a partner at Brodies and an expert in health and safety. Will Rawlinson is a legal director and employment law expert at Brodies. And Graham Skinner is Health and Safety Manager at Offshore Energies UK, the leading trade association for the offshore industry. Welcome to you all.

 Our discussion has been prompted by the announcement that from November 2026, the maximum closed weight for a worker heading offshore should be 124 kilograms or 19 stone 5 pounds in old money, so they can be winched to safety in an emergency. Now, Offshore Energy UK has said that more than 2,200 offshore workers could be affected. So, we're going to talk about the new limit and its implications for all of those affected.

 So, coming to you first of all, Graham, can you summarise why the issue of weight limits for offshore workers has arisen?

 00:01:21 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies

 Well, thank you for having me on the podcast.

 You may well be aware that over the last 50 years, the general population has got heavier. We have heard from many doctors about our obesity epidemic. And that's a challenge for all of society.

 However, in the offshore environment, it's also a challenge for our workers, and a lot of equipment has specific design weights that are associated with that. And the workers have been approaching these weights.

We've previously dealt with these issues in 2008 and 2015 with changes to equipment and operating practices, and it was long overdue a review. So, we took a look at how weight had changed over the years since those previous dates, and then we looked at all of the aspects of offshore work.

 And what we found was that the weight of workers is beginning to put them at risk from a wide range of different areas. From stretcher capacity to the team's strength to carry individuals on those stretchers through confined space or working at height rescue, and also the winching by helicopters in an emergency, which you referenced in your introduction.

 00:02:34 David Lee, host

 Okay. And can you just tell us a bit more, Graham, about what exactly is proposed and who decided on that? And, you know, any more detailed evidence as to how that decision was reached?

 00:02:46 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies 

 Yes, absolutely. So, we have a good data set of all offshore weights for the workers that travel through our Advantage POB system, which is where we initially identified the current population weights. We then held a number of industry workshops where we brought together industry experts and stakeholders to review the issue. And we then asked our members to go away and look at all of the solutions that they might be able to put in place to protect those workers.

When we came back together, it was abundantly clear that what we needed was a collective response across industry, where we all came up with a simple, easy to follow, easy to implement restriction, which reduced the risk to offshore workers.

 00:03:25 David Lee, host

 Okay, brilliant. Thanks very much, Graham. Really clear.

 So, Malcolm, just coming to you, was there an underlying legal reason as well for these proposed changes?

 00:03:35 Malcolm Gunnyeon, partner

 Yes, and it won't come as any surprise to hear that the underlying legal reason comes from UK health and safety law.

 As Graham has said, this has been a challenge for the offshore industry for a number of years now, the increasing, not just increasing weight, but the increasing general size of offshore workers, so shoulder width as well. And there've been a number of measures implemented over the years to try and address those risks.

 But the particular catalyst for OUK consulting on this and now introducing the policy was the particular issue around the winch capacity. And the reason that that's significant legally is that one of the many regulations that apply to offshore safety is a regulation from 1995 that deals with prevention of fire and explosions, but also emergency evacuation from offshore installations. And that requires any duty holder, so the operator of an offshore installation, to have in place so far as is reasonably practicable measures that ensure that any person on the installation can be safely evacuated in the event of an emergency. 

 So that places a duty on the operator of the installation in the knowledge of the potential limit of a winch on a search and rescue helicopter to take measures to ensure that anyone on the installation could be safely evacuated.

 We know that there will be some discretion for search and rescue pilots in the event of a life-threatening incident, but it was that obligation under the 1995 regulations that was the catalyst for this particular development.

 00:05:13 David Lee, host

 Okay, thanks very much, Malcolm. And Graham, we said earlier on that the change comes into force in November. Any particular reason why that date was decided? And again, just talk us through how you came to realise how many workers could be affected and what the potential implications are.

 00:05:31 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies

 Yes, so the implications for workers are quite significant in as much as two and a half thousand workers potentially are above the weight limit currently and will have to lose weight to be able to continue to travel offshore after November 2026. The reason that we brought in it a date for implementation that was a year ahead of our policy was to give workers the very best chance to be able to lose that weight.

