Summary
The aim of this research
was to critically analyse and discuss the relevant health and safety laws
applicable to information flow in England and Wales. To reach the goal, the objectives
of conducting a literature review on laws related to information flow,
critically appraising the laws and discussing the results were achieved.
was to critically analyse and discuss the relevant health and safety laws
applicable to information flow in England and Wales. To reach the goal, the objectives
of conducting a literature review on laws related to information flow,
critically appraising the laws and discussing the results were achieved.
As the information flow in the
organisation is theoretically classified, in terms of direction, into vertical
(top-down or bottom-up) and horizontal (between departments or co-workers)
(Hoeven and Verhoeven, 2013), the applicable laws are critically analysed to
ascertain what type of information is supported by laws.
organisation is theoretically classified, in terms of direction, into vertical
(top-down or bottom-up) and horizontal (between departments or co-workers)
(Hoeven and Verhoeven, 2013), the applicable laws are critically analysed to
ascertain what type of information is supported by laws.
From the literature review, it became
clear that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is the primary law overriding
all other forms of law and it requires the employer to provide his employees
with comprehensible and sufficient information, instruction, training and
supervision. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Health
and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989, Provision and Use of
Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Manual Handling Operation Regulations 1992,
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Health and Safety
(Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, The Control of Substances
Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, and Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and
Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 encourage top-down information flow.
clear that the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is the primary law overriding
all other forms of law and it requires the employer to provide his employees
with comprehensible and sufficient information, instruction, training and
supervision. Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Health
and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989, Provision and Use of
Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Manual Handling Operation Regulations 1992,
Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, Health and Safety
(Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, The Control of Substances
Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, and Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and
Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 encourage top-down information flow.
As allowed by the 1974 Act, the Health
and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations, and the Safety
Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, workers and their
representatives are encouraged to consult and co-operate with the employer,
which means workers can raise their concerns, requests or ideas to the top management.
It shows that the laws also require bottom-up information flow.
and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations, and the Safety
Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977, workers and their
representatives are encouraged to consult and co-operate with the employer,
which means workers can raise their concerns, requests or ideas to the top management.
It shows that the laws also require bottom-up information flow.
However, the horizontal information
flow is not required by laws directly. But, the concept and importance of this
communication type is well encouraged by those requirements that encourage
consultation and co-operation of workers with their employer.
flow is not required by laws directly. But, the concept and importance of this
communication type is well encouraged by those requirements that encourage
consultation and co-operation of workers with their employer.
In conclusion, laws in England and
Wales reflected on theoretically proven best practises of internal
communication in the company so that employers can ensure health and safety at
work and workers can have sufficient and comprehensible information to
reasonable care their own and other people’s safety.
Wales reflected on theoretically proven best practises of internal
communication in the company so that employers can ensure health and safety at
work and workers can have sufficient and comprehensible information to
reasonable care their own and other people’s safety.
Contents
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
1.1. General overview………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3
1.2. Aims and Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
1.3. Introduction to the report………………………………………………………………………………… 3
2. Literature Review on relevant laws……………………………………………………………………… 4
3. Critical appraisal………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6
3.1. Types of information and access……………………………………………………………………… 8
3.1.1. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974……………………………………………………….. 8
3.1.2. Regulations………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
3.2. Documents and disclosure…………………………………………………………………………….. 13
4. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 17
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
Appendix 1 Cases to
Section 2 of HSWA……………………………………………………………………. 20
Section 2 of HSWA……………………………………………………………………. 20
1.1. R v.
Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd (1981) IRLR 403 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd (1981) IRLR 403 …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
1.2. R v.
Mara (1987) IRLR 154………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Mara (1987) IRLR 154………………………………………………………………………….. 20
1.3. R v. Associated Octel Ltd (1996) 1
WLR 1543……………………………………………….. 20
WLR 1543……………………………………………….. 20
1.4. Osborne v Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd [1982] ICR 168………………………………………… 21
Appendix 2 Regulations
encouraging Top-down information flow………………………………….. 22
encouraging Top-down information flow………………………………….. 22
2.1. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999…………………… 22
2.2. Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations
1977…………………… 22
1977…………………… 22
2.3. Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)…………………. 23
2.4. Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations………………………………………. 23
2.5. Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations
1992……………………. 24
1992……………………. 24
2.6. COSHH……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
2.7. Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations
1996………………… 24
1996………………… 24
Appendix 3 Legal
requirements for the documents to be used in information………………… 26
requirements for the documents to be used in information………………… 26
3.1. HSWA…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26
3.2. The Health and
Safety Information (Amendment) Regulations……………………………… 27
Safety Information (Amendment) Regulations……………………………… 27
3.3. The Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999………………………… 27
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999………………………… 27
3.4. RIDDOR………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
1.1.
General overview
Employers, the self-employed and the
employees have their own rights and responsibilities in regard to health and
safety. Employers have a general duty that they should ensure health and safety
of their workers and all the other persons that may be affected by their
operations while the self-employed are responsible for their own safety. In the
means of employees, they have also legal duty to reasonably care their safety
and to comply with legislation and the company’s procedures. To enable the
cooperation of both of
these parties, laws of England and Wales regulate the information flow between
them and impose requirements on the provision of information. Hence, this paper
will critically discuss the applicable laws to information flow within an
organisation. However, the pertinent legal requirements will be critically
analysed based on the direction of the flow of information, vertical and
horizontal. That is because the information flow is theoretically classified,
in terms of direction, into vertical (top-down or bottom-up) and horizontal
(between departments or co-workers) (Hoeven and Verhoeven, 2013).
employees have their own rights and responsibilities in regard to health and
safety. Employers have a general duty that they should ensure health and safety
of their workers and all the other persons that may be affected by their
operations while the self-employed are responsible for their own safety. In the
means of employees, they have also legal duty to reasonably care their safety
and to comply with legislation and the company’s procedures. To enable the
cooperation of both of
these parties, laws of England and Wales regulate the information flow between
them and impose requirements on the provision of information. Hence, this paper
will critically discuss the applicable laws to information flow within an
organisation. However, the pertinent legal requirements will be critically
analysed based on the direction of the flow of information, vertical and
horizontal. That is because the information flow is theoretically classified,
in terms of direction, into vertical (top-down or bottom-up) and horizontal
(between departments or co-workers) (Hoeven and Verhoeven, 2013).
1.2.
Aims and Objectives
The purpose of this
research is to critically analyse and discuss the relevant health and safety
laws applicable to Information flow in England and Wales. To reach the goal, the
following objectives are fulfilled:
research is to critically analyse and discuss the relevant health and safety
laws applicable to Information flow in England and Wales. To reach the goal, the
following objectives are fulfilled:
1)
Conduct
a document review to find applicable laws regulating information flow between
an employer and employees within an organisation, and summarise the results in
the literature review section;
Conduct
a document review to find applicable laws regulating information flow between
an employer and employees within an organisation, and summarise the results in
the literature review section;
2)
Critically
appraise laws relevant to information flow in terms of information types,
access, disclosure and non-disclosure; and discuss the findings;
Critically
appraise laws relevant to information flow in terms of information types,
access, disclosure and non-disclosure; and discuss the findings;
3)
Conclude
findings of the critical analysis.
Conclude
findings of the critical analysis.
1.3.
Introduction to the report
This
report consists of four main sections:
report consists of four main sections:
1)
Introduction;
Introduction;
2)
Literature
Review on laws related to information flow;
Literature
Review on laws related to information flow;
3)
Critical
Appraisal on legal requirements pertinent to information flow; and
Critical
Appraisal on legal requirements pertinent to information flow; and
Conclude findings of the
critical analysis.
1. Literature Review on relevant laws
When reviewing the literature, it is clear that law book
authors describe the requirements of the law clause by clause by focusing on
requirements about what requirements to be met (Welch, 2016a and 2016b; Barrett
and Howells, 2000; Stranks, 2005; Smith, et
al., 2009), while the health and safety practitioners or professionals who
wrote books describe the way how companies, employers and employees can meet
the requirements by showing the interrelationship between the main concept of
the laws and the theoretical and practical guides on achieving a comprehensive
health and safety management at work (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009; Holt, 2015; and
Stranks, 1994 and 2006). In this part of literature review, the requirements of
the laws will be discussed, not focusing on the methods and techniques of
complying with legal requirements.
authors describe the requirements of the law clause by clause by focusing on
requirements about what requirements to be met (Welch, 2016a and 2016b; Barrett
and Howells, 2000; Stranks, 2005; Smith, et
al., 2009), while the health and safety practitioners or professionals who
wrote books describe the way how companies, employers and employees can meet
the requirements by showing the interrelationship between the main concept of
the laws and the theoretical and practical guides on achieving a comprehensive
health and safety management at work (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009; Holt, 2015; and
Stranks, 1994 and 2006). In this part of literature review, the requirements of
the laws will be discussed, not focusing on the methods and techniques of
complying with legal requirements.
