freeeploymentadvice.co.uk

Home  About Me  Qualifications  Contact

Case Examples  -  Redundancy  Unfair dismissal  Constructive Dismissal  Unpaid Wages  Race Discrimination

Sex Discrimination  Disability Discrimination  Workplace Stress  Harassment & Bullying  Employment Tribunals

Publications  -  Health & Safety Law  Disability Law  Discrimination Law  Employment Tribunals  Croner’s  History of Law  Publishing   Recruitment  FAQ’s

Health & Safety Law:

 

The Importance of Health and Safety Law

 

The Health and Safety at Work, etc., Act 1974

 

Significant Recent Developments in Health and Safety

 

 

Workplace Stress:

The Legal Essentials

April 2008

Health & Safety

Case Law update

April 2008

Disability Discrimination Update

April 2008

Significant Recent Developments in Health and Safety

 

The most significant recent developments fall into the following areas:

 

•  European law

•  Common law:work-related stress

•  Corporate manslaughter

•  Funding of civil claims

•  Migrant workers

 

European Law

 

European Directives have had an increasing influence on British health and safety law. Directives resulted in the introduction of the “six-pack” of Regulations. The 'six-pack' is the name given to the half-dozen most widely quoted health and safety Regulations. They came into effect in Britain after six European Directives, collectively known as the 'six-pack', were issued by the European Commission.

 

•  The main Regulation is the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. They came into force in 1993, and were updated in 1999. Regulation 3, placing a legal duty on employers to carry out a risk assessment as a first step in ensuring a safe workplace, lies at the centre of a modern approach to health and safety at work.

•  Other 'six-pack' Regulations cover: heating, lighting and ventilation at work; the safe use of computer screens and keyboards; handling heavy or awkward loads; rest breaks; and personal protective equipment.

 

Common Law: Work-related Stress

 

As well as legal duties under statutes and regulations, employers have obligations under duties imposed by the common law. These duties are judge-made and consist of a mass of decided cases.

 

With reference to work-related stress, one positive point about the English common law is that it is prepared to protect people who have been driven mad by workplace conditions. English judges have created a rule that mental illness caused by the conduct of employers can be treated in a similar way to physical injury.

 

Cases of bullying, harassment and exploitation at work, where a recognised psychiatric illness has resulted, can lead to the victims obtaining compensation.

 

The leading case on work-related stress is Hatton v Sutherland and Others (2002). Baroness Hale’s judgment in this case extends to almost 30 pages of the report. There are no Latin words or phrases in the judgment. Baroness Hale deals with a case with complex facts in a difficult area of law. The judgment examines and analyses psychiatric illness in general, defines and describes workplace stress, and goes on to explain the relevant law. Anyone with an interest in work-related stress should be advised to read this judgment for its clarity.  

 

Corporate Manslaughter

 

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 comes into force on April 6, 2008. The Act represents the culmination of more than ten years of lobbying, consultation and discussion. The prosecution of companies for manslaughter was a matter of such complexity and technicality that very few were successful. Following pressure from trade unions and health and safety organisations, we saw White Papers, consultation exercises, conferences, numerous articles in the specialist and national press, Bills, interviews and speculation.

 

The death of a worker because of the negligence of an employer, rather than being treated as an unfortunate accident, should be one of the most serious crimes known to English law. The Act of 2007 goes some way towards addressing this problem. It creates the new statutory offence of corporate manslaughter. In summary, a company will be guilty of the new offence if the way in which its activities are managed or organised, by its senior management, amounts to a gross breach of the duty of care which it owes to its employees, the public or other individuals and those failings have caused a person’s death.

 

 

Funding of Civil Claims

 

The virtual abolition of legal aid in civil cases has radically changed the funding of civil claims for compensation for health and safety-related claims for compensation. It is now very difficult for victims of breaches of health and safety law to afford legal advice and representation. Legal costs may be covered by the following:

 

•  Trade union membership

•  Legal expenses insurance

•  No win no fee schemes

•  Law centres

•  Pro bono (charitable) schemes

•  Private funding

 

The shortcomings of the current funding arrangements are well illustrated by the scandal of miners’ compensation claims.

 

It was recently reported that a firm of solicitors had agreed to repay money which was deducted from miners’ compensation claims and paid to a claims management company. The following points emerged:

 

•  They had acted for a number of claimants who had registered claims with the DTI under a scheme to compensate coal miners and their families for respiratory diseases and vibration white finger.

•  The firm had bought the claims from Freeclaim IDC, a claims management company.

•  The chairperson of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority is reported to have commented that complaints about the miners’ compensation had seriously damaged the reputation of the profession.

•  In May 2006 an MP had stated in Parliament that solicitors, claims handlers and some trade unions had raided victims’ compensation. There had been a feeding frenzy.

•  Of 427,969 claims for compensation which had been settled, approximately 60,000 were settled for less than £100.

•  In 65 per cent of the cases, average fixed costs paid to solicitors had exceeded the amount of compensation paid to the miners.

 

Migrant Workers

 

Since the enlargement of the European Union, with the general principle that citizens of  EU states have the right of free movement to work, increasing numbers of migrant workers have found employment in the United Kingdom.

 

Migrant workers are generally regarded as being motivated, reliable and committed. Many of these workers do not have a fluent grasp of English and may be particularly vulnerable to failings in health and safety practices.

 

The large number of migrant workers from Central and Eastern Europe currently employed in the United Kingdom has started to make an impact on health and safety and employment law. These workers may be prepared to accept lower wages than their British counterparts, because wages in their home countries are far lower than those in the United Kingdom for comparable work.

 

Those migrant workers who are highly educated find themselves in a position where they are not familiar with their employment rights. They may feel that they are in a vulnerable position in a foreign country whose laws and customs they are unfamiliar with. English employment tribunals and courts are increasingly demonstrating an awareness of this position.

 

The HSE has shown itself to be well aware of these problems. It has issued detailed advice and guidance on the proper management of migrant workers’ health and safety. The HSE recognises that factors such as poor language skills and unfamiliarity with the workplace can magnify the effects of existing health and safety problems. It advises that migrant workers with better English should be asked to interpret for their less fluent colleagues. Internationally recognised signs, videos or audio materials can be used to communicate health and safety messages.

 

In general, tribunals and courts have expressly recognised the problems arising in relation to large numbers of workers with a limited grasp of English language, law and culture. Spokespersons for the Health and Safety Executive have repeatedly commented on the vulnerability of such employees in relation to health and safety.