 So, we consulted with medical experts and others in the weight loss industry, and it seemed very clear that 12 months was a very fair period of time for those workers to lose weight. And it also meant that we were bringing the policy at a reasonable speed to address the current risk to those workers who are working in the industry that are above 124 kilos.

 It felt like a pragmatic time scale to introduce the policy and make sure everyone was aware of it and knew what was coming. It also allows companies and employers time to develop their own internal processes to make sure that they're supporting their workers throughout that time.

 00:06:35 David Lee, host

 Okay, thank you. And Will, bringing you in from an employment perspective, if job losses are the sort of worst-case scenario, somebody could lose their job if they don't meet the new weight limit. What should offshore industry employers be doing to avoid this as we move through that transitional phase?

 00:06:57 Will Rollinson, legal director

 So, I think the main thing to keep focus on here is that there is this transitional period between February and the end of October before the mandatory weight limit comes into place. And so, there is time for employers to do some of the things that Graham was mentioning there, which are to think about your policies, but also to think about things like the benefits you have available to staff. And how those might provide some support to them in terms of any weight loss that they might be looking to achieve.

 So, a number of employers will already have a lot of things like access to gyms or gym member benefits or discounts that staff can already make use of. So, it'll be important to think, how is it that we're going to communicate that to staff who might not necessarily be aware of it.

 So, communication is going to be key. And then thinking about, are there any gaps? Is there anything else that we can offer to staff that might help them? But keeping an open dialogue with your workforce and explaining to them how the transition will work, what that will mean for them, and then how you as an employer individually are proposing to keep track of that and support them. So, it's really, I think, communication and what support you can offer during that transitional phase.

 00:08:11 David Lee, host

 Great stuff, thanks Will. And coming back to you Graham, I suppose the obvious question is what's the response been like from industry? You know, how have the companies responded and what are you doing as Offshore Energies UK to make sure all workers are aware of the change and they're taking it seriously?

 00:08:29 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies

 Yeah, that's quite a big question. So, the great thing is the response we've had from industry.

 Because we developed this policy as a collective response, all of our member companies have come along with us, and they've had an opportunity to engage in the development of that policy. We've also involved communication with the unions, for example, so wider stakeholder engagement. And in principle, everyone agrees that reducing the risk to offshore workers in this situation is absolutely the right thing to do.

 And in fact, through our engagement with the workforce, what we find is that once the policy is really well explained to them and they understand the background to it, they're very supportive and actually they're pulling together and supporting each other as a community offshore, which is fantastic. 

 To support this, we have a comprehensive comms plan. We're using all different platforms to try and get the message out to make sure that everyone has plenty of time to take action that needs to and everyone is aware of and understand the background to the policy.

 The main point of contact for that is our We UK [KS1] website which has a page related to the safe wait limit where we have videos and frequently asked questions as well as supporting documentation. Key part of rolling out this policy is about having real transparency around the reasoning and the background to it so that everyone can come along with us in this journey as we head towards November this year.

00:09:50 David Lee, host

 And have you been encouraged? From what you're saying, it sounds like, yes, Graeme, you've been encouraged by the response of industry to this.

 00:09:57 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies

 Yes, across the board we've seen very little pushback. We have seen concern. I think anyone who is faced with having to lose weight to retain their job is rightfully concerned about that. But we've also seen industry and the workforce themselves wrapping their arms around this issue and getting after it, which is a great sign.

 00:10:20 David Lee, host

Excellent, thanks Graham. And coming back to health and safety. Malcolm, what health and safety law considerations arise very directly from the introduction of this policy?

 00:10:32 Malcolm Gunnyeon, partner

 So, I think the main one, David, is that industry has recognised that this is a control measure, that it is possible and practicable for employers to introduce.

So, the first consideration is that employers need to be taking steps to introduce this policy within their own businesses and make sure that, as Will says, they've got the right policies and procedures in place. Given what Graham's just said about the response from industry, I don't think we have any concerns that there won't be anything other than an embracing of the policy and an appropriate rollout of the right procedures.