First of all, it is noticeable that the laws related to
the information flow in health and safety consists of the statute laws and case
laws (Stranks, 1994; 2005 and 2006; Barrett and Howells, 2000; Holt, 2015;
Hughes and Ferrett, 2009; Smith, et al., 2000;
Health and Safety Executive, 2016). Statute law consists of the Health and
Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) and a number of statutory instruments, known
as subordinate legislation in the form of Regulations (Stranks, 2005). The
statutes give rise to criminal liability under Section 33 of the 1974 Act so
that the party who breached the 1974 Act or Regulations can be subject to
prosecution by an enforcement authority like Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
or the local authority, in the criminal courts (Stranks, 2006). However, “some
regulations may in very limited circumstances allow a ‘victim’ to seek redress
in civil law for a breach of a statutory duty” (Welch, 2016b). Case laws, constituting the body of common
laws and made by judges based on the decisions of the civil courts and bound by
the doctrine of precedents, are also applied (Stranks, 1994; 2005 and
2006).
the information flow in health and safety consists of the statute laws and case
laws (Stranks, 1994; 2005 and 2006; Barrett and Howells, 2000; Holt, 2015;
Hughes and Ferrett, 2009; Smith, et al., 2000;
Health and Safety Executive, 2016). Statute law consists of the Health and
Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) and a number of statutory instruments, known
as subordinate legislation in the form of Regulations (Stranks, 2005). The
statutes give rise to criminal liability under Section 33 of the 1974 Act so
that the party who breached the 1974 Act or Regulations can be subject to
prosecution by an enforcement authority like Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
or the local authority, in the criminal courts (Stranks, 2006). However, “some
regulations may in very limited circumstances allow a ‘victim’ to seek redress
in civil law for a breach of a statutory duty” (Welch, 2016b). Case laws, constituting the body of common
laws and made by judges based on the decisions of the civil courts and bound by
the doctrine of precedents, are also applied (Stranks, 1994; 2005 and
2006).
Before detailing pertinent requirements of the Health and
Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, it should be noticed that the Act, called in the
literature as 1974 Act, is the parent act or the principal statute in health
and safety overriding all other forms of law (Stranks, 2006; Health and Safety
Executive, 2016). It applies to all workplaces, employers and employees (Smith etc., 2007). In detail, Section 2 and 3 of HSWA impose
general duties on the employer for ensuring the health and safety of their
employees and other persons while section 7 imposes duties on the employee to
reasonably care of own and other persons’ safety at work (Great Britain. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974). The
requirements related to information flow are as follows:
Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, it should be noticed that the Act, called in the
literature as 1974 Act, is the parent act or the principal statute in health
and safety overriding all other forms of law (Stranks, 2006; Health and Safety
Executive, 2016). It applies to all workplaces, employers and employees (Smith etc., 2007). In detail, Section 2 and 3 of HSWA impose
general duties on the employer for ensuring the health and safety of their
employees and other persons while section 7 imposes duties on the employee to
reasonably care of own and other persons’ safety at work (Great Britain. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974). The
requirements related to information flow are as follows:
–
Section
2(2)(c) of the 1974 Act requires every employer to provide their employees with
health and safety information, instruction, training and supervision as is
reasonably practicable;
Section
2(2)(c) of the 1974 Act requires every employer to provide their employees with
health and safety information, instruction, training and supervision as is
reasonably practicable;
–
Sections
2(4), 2(6) and 2(7) require him to consult with representatives of employees.
Sections
2(4), 2(6) and 2(7) require him to consult with representatives of employees.
–
Section
2(3) requires the employer to prepare and revise a written statement of the
policy with respect to the organisation and arrangements for implementing that
policy, and bringing the up-to-date policy to the notice of all his employees.
Section
2(3) requires the employer to prepare and revise a written statement of the
policy with respect to the organisation and arrangements for implementing that
policy, and bringing the up-to-date policy to the notice of all his employees.
As being enabled by Section 15 of HSWA
1974, numerous sets of health and safety regulations have been made (Welch,
2016b; Barrett and Howells, 2000) to set more specific requirements on
information flow. Some of them are based on EU Directives and called the ‘Six
Pack’ Regulations whereas some other ‘home-grown’ regulations also include
requirements related to information flow (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 10). As
Barrett and Howells (2000), Stranks (2005), Gas Safe Register (2016) and Welch
(2016b) state, the following regulations include requirements related to the
information flow:
1974, numerous sets of health and safety regulations have been made (Welch,
2016b; Barrett and Howells, 2000) to set more specific requirements on
information flow. Some of them are based on EU Directives and called the ‘Six
Pack’ Regulations whereas some other ‘home-grown’ regulations also include
requirements related to information flow (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 10). As
Barrett and Howells (2000), Stranks (2005), Gas Safe Register (2016) and Welch
(2016b) state, the following regulations include requirements related to the
information flow:
|
No.
|
Name of the
Regulation |
Pertinent
Regulation to Information flow |
|
1
|
Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/3242) |
Regulation
10 and 13 include requirements for Information and Training respectively. |
|
2
|
Health
and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/682) |
Regulation
4 and 5 includes requirements for provision of poster and other information. |
|
3
|
The
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SI 1977/500) |
Regulation
7 includes requirements for provision of information. |
|
4
|
The
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1516) |
Regulation
3 and 4 include requirements for consultation, and Regulation 5 and 6 include requirements related to information and training. |
|
5
|
Provision
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) |
Regulation
8 and 9 include requirements for Information and Instructions, and Training. |
|
6
|
Manual
Handling Operation Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2793) |
Regulation
4(b)(iii) includes requirements for information. |
|
7
|
Personal
Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966) |
Regulation
9 includes requirements for information, instruction and training. |
|
8
|
Health
and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2792) |
Regulation
6 includes requirements for Training. |
|
9
|
The
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2677) |
Regulation
12 includes requirements for information, instruction and training for persons who may be exposed to substances hazardous to health. |
|
10
|
Reporting
of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1471) |
Regulation
3 specifies requirements on internal information so that it can enable the company to meet other requirements to report the injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences to the specified organisation. |
2. Critical appraisal
The 1974 Act and the main Regulation as known as Six Pack
Regulations stress the need to train and inform workers (Barrett and Howells,
2000, p. 361). The duty of the employer is a large in scale that he shall
ensure the health and safety of all persons who can be affected by the
organisation’s operations. Indigenously,
the legal requirement is one of three driving forces of an employer to be
committed to health and safety whereas the other two are financial and moral
factors (Milligan, 2016; Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, pp. 18-23). The duty imposed
on employees is to take reasonable care for their own and other people’s health
and safety as well as co-operating with the employer.
Regulations stress the need to train and inform workers (Barrett and Howells,
2000, p. 361). The duty of the employer is a large in scale that he shall
ensure the health and safety of all persons who can be affected by the
organisation’s operations. Indigenously,
the legal requirement is one of three driving forces of an employer to be
committed to health and safety whereas the other two are financial and moral
factors (Milligan, 2016; Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, pp. 18-23). The duty imposed
on employees is to take reasonable care for their own and other people’s health
and safety as well as co-operating with the employer.
The 1974 Act and Regulations made under this Act impose a
duty on every employer to provide comprehensible and sufficient information,
instruction, training and supervision to his employees. As the direction of the
information is from the top-level persons to the bottom line workers, this type
of information flow is named as top-down information flow. Therefore, it can be
seen that the laws in England and Wales tend to support top-down information
flow within the company. Hughes and Ferrett (2009, p. 15) have also summarised
that the 1974 Act emphasises on the responsibility of the senior management of
the organisation. Postmes et al. (2001)
as cited by Hoeven and Verhoeven (2013, p.265) encouraged this approach by
saying that employees commit to the company and comply with its requirements
well when they get accurate and informative information from their top
management to perform their tasks rather than receiving information from their
co-workers.
duty on every employer to provide comprehensible and sufficient information,
instruction, training and supervision to his employees. As the direction of the
information is from the top-level persons to the bottom line workers, this type
of information flow is named as top-down information flow. Therefore, it can be
seen that the laws in England and Wales tend to support top-down information
flow within the company. Hughes and Ferrett (2009, p. 15) have also summarised
that the 1974 Act emphasises on the responsibility of the senior management of
the organisation. Postmes et al. (2001)
as cited by Hoeven and Verhoeven (2013, p.265) encouraged this approach by
saying that employees commit to the company and comply with its requirements
well when they get accurate and informative information from their top
management to perform their tasks rather than receiving information from their
co-workers.
However, the laws also require the employer to consult
with workers or their representatives and let them participate in health and
safety actions, e.g. risk assessment. These requirements related to the
consultation do encourage a type of bottom-up information flow as well because through
the consultation or through the representing actions the workers can raise the
concerns, requests and requirements to their employer. It is, from one side, a
door opened for workers so that they can have a say to protect their rights to
work healthy and safely. From the other side, it is also a way where
cooperation between employees and an employer can develop.
with workers or their representatives and let them participate in health and
safety actions, e.g. risk assessment. These requirements related to the
consultation do encourage a type of bottom-up information flow as well because through
the consultation or through the representing actions the workers can raise the
concerns, requests and requirements to their employer. It is, from one side, a
door opened for workers so that they can have a say to protect their rights to
work healthy and safely. From the other side, it is also a way where
cooperation between employees and an employer can develop.
The effective cooperation of employees with the employer
is of great importance to establish, implement and maintain health and safety
management system in the company (Milligan, 2016). According to Hoeven and
Verhoeven (2013, p.264), the adequate information provided by the employer lead
workers to a greater engagement to the organisation and allow them to
contribute to the organisational aims. Therefore, the information flow within
the company is of great importance in effective health and safety management,
especially in the management of human factors, playing often a crucial role in
the occurrence of accidents at work (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). This
management can be effective only if humans playing an important role in the
operation of a company can be informed, communicated, instructed, trained, and consulted
effectively.
is of great importance to establish, implement and maintain health and safety
management system in the company (Milligan, 2016). According to Hoeven and
Verhoeven (2013, p.264), the adequate information provided by the employer lead
workers to a greater engagement to the organisation and allow them to
contribute to the organisational aims. Therefore, the information flow within
the company is of great importance in effective health and safety management,
especially in the management of human factors, playing often a crucial role in
the occurrence of accidents at work (Health and Safety Executive, 2005). This
management can be effective only if humans playing an important role in the
operation of a company can be informed, communicated, instructed, trained, and consulted
effectively.
The books explaining the methods and techniques of
complying with legal requirements by establishing a robust health and safety
management system in the company direct the employer and employees to create a
culture where safe working system, work permitting system, safe acts and
conditions as well as safe behaviour of workers are in place. As the safety
culture comprises of proper and effective communications and interrelationships
between people, it can be seen that the laws encourage the horizontal
information flow in an indirect way. For example, when workers participate in
the risk assessment, they will have a good understanding of possible hazards
and risks existing in the workplace and inform their co-workers informally,
which then leads them to consciously engage with the company’s policy and
procedures and to comply with legal requirements.
complying with legal requirements by establishing a robust health and safety
management system in the company direct the employer and employees to create a
culture where safe working system, work permitting system, safe acts and
conditions as well as safe behaviour of workers are in place. As the safety
culture comprises of proper and effective communications and interrelationships
between people, it can be seen that the laws encourage the horizontal
information flow in an indirect way. For example, when workers participate in
the risk assessment, they will have a good understanding of possible hazards
and risks existing in the workplace and inform their co-workers informally,
which then leads them to consciously engage with the company’s policy and
procedures and to comply with legal requirements.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the laws in England
and Wales enforce top-down information flow while requiring the top management
to establish a bottom-up flow of information and encouraging the horizontal
information route indirectly.
and Wales enforce top-down information flow while requiring the top management
to establish a bottom-up flow of information and encouraging the horizontal
information route indirectly.
Following table shows the Sections of 1974 Act that
include requirements pertinent to information flow.
include requirements pertinent to information flow.
|
No.
|
Pertinent Section
|
Requirement
pertinent to top-down information flow |
|
1
|
Section 2(2)(c)
|
The employer is obligated to provide
their employees with information, instruction, training and supervision so for as is reasonably practicable, which means the employer can take actions considering the company’s cost and risk balance (Welch, 2016a). This requirement is interrelated with Section 2 (1) that it provides examples of the duty under Section 2 (1), but do not exhaust that section (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 319). |
|
2
|
Section 2 (3)
|
This Section imposes an absolute
duty on every employer to prepare a safety policy of the organisation and publish it to their employees (Great Britain. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974). This section requires in fact three things: a safety policy, a statement of the organisation and arrangements for carrying out that policy, and the arrangements for carrying out the policy (Barrett and Howells, 2000). The policy statement should be revised if needs and noticed to employees. However, small organisations are exempt from the requirement to write a safety policy according to the Employers’ Health and Safety Policy Statements (Exceptions) Regulations 1975[1]. The requirement of safety arrangement as stated in Section 2 (3) is expanded in Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (Barrett and Howells, 2000). The case of Osborne v Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd [1982][2] shows the defence of an employer from arrangements undertaking the policy under Section 2 (3) of the Act (please see 1.4 of Appendix 1 for the case). |
|
3
|
Section
3 (1) |
Section 3(1) requires the employer
to consider not only his employees, but also those persons not in his employment but who may be affected by health or safety risks related to the organisation. In other words, Section 2 of the Act reflects concerns in relation to the health and safety of workers who have employment contracts with the organisation, while Section 3 includes requirements for protecting the whole workforce and the public from risks created by the activities of an organisation (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 311). The important case of R v. Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd [1981][3] (please see 1.1 of Appendix 1) shows the relationship between sections 2 and 3 of the law where the employer needed to provide instructions to visiting workers not only to ensure their safety; but also to ensure the safety of his own employees (Barrett and Howell, 2000). The case of R v. Mara[4] [1987] (Welch, 2016b) also shows the difficulty in determining the responsible employers in ensuring health and safety of visiting contractors where there are more than one employer at the working premise (please see 1.2 of Appendix 1). The case of R v. Associated Octel Ltd [1996][5] demonstrates a duty of the employer under Section 3 (1) that he shall conduct his undertaking to ensure the safe working act of all visiting contractors (please see 1.3 of Appendix 1). |
These requirements of Section 2(2)(c)
and 2(3) are very significant. They impose an obligation on the employer to
manage people to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and
safety of employees not only by giving them information, but also by requiring
them to act safely, by training them to do this and by monitoring them to
ensure that they carry out their duties in accordance with their training
(Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 417). These broad requirements have been
reiterated in regulations made subsequently to the Act, as was apparent in the
Regulations considered in the Literature Review. If employers perform their
duty and the worker behaves in an unsafe manner contrary to the system the
employers have sought to enforce, then the employers are likely to be entitled
to dismiss the disobedient worker, for misconduct, possibly for breach of
contract (Barrett and Howells, 2000).
and 2(3) are very significant. They impose an obligation on the employer to
manage people to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health and
safety of employees not only by giving them information, but also by requiring
them to act safely, by training them to do this and by monitoring them to
ensure that they carry out their duties in accordance with their training
(Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 417). These broad requirements have been
reiterated in regulations made subsequently to the Act, as was apparent in the
Regulations considered in the Literature Review. If employers perform their
duty and the worker behaves in an unsafe manner contrary to the system the
employers have sought to enforce, then the employers are likely to be entitled
to dismiss the disobedient worker, for misconduct, possibly for breach of
contract (Barrett and Howells, 2000).
Sections 2(2)(c), 2(3) and 3(1) indicate that the 1974
Act requires top-down information flow
as an absolute or strict requirement. The HSE is concerned that the information,
the employer provides, needs to be understood by employees who have visual or
learning difficulties, who have poor English reading skills, and who work in an
environment where the risk of being denied employment rights is high (Hughes
and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). Other than that, there are also some sections that encourage bottom-up information flow.
Act requires top-down information flow
as an absolute or strict requirement. The HSE is concerned that the information,
the employer provides, needs to be understood by employees who have visual or
learning difficulties, who have poor English reading skills, and who work in an
environment where the risk of being denied employment rights is high (Hughes
and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). Other than that, there are also some sections that encourage bottom-up information flow.
Bottom-up flow of information is encouraged in Sections 2
(4), 2(6) and (7) that set out a framework for the appointment of safety
representatives and imposed a duty on the employer to consult with such
appointees (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 418). It is seen by Barrett and
Howells (2000) that “Section 2(4)-(7) laid the foundation for employee
involvement in the maintenance of health and safety at their workplace”.