 I guess the obvious risk for an employer who's thinking maybe they won't implement this policy is that we've now got an industry recognised procedure. And if they don't put it in place and they ultimately have an incident, they will have to explain to the HSE why they took the decision not to follow, you know, industry policy, industry guidance. Or as I say, I don't expect that to be an issue. 

And the other direct consequence of this ought to be easier demonstration of compliance with an operator's duties to look after the health and safety of those on board the installation. Not just in relation to the specific circumstance of an emergency winch rescue, but more widely in relation, as Graham said earlier on, to things like lifting a casualty in the event of an incident or getting someone out of a confined space right through to the emergency equipment like evacuations on lifeboats. So, a lot of direct benefits, I think, from this policy in terms of health and safety law.

 00:12:03 David Lee, host

And what about indirect impacts, Malcolm? As you've just described, we can perhaps see some of those direct impacts quite clearly, but what more indirect impacts might we see further down the line?

 00:12:17 Malcolm Gunnyeon, partner

I think, actually, I think the most obvious indirect impact will be nearer the start of the process rather than further down the line. And in particular in the transition phase, whilst those who are currently above the weight limit are making efforts to lose that weight. And it's not something that employers, I think, will need to make any change to policy or process, but they will need to be aware that one of the potential side effects of weight loss and particularly calorie restriction can be fatigue and that can lead to poorer concentration than normal, greater risk of people making mistakes.

So, I think for all the good that the policy brings in and all the positive benefits of weight loss, there will be a short period while that weight loss is happening where employees may be more tired at work, they may be more likely to make mistakes. And we know that those are risk factors in incidents both onshore and offshore.

So, someone who's tired doesn't follow the procedure quite as well as they normally would. Someone not concentrating maybe drops a tool while they're working at height.

So, as I say, all employers, particularly those working offshore, will have processes to address all of these risks anyway. But there is a level of awareness, I think, around the fact that this may become more commonplace while people are trying to lose potentially significant amounts of weight over a six-month period.

 00:13:54 David Lee, host

 Okay, thanks, Malcolm. And Will, coming back to you looking ahead. How might the policy affect future recruitment of offshore workers? Is there a possibility that companies will put, you know, eligibility criteria around weight for future recruitment of employees?

 00:14:13 Will Rollinson, legal director

 That's a really good question. So, at the moment, anybody travelling offshore will need to pass an offshore medical just because of the risks that are recognised and inherent in going offshore. Now, I would envisage that any new member of staff going offshore would have to pass that medical and one of the requirements will be to be under that weight. And if they're not, then I suppose they will be restricted from going.

So, it's about, again, communication and how recruiters and employers make it clear that part of the requirement to going offshore will be to pass an offshore medical and to be under that weight. So, I don't necessarily see that it would change things in any sort of considerable way.

The one thing I suppose that jumps out to me as an employment lawyer is the obvious issue of how do you know before you get there? So, somebody's being recruited, the interview might be being done remotely now, you don't necessarily know what the person's weight is. And if you're not going to be asking for an application form and recognising that weights might fluctuate between an application form and an interview anyway, you might still want to make the offer. And it might only be at the point at which they then go for the medical that then you're having to think about retracting it.

So, from a purely employment law perspective, I think it will be making clear in your offer letters what the requirement is to be eligible to go offshore. And that if they don't then meet that requirement, you are able to withdraw the job offer without there being too much of a problem legally at that point.

 00:15:40 David Lee, host

 And what about this very tricky line between can't and won't? Well, you know, someone who can't get below the weight limit genuinely because they're very tall, they're very muscular, whatever it happens to be, and they just won't, they just can't manage it for whatever reasons. What are the implications of that tricky scenario?

00:16:00 Will Rollinson, legal director

Well, I think the issue there for the employer is going to be what they do with those individuals. I think there's probably a bit of a difference between somebody who can't get under the weight limit and somebody who won't. There's the obvious issue that somebody can't lose weight for you. And it might be the case that if somebody refused to take any steps to lose the weight, the employer might be in a better position from a purely employment law perspective in terms of taking action, which might be a dismissal if there's nothing else that they can offer them.