(4), 2(6) and (7) that set out a framework for the appointment of safety
representatives and imposed a duty on the employer to consult with such
appointees (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 418). It is seen by Barrett and
Howells (2000) that “Section 2(4)-(7) laid the foundation for employee
involvement in the maintenance of health and safety at their workplace”.
|
No.
|
Pertinent Section
|
Requirements
pertinent to bottom-up information flow |
|
1
|
Section 2(4)
|
The requirement of this section was
implemented by Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977[6] (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 419) |
|
2
|
Section 2(6)
|
This section states that the
employer shall make and maintain arrangements to enable an effective cooperation between him and his employees. The cooperation shall aim for ensuring health and safety of employees. |
|
3
|
Section 2(7)
|
This section imposes a duty on the
employer to establish a safety committee, responsible for taking measures to ensure health and safety of his employees at work, if the employees or their representatives requested so. |
|
4
|
Section 7
|
Section 7 of the Act imposes a
general duty on every employee to take reasonable care for own health and safety and health and safety of other persons, and to cooperate with the employer (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 447). This duty extends to management level as well as workers and it implies taking positive steps to understand the hazards in the workplace, and to abide by the safety rules and procedures (Barrett and Howells, 2000). In addition, an employee must co-operate with the employer or other people so far as is necessary to enable the duties and requirements under the Act to be carried out. This means the employee must co-operate with health and safety managers, the designated competent person, safety representatives, and other competent staff such as first aiders and fire wardens (Barrett and Howells, 2000, pp. 370-371). These duties have been extended under Regulation 14 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
However, the responsibility for
ensuring that the employee operates safely lies primarily on the employer as required under Section 2(2)(c). The employer will need, in his own protection, to enforce observance of safe systems: if they neglect to do so then they are at risk of being prosecuted for failing to conduct their business safely, and, should anyone suffer personal injury they may well be sued for damages (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 447). |
Following Regulations impose a duty on
the employer to provide his employees with information, instruction and
supervision and to consult with employees or their representatives:
the employer to provide his employees with information, instruction and
supervision and to consult with employees or their representatives:
|
No.
|
Regulation
|
Section
|
|
1
|
Management of Health and
Safety at Work Regulations 1999 |
Regulation 5 and 10
|
|
2
|
Safety Representatives
and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 |
Regulation 4(a) and 7(2)
|
|
3
|
Provision and Use of Work
Equipment Regulations 1998 |
Regulation 8
|
|
4
|
Personal Protective
Equipment at Work Regulations |
Regulation 9
|
|
5
|
Health and Safety (Display
Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 |
Regulation 6 and 7
|
|
6
|
COSHH
|
Regulation 12
|
|
7
|
Health and Safety
(Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 |
Regulation 3, 4 and 5
|
As all these regulations impose a duty
on every employer to provide his workers with adequate information,
instruction, training and supervision, it can be seen that these regulations
encourage top-down information flow alongside with the sections 1974 Act as
discussed above (Please see Appendix 2 for detailed regulations related to top-down information
flow).
on every employer to provide his workers with adequate information,
instruction, training and supervision, it can be seen that these regulations
encourage top-down information flow alongside with the sections 1974 Act as
discussed above (Please see Appendix 2 for detailed regulations related to top-down information
flow).
The approved code of practice on the
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation as cited by Smith et al. (2007) specifies that the risk
assessment will help identify information which has to be provided to employees
under specific regulations, as well as any further information relevant to
risks to employees’ health and safety. This regulation also requires
information to be provided on the emergency arrangements established under
regulation 8, including the identity of staff nominated to help if there is an
evacuation (Smith et al., 2007). The
information provided should be pitched appropriately, given the level of
training, knowledge and experience of the employee. It should be provided in a
form which takes account of the employee. It should be provided in a form which
takes account of any language difficulties or disabilities. Information can be
provided in whatever form is most suitable in the circumstances, as long as it
can be understood by everyone.
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation as cited by Smith et al. (2007) specifies that the risk
assessment will help identify information which has to be provided to employees
under specific regulations, as well as any further information relevant to
risks to employees’ health and safety. This regulation also requires
information to be provided on the emergency arrangements established under
regulation 8, including the identity of staff nominated to help if there is an
evacuation (Smith et al., 2007). The
information provided should be pitched appropriately, given the level of
training, knowledge and experience of the employee. It should be provided in a
form which takes account of the employee. It should be provided in a form which
takes account of any language difficulties or disabilities. Information can be
provided in whatever form is most suitable in the circumstances, as long as it
can be understood by everyone.
However, only Regulation 4 (c) and (d) of Safety
Representatives and Safety Committees regulations 1977 sets requirements for
bottom-up information flow that they require safety representatives to raise
concerns of employees on the results of hazard investigation and other issues,
and to participate in the consultation with the employer on behalf of the employees
they are representing. Under this regulation, “safety representatives are
entitled to paid time off for training and performance of their duties the
employer could indicate displeasure at the number of representatives appointed
by giving very small allowances to individual representatives, or by making it
difficult for them to attend training courses” (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p.
425). It enabled safety representatives to pay attention to this representation
like their main job.
Representatives and Safety Committees regulations 1977 sets requirements for
bottom-up information flow that they require safety representatives to raise
concerns of employees on the results of hazard investigation and other issues,
and to participate in the consultation with the employer on behalf of the employees
they are representing. Under this regulation, “safety representatives are
entitled to paid time off for training and performance of their duties the
employer could indicate displeasure at the number of representatives appointed
by giving very small allowances to individual representatives, or by making it
difficult for them to attend training courses” (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p.
425). It enabled safety representatives to pay attention to this representation
like their main job.
By the means of horizontal flow of the information, the Regulation
3 of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states
requirements for risk assessment, in which the employer and the self-employed
shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the health and safety risks
to employees and other people. This is connected to Section 2(4) and (6) of
HSWA that require the employer to let the workers or their representatives
involved in making and maintenance of arrangements that will enable effective
cooperation to ensure health and safety at work. By participating in risk
assessment and risk mitigating measures, employees will become able to communicate
with each other about possible hazards and risks at their working places. The
supervisors and line managers will also become able to be informed by real
situation at the workplace under their control, which then means there is a
horizontal information flow within the company.
3 of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states
requirements for risk assessment, in which the employer and the self-employed
shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the health and safety risks
to employees and other people. This is connected to Section 2(4) and (6) of
HSWA that require the employer to let the workers or their representatives
involved in making and maintenance of arrangements that will enable effective
cooperation to ensure health and safety at work. By participating in risk
assessment and risk mitigating measures, employees will become able to communicate
with each other about possible hazards and risks at their working places. The
supervisors and line managers will also become able to be informed by real
situation at the workplace under their control, which then means there is a
horizontal information flow within the company.
The documents
and materials that need to be developed within the company and that need to be
communicated to employees are shown in the following table.
and materials that need to be developed within the company and that need to be
communicated to employees are shown in the following table.
|
No.
|
Name of the
Regulation |
Pertinent Section
or Regulation |
Documents
need to be developed and communicated |
Disclosure
|
|
1
|
Health
and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 |
Section
2(3) |
Holt
(2015):
–
Policy statement for the requirement of ‘written statement of policy’;
–
Organisational chart, job descriptions, employment contracts, KPIs, and plan to implement the policy are for the requirement of the ‘organisation’;
–
Various procedures and Reports of controls and monitoring conducted for implementing the policy are for ‘arrangements’. |
Disclose
to all employees |
|
2
|
Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 |
Regulation
10 and 13 |
Hughes
and Ferrett (2009), Holt (2015) and Great Britain, Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999:
–
Suitable and sufficient written risk assessment, when there are five or more employees;
–
Suitable emergency procedures;
–
The preventive and protective measures that are in place;
–
Recorded suitable arrangements for planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of health and safety measures in the workplace. |
Disclose
to all employees and other people including other employers, the self-employed and their employees who are sharing the same workplace and parents of child employees or those on work experience (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009). |
|
3
|
Health
and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989 |
Regulation
4 and 5 |
Stranks
(2005) and Great Britain, Health and Safety Information for Employees Regulations 1989:
–
Health and safety posters and leaflets (it can be approved and published by the HSE)
–
The new poster is a simplified version of the previous one and contains a single Incident Contact Centre number for the HSE helpline. The leaflets that employers can give to workers are replaced with pocket cards.
Smith,
et al. (2009):
–
Information on the procedures to be followed in cases of serious and imminent danger as well as any risks to which the employee may be exposed. |
Disclose
to all employees. |
|
4
|
The
Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 |
Regulation
7 |
Stranks
(2005) and Great Britain, The Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977:
Information,
within the employer’s knowledge, necessary to enable them to fulfil their functions. |
Disclose
to safety representatives appointed by any trade unions or directly to employees.
But,
not to disclose national security or individual person’s information; any prohibited or legal proceeding related information. Also, information, the disclosure of which can cause incident or accidents is not to be disclosed. |
|
5
|
The
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 |
Regulation
3 and 4. |
Holt
(2015):
Consult
with employees and provide information, necessary to enable them to participate fully and effectively in the consultation and in the carrying out of their functions, and contained in any record contained information about injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences (Great Britain. The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996). |
|
|
6
|
Provision
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 |
Regulation
8 and 9. |
Holt
(2015):
Information
and written instruction on:
– conditions
in which and the methods by which the work equipment may be used.
–
foreseeable abnormal situations and the actions to be taken if such situation were to occur.
– any
conclusions to be drawn from experience in using the work equipment.
Training
in the methods of using the equipment; risks that can arise of such usage and the precautions to be taken. |
Disclosed
to supervisors and employees who use equipment. |
|
7
|
Manual
Handling Operation Regulations 1992 |
Regulation
4(b)(iii) |
Holt
(2015):
General
indications and precise information on the weight of each load, the heaviest side of any load and the centre of gravity of which is not positioned centrally. |
Manual
handling workers. |
|
8
|
Personal
Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 |
Regulation
9 |
Stranks
(2005) and Hold (2015):
Information
about risks that the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) avoid or limit.
The
purpose of using the PPE.
An
action required by the employee to retain the effectiveness of PPE. |
Disclose
to employees. |
|
9
|
Health
and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 |
Regulation
6. |
Adequate
health and safety training in the use of any workstation on which they may be required to work (Stranks, 2005).
Information
can be about breaks and activity changes, eye and eyesight tests, and training can be provided both initially and when the workstations is modified (Holt, 2015). |
Disclose
to persons who are already users or who are going to become users |
|
10
|
The
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 |
Regulation
6 |
Stranks
(2005) and Holt (2015):
Written
risk assessment results, if there are 5 or more employees |
Disclose
to persons who may be exposed;
Not
to disclose to persons outside of the company. |
|
Regulation
7 |
Stranks
(2005) and v:
-Plans
for preventing or controlling exposure
-Reports
of preventing and controlling actions |
|||
|
Regulation
12 |
Stranks
(2005) and Holt (2015):
-Details
of substances hazardous to health
–
Any safety data sheet
–
Legislative provisions
–
Results of monitoring of exposure
-Collective
results of any health surveillance; |
|||
|
11
|
Reporting
of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 |
Regulation
3 |
Hughes
and Ferrett (2009, p. 16):
–
Accident and ill-health records and investigation reports;
–
Absentee records;
–
Inspection and audit reports;
–
Maintenance, risk assessment and training records;
–
Documents which provide information to workers; and
– Any
equipment examination or test reports. |
The
responsible person should inform the management internally (other than reporting to external bodies). |
The 1974 Act and regulations described
above require the employer to provide his employees with information,
instruction, training and supervision.
above require the employer to provide his employees with information,
instruction, training and supervision.
2. Conclusions
Based on the research conducted on applicable legal
requirements on health and safety related information flow, it is clear that
current laws considered all the possible information flow between employers and
employees.
requirements on health and safety related information flow, it is clear that
current laws considered all the possible information flow between employers and
employees.
The HSWA and underlying regulations imposed a duty on
every employer to provide his workers with sufficient information, instruction
and training, which shows the laws support top-down
(vertical) information flow in
the company.
every employer to provide his workers with sufficient information, instruction
and training, which shows the laws support top-down
(vertical) information flow in
the company.
Also, the requirements stress the importance and
necessitation of workers’ involvement, consultation, communication and
participation in every possible health and safety related activities of the
company so that these participation and involvement of employees alongside with
employers’ consultation and co-operation with employers can build effective
cooperation between employers and workers, which helps the employer to ensure
health and safety at work and the employee raise their says to the top
management. This shows that laws allow bottom-up
(vertical) information flow as well.
necessitation of workers’ involvement, consultation, communication and
participation in every possible health and safety related activities of the
company so that these participation and involvement of employees alongside with
employers’ consultation and co-operation with employers can build effective
cooperation between employers and workers, which helps the employer to ensure
health and safety at work and the employee raise their says to the top
management. This shows that laws allow bottom-up
(vertical) information flow as well.
Moreover, it is seen that horizontal information flow between departments or workers is also
supported by the requirements related to the workers’ involvement, accident
reporting, incident investigation and so on. By having participated in any of
these activities, workers will become aware of causes and effects of health and
safety risks and the possible ways of preventing incidents and accidents so
that they can transfer information about these all to their co-workers
officially and in-officially. This approach influences the company culture
positively as workers will become more engaged to the company’s procedures and
desired to comply with legal requirements.
supported by the requirements related to the workers’ involvement, accident
reporting, incident investigation and so on. By having participated in any of
these activities, workers will become aware of causes and effects of health and
safety risks and the possible ways of preventing incidents and accidents so
that they can transfer information about these all to their co-workers
officially and in-officially. This approach influences the company culture
positively as workers will become more engaged to the company’s procedures and
desired to comply with legal requirements.
Therefore, it is concluded that the laws in England and
Wales stressed all possible information flow that can exist within the company
to enable good cooperation of employers with their employees to ensure health
and safety at work. As the primary and secondary legislation are encouraged by
Approved Codes of Practices and Guidance or Guides issued by the Health and
Safety Executive, employers and employees have sufficient information sources
that they can obtain to understand and comply with legal requirements.
Wales stressed all possible information flow that can exist within the company
to enable good cooperation of employers with their employees to ensure health
and safety at work. As the primary and secondary legislation are encouraged by
Approved Codes of Practices and Guidance or Guides issued by the Health and
Safety Executive, employers and employees have sufficient information sources
that they can obtain to understand and comply with legal requirements.
References
Barrett,
B. and Howells, R. (2000) Occupational
Health and Safety Law: Text and Materials. 2nd edn. London: Cavendish
Publishing Limited. p. 311.
B. and Howells, R. (2000) Occupational
Health and Safety Law: Text and Materials. 2nd edn. London: Cavendish
Publishing Limited. p. 311.
2. Gas
Safe Register (2016) Legislative,
Normative and Informative Document List. Available at: http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/pdf/Legislative_Normative_and_Informative_Document_List-1_Jan%20_2016%20V1.pdf. (Accessed: 23 April 2016)
Safe Register (2016) Legislative,
Normative and Informative Document List. Available at: http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/pdf/Legislative_Normative_and_Informative_Document_List-1_Jan%20_2016%20V1.pdf. (Accessed: 23 April 2016)
Health
and Safety Executive (2005) Human factors
in the management of major accident hazards. Available at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/toolkitintro.pdf. (Accessed: 01 May
2016)
and Safety Executive (2005) Human factors
in the management of major accident hazards. Available at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/humanfactors/topics/toolkitintro.pdf. (Accessed: 01 May
2016)
Health
and Safety Executive (2016) Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Available at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm. (Accessed: 15 March 2016)
and Safety Executive (2016) Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Available at:
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm. (Accessed: 15 March 2016)
5. Holt,
A.S.J. (2015) Principles of health and
safety at work. Oxon: IOSH Services Ltd.
A.S.J. (2015) Principles of health and
safety at work. Oxon: IOSH Services Ltd.
6. Hughes,
P. and Ferrett, E. (2009) Introduction to
Health and Safety at Work: The Handbook for the NEBOSH National General
Certificate. 4th edn. Slovenia: Elsevier Limited.
P. and Ferrett, E. (2009) Introduction to
Health and Safety at Work: The Handbook for the NEBOSH National General
Certificate. 4th edn. Slovenia: Elsevier Limited.
Great
Britain. Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974: Elizabeth II. Chapter 2 (1974) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents (Accessed:
23 February 2016)
Britain. Health and Safety at Work etc.
Act 1974: Elizabeth II. Chapter 2 (1974) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/37/contents (Accessed:
23 February 2016)
8. Great
Britain. Safety Representatives and
Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SI
1977/500). (1977) London: The
Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1977/500/pdfs/uksi_19770500_en.pdf.
(Accessed: 25 March 2016)
Britain. Safety Representatives and
Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (SI
1977/500). (1977) London: The
Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1977/500/pdfs/uksi_19770500_en.pdf.
(Accessed: 25 March 2016)
9. Great
Britain. The Health and Safety
Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/682). (1989) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/682/contents/made.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
Britain. The Health and Safety
Information for Employees Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/682). (1989) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/682/contents/made.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
10.
Great
Britain. The Health and Safety
Information for Employees (Modifications and Repeals) Regulations 1995 (SI
1995/2923). (1995) London: The
Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/2923/introduction/made.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
Great
Britain. The Health and Safety
Information for Employees (Modifications and Repeals) Regulations 1995 (SI
1995/2923). (1995) London: The
Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/2923/introduction/made.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
11. Great
Britain. Health and Safety (Consultation
of Employees) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1513). (1996) London: The Stationary Office. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1513/contents/made. (Accessed: 25 March
2016)
Britain. Health and Safety (Consultation
of Employees) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/1513). (1996) London: The Stationary Office. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1513/contents/made. (Accessed: 25 March
2016)
12. Great
Britain. Provision and Use of Work
Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) (PUWER). (1998) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
Britain. Provision and Use of Work
Equipment Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306) (PUWER). (1998) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
13. Hoeven,
C.L.T. and Verhoeven, J.W.M. (2013) ‘Sharing is caring: Corporate social
responsibility awareness explaining the relationship of information flow with
affective commitment’, An International
Journal, 18(2), pp. 264-279. Emerald
Insight [Online]. Available
at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13563281311319526.
(Accessed: 27 April 2016).
C.L.T. and Verhoeven, J.W.M. (2013) ‘Sharing is caring: Corporate social
responsibility awareness explaining the relationship of information flow with
affective commitment’, An International
Journal, 18(2), pp. 264-279. Emerald
Insight [Online]. Available
at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ergo.glam.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13563281311319526.