For people who can't get below the weight, I don't think it's necessarily going to be as clear-cut, but employers will still need to think about what sort of support they've offered employees. The implication being, though, that with a blunt force, like an absolute weight limit, if people can't get below it, the employer can't send them offshore. And if there isn't work for them to do elsewhere, then an employer is going to have to think about whether or not they can continue to employ that person. So it could be that you could see claims for unfair dismissal if an employer dismisses somebody who doesn't get below the weight limit where they haven't followed a fair process.

So, making sure that you've documented the steps you've taken to support staff, how you've linked in with them, if you've referred them to occupational health, for example, if that's required, and then what you've considered as alternatives. I think that's going to be the key thing here for employers.

 00:17:33 David Lee, host

So, is it possible, Will, that then we might see some discrimination cases arising if employees don't meet the weight limits, as you've described, and then their employer decides they can no longer employ them?

What are the implications there, do you think?

00:17:48 Will Rollinson, legal director

 Yeah, so on top of the unfair dismissal point that I've just mentioned, there is an additional possibility that an employee who loses their job, or who might not be dismissed but might be placed in another role, says that is discrimination. They might say that it's unfavourable based on a disability. Now, weight alone will not be a disability. That's clear from EU law. But complications that might arise from being a certain weight or overweight can be a disability. So, for example, diabetes, heart problems, high blood pressure, that sort of thing.

So, employers will need to tread carefully and make sure that if they are subject to a duty to make reasonable adjustments, that they do that.

However, I don't think it's going to be as straightforward for an employer to say, if you have a disability and you're over the new weight limit, we can just ignore it. That's not the case, and we've talked about the health and safety risks associated with that. So it might be that an employer does have an ability to say either an adjustment isn't reasonable or that they've got a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim.

There are, I suppose, other protected characteristics beyond disability that somebody might look to in terms of a discrimination claim, for example, age, if somebody can show that people are more likely to be overweight at a certain age. And also sex, I suppose, if somebody can say men are more likely to be heavier than women, so are more likely to be impacted by this.

But again, I think if employers are taking the right steps to communicate with staff how this is likely to impact them, what support is available, and then following through with people who can't get below the weight limit in a way which is structured and supportive, those risks are likely to be diminished.

00:19:31 David Lee, host

Okay, thanks very much, Will. And just to come to a conclusion, Graham, I guess, are you optimistic? What's the best and worst case scenario here? And are you optimistic that the industry will fully embrace this and there won't be too many tribunals and discrimination claims and so on.

00:19:51 Graham Skinner, Offshore Energies

So, I am very optimistic. I think we have a great community of companies that work in the offshore industry.

And one of the things I've seen very early on is many of those companies already had some superb support in place for workers before we brought the policy in. So, they were already ahead. So, we have a really good possibility that we can deliver this. For me though, the worst-case scenario is doing nothing. We don't bring in significant policy changes just for the fun of it. We bring them in to significantly reduce risk. And if we didn't take action here, there's a really good chance that somebody could be refused rescue via helicopter. They might be in an unfortunate position through illness or injury where that escalates and the condition gets worse and ultimately; they could have a much more serious outcome than had they been rescued immediately by a helicopter. So that is my biggest concern. Going forward in the best-case scenario I'd love to think that we could deliver this policy with all workers getting under the weight limit that chose that route. I think that it is entirely reasonable.

There's never been a better time to lose weight, but we also want to see them do that in a healthy, sustainable way. And the upside of this is in a few years’ time, I would hope to see improved health outcomes as workers are lighter and leaner. So, we should see less medivacs where people have had health issues such as heart attacks and strokes offshore. And generally, a healthier workforce will be more productive and happier as well.

00:21:26 David Lee, host

Great stuff. Thank you very much indeed to Graham Skinner from Offshore Energies UK, and thanks very much indeed to Malcolm Gunnyeon and to Will Rollinson from Brodies.

You've been listening today to Podcast by Brodies, where some of the country's leading lawyers and special guests share their expert insights about major issues and developments affecting organisations, businesses, and individuals across the UK and globally.

And if you'd like to hear more, please subscribe to Podcasts by Brodies on all your favourite podcast platforms and for more information and insights, please visit brodies.com.