(Accessed: 27 April 2016).
Milligan,
R. (2016a) ‘Management Systems & Key
Elements and Policy: Initial Status Review – Some approaches’. Panopto [vidcast]
24 February. Available at:
https://southwales.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=056a1012-e111-4390-a462-b6a07096a482
(Accessed: 06 April 2016)
R. (2016a) ‘Management Systems & Key
Elements and Policy: Initial Status Review – Some approaches’. Panopto [vidcast]
24 February. Available at:
https://southwales.cloud.panopto.eu/Panopto/Pages/Viewer.aspx?id=056a1012-e111-4390-a462-b6a07096a482
(Accessed: 06 April 2016)
15. Smith,
I., Goddard, C., Killalea, S. and Randall, N. (2007) Health and Safety: The Modern Legal Framework. 2nd edn. Sussex:
Tottel Publishing Ltd.
I., Goddard, C., Killalea, S. and Randall, N. (2007) Health and Safety: The Modern Legal Framework. 2nd edn. Sussex:
Tottel Publishing Ltd.
16.
Stranks,
J.W. (2005) Health and Safety Law. Gosport:
Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
Stranks,
J.W. (2005) Health and Safety Law. Gosport:
Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
17.
Stranks,
J.W. (2006) The Health and Safety
Handbook: A practical guide to health and safety law, management policies and
procedures. London: Kogan Page Limited. Available at:
http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=41379. (Accessed: 25 April 2016)
Stranks,
J.W. (2006) The Health and Safety
Handbook: A practical guide to health and safety law, management policies and
procedures. London: Kogan Page Limited. Available at:
http://lib.myilibrary.com/Open.aspx?id=41379. (Accessed: 25 April 2016)
18.
Welch,
R. (2016a) Lecture 1: Accident causes. Treforest:
University of South Wales, p. 1.
Welch,
R. (2016a) Lecture 1: Accident causes. Treforest:
University of South Wales, p. 1.
19.
Welch,
R. (2016b) Principles of Health and
Safety Law. Available at: https://lrc.glam.ac.uk/site/NG4S725/02.pdf.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
Welch,
R. (2016b) Principles of Health and
Safety Law. Available at: https://lrc.glam.ac.uk/site/NG4S725/02.pdf.
(Accessed: 15 March 2016)
Bibliography
Friend,
M.A. and Kohn, J.P. (2014) Fundamentals
of Occupational Safety and Health. 6th edn. London: Bernan
Press.
M.A. and Kohn, J.P. (2014) Fundamentals
of Occupational Safety and Health. 6th edn. London: Bernan
Press.
Great
Britain. Workplace (Health, Safety and
Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3004). (1992) London: The Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
Britain. Workplace (Health, Safety and
Welfare) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/3004). (1992) London: The Stationary Office. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
Great
Britain. Chemicals (Hazard Information
and Packaging for Supply) (CHIP) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/716). (2009) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/716/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
Britain. Chemicals (Hazard Information
and Packaging for Supply) (CHIP) Regulations 2009 (SI 2009/716). (2009) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/716/contents/made.
(Accessed: 23 February 2016)
Great
Britain. Personal Protective Equipment at
Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966) (1992) London: The Stationary Office. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2966/contents/made. (Accessed: 23
February 2016)
Britain. Personal Protective Equipment at
Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966) (1992) London: The Stationary Office. Available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/2966/contents/made. (Accessed: 23
February 2016)
Great
Britain. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases
and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1471) (RIDDOR) (2013) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1471/contents/made.
(Accessed: 25 April 2016)
Britain. Reporting of Injuries, Diseases
and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/1471) (RIDDOR) (2013) London: The Stationary Office.
Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1471/contents/made.
(Accessed: 25 April 2016)
Appendices
1.1.
R v. Swan Hunter
Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd (1981) IRLR 403
This case shows the relationship between sections 2 and 3
of the law (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 311). In the case, about 1000
workmen, many of which were from the contractor or sub-contractor companies,
were working on the day shift of the company. Due to sudden fierce fire, 8 men
died due to the failure in the oxygen enriched environment that caused the
fire. The fault lay with the workers of the contractor. However, it was held
that the employer needed to provide instructions to visiting workers not only
to ensure their safety; but also to ensure the safety of his own employees
(Barrett and Howell, 2000). This case shows the importance of the general duty
of the employer according Section 2 (1) of HSWA.
of the law (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 311). In the case, about 1000
workmen, many of which were from the contractor or sub-contractor companies,
were working on the day shift of the company. Due to sudden fierce fire, 8 men
died due to the failure in the oxygen enriched environment that caused the
fire. The fault lay with the workers of the contractor. However, it was held
that the employer needed to provide instructions to visiting workers not only
to ensure their safety; but also to ensure the safety of his own employees
(Barrett and Howell, 2000). This case shows the importance of the general duty
of the employer according Section 2 (1) of HSWA.
1.2.
R v. Mara (1987) IRLR
154
The case shows the
difficulty of working out who is responsible to employees and visitors where
there is more than one employer at the working site. Mara was prosecuted when
an employee of Mara’s client was electrocuted on the client’s premises whilst
using with Mara’s permission a defective electronic floor scrubber/ polisher.
Mara was convicted under section 3 (1) as the employee of Mara’s client was a
‘person who might be affected by the conduct of Mara’s undertaking.’ (Welch,
2016b). The responsible employer in this case can only be decided by
considering the purpose of the undertaking, the nature of the contract and the
degree of control exercised by the various employers and contractors.
difficulty of working out who is responsible to employees and visitors where
there is more than one employer at the working site. Mara was prosecuted when
an employee of Mara’s client was electrocuted on the client’s premises whilst
using with Mara’s permission a defective electronic floor scrubber/ polisher.
Mara was convicted under section 3 (1) as the employee of Mara’s client was a
‘person who might be affected by the conduct of Mara’s undertaking.’ (Welch,
2016b). The responsible employer in this case can only be decided by
considering the purpose of the undertaking, the nature of the contract and the
degree of control exercised by the various employers and contractors.
In this case, the employer failed
signing off the visiting contractor who caused an accident in a major hazard
installation due to his failure to follow an agreed but flawed permit to work
procedure (Welch, 2016b). The employer should have ensured that the permit to
work procedure was appropriate, comprehensive and carried out by the contractor
(Welch, 2016b). It was his duty, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure
that any contractor he brings in to the workplace complies with safety
procedures; operates a safe system and is given proper instruction (Welch,
2016b). Failure to ensure this has resulted in the employer’s prosecution for
breach of section 3 (1) as failing in his undertaking.
signing off the visiting contractor who caused an accident in a major hazard
installation due to his failure to follow an agreed but flawed permit to work
procedure (Welch, 2016b). The employer should have ensured that the permit to
work procedure was appropriate, comprehensive and carried out by the contractor
(Welch, 2016b). It was his duty, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure
that any contractor he brings in to the workplace complies with safety
procedures; operates a safe system and is given proper instruction (Welch,
2016b). Failure to ensure this has resulted in the employer’s prosecution for
breach of section 3 (1) as failing in his undertaking.
In this case, the employer company ran
31 betting shops. The full-time employees had one day off a week when stand-ins
were employed. The employers were served with a notice under s.2 and relied in
their defence on the exception to Reg.2. But, in establishing a defence to a
notice served under the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, it
is necessary to determine whether the object of the notice is a separate
undertaking or part of a single undertaking, and what the number of employees
is at any one time.
31 betting shops. The full-time employees had one day off a week when stand-ins
were employed. The employers were served with a notice under s.2 and relied in
their defence on the exception to Reg.2. But, in establishing a defence to a
notice served under the Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, it
is necessary to determine whether the object of the notice is a separate
undertaking or part of a single undertaking, and what the number of employees
is at any one time.
Held, that (1) in determining whether the betting
shop was an undertaking within Reg.2, the justices erred in law in asking
whether it was a distinct place of work; the correct question was whether the
employers carried on 31 separate businesses or one business at 31 separate
places; the case was to be remitted to the justices to determine whether the betting
shops were separate undertakings or part of a single overall undertaking; (2)
the phrase “for the time being” in the Employers’ Health and Safety
Policy Statements (Exception) Regulations# 1975 (SI 1975 No.1584) reg. 2, means
“at any one time” and therefore the justices had correctly excluded
the stand-in employees in determining the number of employees.
shop was an undertaking within Reg.2, the justices erred in law in asking
whether it was a distinct place of work; the correct question was whether the
employers carried on 31 separate businesses or one business at 31 separate
places; the case was to be remitted to the justices to determine whether the betting
shops were separate undertakings or part of a single overall undertaking; (2)
the phrase “for the time being” in the Employers’ Health and Safety
Policy Statements (Exception) Regulations# 1975 (SI 1975 No.1584) reg. 2, means
“at any one time” and therefore the justices had correctly excluded
the stand-in employees in determining the number of employees.
There are two pieces of legislation that cover health and
safety consultation with employees: The Safety Representatives and Safety
Committees Regulations 1977 and the Health and Safety (Consultation with
Employees) Regulations 1996. These regulations require employers to consult
with their employees on health and safety matters and make provision for both
trade-union-appointed safety representatives and representatives of employee
safety elected by the workforce (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 52).
safety consultation with employees: The Safety Representatives and Safety
Committees Regulations 1977 and the Health and Safety (Consultation with
Employees) Regulations 1996. These regulations require employers to consult
with their employees on health and safety matters and make provision for both
trade-union-appointed safety representatives and representatives of employee
safety elected by the workforce (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 52).
Regulation 10 requires every employer
to provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on health
and safety risks, preventive and protective measures, relevant procedures, and
the nominated persons (Great Britain. Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999) whereas Regulation 5
states in relation to the Section 2(3) of the 1974 Act that the employer
is responsible for making suitable arrangements to plan, organise, control,
monitor and review the preventive and protective measures. If there are 5 or
more employees, the employer shall have a written statement of the policy and
record the arrangements that he has undertaken (Barrett and Howells, 2000).
to provide his employees with comprehensible and relevant information on health
and safety risks, preventive and protective measures, relevant procedures, and
the nominated persons (Great Britain. Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999) whereas Regulation 5
states in relation to the Section 2(3) of the 1974 Act that the employer
is responsible for making suitable arrangements to plan, organise, control,
monitor and review the preventive and protective measures. If there are 5 or
more employees, the employer shall have a written statement of the policy and
record the arrangements that he has undertaken (Barrett and Howells, 2000).
The approved code of practice on this
Regulation as cited by Smith et al. (2007)
specifies that the risk assessment will help identify information which has to
be provided to employees under specific regulations, as well as any further
information relevant to risks to employees’ health and safety. This regulation
also requires information to be provided on the emergency arrangements
established under regulation 8, including the identity of staff nominated to
help if there is an evacuation. The information provided should be pitched
appropriately, given the level of training, knowledge and experience of the
employee. It should be provided in a form which takes account of the employee.
It should be provided in a form which takes account of any language
difficulties or disabilities. Information can be provided in whatever form is
most suitable in the circumstances, as long as it can be understood by
everyone.
Regulation as cited by Smith et al. (2007)
specifies that the risk assessment will help identify information which has to
be provided to employees under specific regulations, as well as any further
information relevant to risks to employees’ health and safety. This regulation
also requires information to be provided on the emergency arrangements
established under regulation 8, including the identity of staff nominated to
help if there is an evacuation. The information provided should be pitched
appropriately, given the level of training, knowledge and experience of the
employee. It should be provided in a form which takes account of the employee.
It should be provided in a form which takes account of any language
difficulties or disabilities. Information can be provided in whatever form is
most suitable in the circumstances, as long as it can be understood by
everyone.
Regulation 4
(A) was inserted through the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to give safety representatives the functions,
not duties, to be consulted when safety related changes to working conditions
are proposed (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 53). This Regulation imposes a duty
on the employer to consult with safety representatives on any health and safety
measure affecting employees; the planning and organisation of any health and
safety training he is required to provide to the employees; the health and
safety consequences of introducing new technologies into the workplace; and any
other health and safety information he is required to provide the safety
representatives (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 421).
(A) was inserted through the Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to give safety representatives the functions,
not duties, to be consulted when safety related changes to working conditions
are proposed (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 53). This Regulation imposes a duty
on the employer to consult with safety representatives on any health and safety
measure affecting employees; the planning and organisation of any health and
safety training he is required to provide to the employees; the health and
safety consequences of introducing new technologies into the workplace; and any
other health and safety information he is required to provide the safety
representatives (Barrett and Howells, 2000, p. 421).
Regulation 7 (2) requires an employer
to provide the safety representative with information necessary to enable them
to fulfil their functions. However, the information that cannot be disclosed
under certain enactment or due to interests related to national security. Also,
information relating to specifically to an individual, or obtained by the
employer for bringing, prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings, or
information, disclosure of which may result in injury of his undertakings or
undertakings of another person who gave information to the employer, is
excluded from being disclosed to the safety representative under strict liability
of this Regulation 7 (2). Barrett and Howells (2000) consider that the
regulation requires an establishment of a safety committee based on the wish of
trade unions while not considering the wish of the employer. The employer may
not be sympathetic on establishing a committee, but this desire is
uninterested. Authors also stress that the Regulation has left much to
negotiation as it does not allowed the employer to introduce a system if the
unions were uninterested.
to provide the safety representative with information necessary to enable them
to fulfil their functions. However, the information that cannot be disclosed
under certain enactment or due to interests related to national security. Also,
information relating to specifically to an individual, or obtained by the
employer for bringing, prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings, or
information, disclosure of which may result in injury of his undertakings or
undertakings of another person who gave information to the employer, is
excluded from being disclosed to the safety representative under strict liability
of this Regulation 7 (2). Barrett and Howells (2000) consider that the
regulation requires an establishment of a safety committee based on the wish of
trade unions while not considering the wish of the employer. The employer may
not be sympathetic on establishing a committee, but this desire is
uninterested. Authors also stress that the Regulation has left much to
negotiation as it does not allowed the employer to introduce a system if the
unions were uninterested.
Regulation 8 requires the employer to
ensure availability of adequate information and written instructions to his
workers, supervisors and managers who use work equipment. Regulation 9 requires
him to ensure adequate training to be provided to workers, supervisors and
managers and other persons who use work equipment.
ensure availability of adequate information and written instructions to his
workers, supervisors and managers who use work equipment. Regulation 9 requires
him to ensure adequate training to be provided to workers, supervisors and
managers and other persons who use work equipment.
Regulation 9 stresses requirement for
the employer to ensure that the employee, who is provided with PPE, shall also
be provided with information, instruction and training as is adequate and
appropriate to enable him/her to know risks which the PPE will avoid or limit;
the purpose of which and the manner in which personal protective equipment is
to be used; and any actions to be taken
by the employee to ensure that the PPE remains in an efficient state,
efficient working order and in good repair. The information must be
comprehensible to the persons to whom it is provided in order to be considered
as adequate and appropriate.
the employer to ensure that the employee, who is provided with PPE, shall also
be provided with information, instruction and training as is adequate and
appropriate to enable him/her to know risks which the PPE will avoid or limit;
the purpose of which and the manner in which personal protective equipment is
to be used; and any actions to be taken
by the employee to ensure that the PPE remains in an efficient state,
efficient working order and in good repair. The information must be
comprehensible to the persons to whom it is provided in order to be considered
as adequate and appropriate.
Regulation 6 requires the employer to
provide his employee with adequate health and safety training in the use of
workstation upon which he may be required to work. Every employer shall ensure
that each user at work in his undertaking is provided with adequate health and
safety training whenever the organisation of any workstation in that
undertaking upon which he may be required to work is substantially modified.
Regulation 7 requires every employer to ensure that operators and users at work
in his undertaking are provided with adequate information about all Health and
Safety related aspects at their workstations, measures taken by him in
compliance with his duties to manage risks at workstations.
provide his employee with adequate health and safety training in the use of
workstation upon which he may be required to work. Every employer shall ensure
that each user at work in his undertaking is provided with adequate health and
safety training whenever the organisation of any workstation in that
undertaking upon which he may be required to work is substantially modified.
Regulation 7 requires every employer to ensure that operators and users at work
in his undertaking are provided with adequate information about all Health and
Safety related aspects at their workstations, measures taken by him in
compliance with his duties to manage risks at workstations.
Regulation 12 states that the employer
undertaking work that may expose any of his employees to hazardous substances
shall provide that employee with such information, instruction and training as
is suitable and sufficient for him to know the risks of the exposure and the
precautions to be taken. The information should include results of monitoring
of the exposure at the workplace and collective results of any health
surveillance. Every employer must ensure that any person has necessary
information, instruction and training.
undertaking work that may expose any of his employees to hazardous substances
shall provide that employee with such information, instruction and training as
is suitable and sufficient for him to know the risks of the exposure and the
precautions to be taken. The information should include results of monitoring
of the exposure at the workplace and collective results of any health
surveillance. Every employer must ensure that any person has necessary
information, instruction and training.
Regulation 7 of the Control of Substances Hazardous to
Health Regulations 2002 requires an employee to provide the doctor with
information about identifiable occupational disease whereas the employer and a
qualified employee must provide information and advice to the employee (Welch,
2016). Regulation 12 requires every employer to provide the employee with
suitable training, information and instruction in respect of the hazardous
substance to which he might be exposed including the findings of the risk
assessment. All other persons who carry out work for the employer must also
receive suitable and sufficient training information and instruction.
Containers and pipes containing substances hazardous to health must be clearly
identifiable including the nature of the container’s contents.
Health Regulations 2002 requires an employee to provide the doctor with
information about identifiable occupational disease whereas the employer and a
qualified employee must provide information and advice to the employee (Welch,
2016). Regulation 12 requires every employer to provide the employee with
suitable training, information and instruction in respect of the hazardous
substance to which he might be exposed including the findings of the risk
assessment. All other persons who carry out work for the employer must also
receive suitable and sufficient training information and instruction.
Containers and pipes containing substances hazardous to health must be clearly
identifiable including the nature of the container’s contents.
Under Regulation 3 of Health and Safety (Consultation
with Employees) Regulations 1996[7],
a duty of the employer to consult with employees who are not presented under
the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 is imposed.
The employer should consult with them directly or one or more persons of a
group of employees as stated in Regulation 4. The information includes
information about any health and safety measures, his arrangements, persons he
has appointed for assisting his undertakings, information required by law,
planning and organisation of health and safety training, and health and safety
consequences for those employees of the introduction of new technologies into
the workplace.
with Employees) Regulations 1996[7],
a duty of the employer to consult with employees who are not presented under
the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 is imposed.
The employer should consult with them directly or one or more persons of a
group of employees as stated in Regulation 4. The information includes
information about any health and safety measures, his arrangements, persons he
has appointed for assisting his undertakings, information required by law,
planning and organisation of health and safety training, and health and safety
consequences for those employees of the introduction of new technologies into
the workplace.
Regulation 5 imposes a
duty on the employer that he shall make available to those employees such
information to enable them to participate fully and effectively in the
consultation. Disclosure and non-disclosure requirements are the same as 1977
regulation.
duty on the employer that he shall make available to those employees such
information to enable them to participate fully and effectively in the
consultation. Disclosure and non-disclosure requirements are the same as 1977
regulation.
Section 2(3) of HSWA 1974 and the
Employers’ Health and Safety Policy Statements (Exception) Regulations 1974
require employers, with five or more employees, to prepare and revise a written
health and safety policy regularly together with the necessary organisation and
arrangements to carry it out and to bring the policy and any revision of it to
the notice of their employees (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 27). The law
requires that the written health and safety policy should include the following
three sections (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 27):
Employers’ Health and Safety Policy Statements (Exception) Regulations 1974
require employers, with five or more employees, to prepare and revise a written
health and safety policy regularly together with the necessary organisation and
arrangements to carry it out and to bring the policy and any revision of it to
the notice of their employees (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 27). The law
requires that the written health and safety policy should include the following
three sections (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 27):
–
A
health and safety policy statement of intent which includes health and safety
aims and objectives of the organisation;
A
health and safety policy statement of intent which includes health and safety
aims and objectives of the organisation;
–
The
health and safety organisation detailing the people with specific health and
safety responsibilities and their duties;
The
health and safety organisation detailing the people with specific health and
safety responsibilities and their duties;
–
The
health and safety arrangements in place in terms of systems and procedures.
The
health and safety arrangements in place in terms of systems and procedures.
Health and safety policy indicates the
attitude and commitment of the employer to health and safety (Hughes and
Ferrett, 2009, p. 28)
attitude and commitment of the employer to health and safety (Hughes and
Ferrett, 2009, p. 28)
Organisational structure is a type of
document that should be prepared within the organisation phase of the policy.
the following certain key functions should be included in there:
document that should be prepared within the organisation phase of the policy.
the following certain key functions should be included in there:
–
Accident
investigation and reporting;
Accident
investigation and reporting;
–
Health
and safety training and information;
Health
and safety training and information;
–
Health
and safety monitoring and audit;
Health
and safety monitoring and audit;
–
Health
surveillance;
Health
surveillance;
–
Monitoring
of plant and equipment, their maintenance and risk assessment;
Monitoring
of plant and equipment, their maintenance and risk assessment;
–
Liaison
with external agencies;
Liaison
with external agencies;
–
Management
and/or employee safety committees. (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 30)
Management
and/or employee safety committees. (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 30)
The arrangement of health and safety
policy includes details of the specific systems and procedures used to assist
in the implementation of the policy statement.
policy includes details of the specific systems and procedures used to assist
in the implementation of the policy statement.
The Health and Safety
(Information for Employees) Regulations require that the approved poster
entitled ‘Health and Safety Law – what
you should know’ is displayed or the approved leaflet is distributed
(Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). The poster should include general terms
about requirements of health and safety law, the local address of the enforcing
authority (either the HSE or the Local Authority) and the Employment Medical
Advisory Service (EMAS) (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15).
(Information for Employees) Regulations require that the approved poster
entitled ‘Health and Safety Law – what
you should know’ is displayed or the approved leaflet is distributed
(Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). The poster should include general terms
about requirements of health and safety law, the local address of the enforcing
authority (either the HSE or the Local Authority) and the Employment Medical
Advisory Service (EMAS) (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15).
The Health and Safety
Information (Amendment) Regulations allows the HSE to approve and publish new
posters and leaflets which do not need organisations to update or add enforcing
authority and EMAS contact information. However, the poster will still need to
be displayed and provide employees with basic health and safety information.
The HSE is concerned that the poster needs to be understood by employees who
have visual or learning difficulties, who have poor English reading skills, and
who work in an environment where the risk of being denied employment rights is
high (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). The new poster is a simplified version
of the previous one and contains a single Incident Contact Centre number for
the HSE helpline. The leaflets that employers can give to workers are replaced
with pocket cards.
Information (Amendment) Regulations allows the HSE to approve and publish new
posters and leaflets which do not need organisations to update or add enforcing
authority and EMAS contact information. However, the poster will still need to
be displayed and provide employees with basic health and safety information.
The HSE is concerned that the poster needs to be understood by employees who
have visual or learning difficulties, who have poor English reading skills, and
who work in an environment where the risk of being denied employment rights is
high (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 15). The new poster is a simplified version
of the previous one and contains a single Incident Contact Centre number for
the HSE helpline. The leaflets that employers can give to workers are replaced
with pocket cards.
The Management of Health
and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 imposes a duty on the employer to undertake
suitable and sufficient written risk assessments when there are five or more
employees. Also, the employer must put in place effective arrangements for the
planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of health and safety
measures in the workplace. He also should develop suitable emergency procedures
and ensure that employees and others are aware of these procedures and can
apply them. The information that should be supplied by employers under the
regulations is:
and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 imposes a duty on the employer to undertake
suitable and sufficient written risk assessments when there are five or more
employees. Also, the employer must put in place effective arrangements for the
planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of health and safety
measures in the workplace. He also should develop suitable emergency procedures
and ensure that employees and others are aware of these procedures and can
apply them. The information that should be supplied by employers under the
regulations is:
– Risks identified by any risk
assessments;
assessments;
– The preventive and protective measures
that are in place;
that are in place;
– The emergency procedures and
arrangements and the names of those responsible for the implementation of the
procedures.
arrangements and the names of those responsible for the implementation of the
procedures.
Employees are obliged to
use any equipment and substance in accordance with training and instruction
given by the employer; report to the employer any serious or imminent danger;
and report any shortcomings in the employer’s protective health and safety
arrangements
use any equipment and substance in accordance with training and instruction
given by the employer; report to the employer any serious or imminent danger;
and report any shortcomings in the employer’s protective health and safety
arrangements
Internal resources of information
include accident and ill-health records and investigation reports; absentee
records; inspection and audit reports undertaken by the organisation and by
external organisations such as the HSE; maintenance, risk assessment and
training records; documents which provide information to workers; and any
equipment examination or test reports. External resources can be health and
safety legislation; HSE publications (ACOPs, leaflets, guidance documents,
journals, books and their website); international, European and British
standards; H&S magazines and journals; information published by trade
associations, employer organisations and trade unions; specialist technical and
legal publications; information and data from manufacturers and suppliers; and
the internet and encyclopaedias (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 16).
include accident and ill-health records and investigation reports; absentee
records; inspection and audit reports undertaken by the organisation and by
external organisations such as the HSE; maintenance, risk assessment and
training records; documents which provide information to workers; and any
equipment examination or test reports. External resources can be health and
safety legislation; HSE publications (ACOPs, leaflets, guidance documents,
journals, books and their website); international, European and British
standards; H&S magazines and journals; information published by trade
associations, employer organisations and trade unions; specialist technical and
legal publications; information and data from manufacturers and suppliers; and
the internet and encyclopaedias (Hughes and Ferrett, 2009, p. 16).
[3] R v Swan Hunter
Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd [1981] IRLR 403
Shipbuilders Ltd and Telemeter Installations Ltd [1981] IRLR 403
[5] Associated Octel Ltd
[1996] 1 WLR 1543
[1996] 1 WLR 1543
[7] Under Regulation 3 of Health and
Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations [1996] (SI 1996/1513)
Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations [1996] (SI 1996/1513)
