HEALTH and SAFETY

at Work -basics

Employers' and Employees' Responsibilities

The Health and Safety at Work act, with the industrial health and safety regulations, is increasingly, charging with duties both the employers and the employees.

In respects, both, of the employers' duties regarding the employees and others, as well as the employees' duties toward their employers and to their fellow employees, it is essential to have some understanding and appreciation of safe work requirements -this is easiest done by a brief explanation of the main parts of the legislation, and by looking, in some related cases, at the decisions of the courts and penalties imposed...

Factories Act 1961 applies where mechanical machinery is used by a business. It requires the workplace to be properly lit, properly ventilated, with sufficient toilet facilities. Under this Act moving machinery must have a fence surround; must be properly constructed and maintained, e.g., all hoists, lifts; must be kept unobstructed all floors, passages, and stairs; floors must not have slippery surfaces, and fire-escapes must be provided and maintained -due care must be exercised to avoid risks being taken or caused both to and by employees which may result in injury.

Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 to a considerable extent is based on the working conditions in offices, although it covers also shops railways. It requires rooms not to be crowded, to allow some 3.5m.x3.5m., 12 square metres, floor space per person, the temperature to be not below 16 degrees centigrade, suitable natural or artificial lighting, suitable and sufficient and easily accessible sanitary facilities with running hot and cold water and towels.

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in section 2 now encompasses the common-law duties; it emphasises the duty to provide a workplace free from hazards, the maintenance and safety of machinery and equipment -with appropriate e.g. warning signs displayed, in liaison with the work-force, by consultation with trade union Safety Representatives, a health and safety officer on the premisses who must have regularly updated health and safety training -including first aid, a Safety Committee and Written Safety Policy statements; it requires that the employees too must take reasonable care and co-operate in these respects.

Other Acts, and Regulations -six in 1993 upon EU Directives, have been adding  to these: e.g., the Working Time Regulations 1998 prescribe e.g., rest periods.

There is a health and safety commission, and the Safety Executive is empowered to inspect, issue Improvement or Prohibition Notices, to prosecute -fine or imprisonment.

Contracts of Employment often allow disciplining for failure in due care.

SOME RELATED COURT-DECISIONS

Hardaker -v- Huby, 1962, said that the system of work must be safe.

Hudson -v- Ridge MFC Co., 1957, decided it a duty to provide one's employees with reasonably competent fellow employees.

Wilson & Clyde Coal -v- English ,1938, ruled that the duty of care may not be delegated n respect of ensuring by the use of safety equipment.

Paris -v- Stepney Borough Council, 1951: the duty is individually owed to employees ~blind in one eye should be given goggles -usually not worn.

James -v- Hepworth & Grandage, 1968: there was liability for injury to an illiterate who was unable to read the signs that warned of danger.

Wicks -v- Charles A Smelhurst Ltd., 1973 ,found it unreasonable to expose an employee to risk of serious injury not contemplated at the time of issuing the contract.

Walker -v- Northumberland County Council, 1994, held liable for forced retirement on heath grounds of the claimant kept working at the same place, with the same work-load, after he had suffered a nervous breakdown.

Coulston -v- Felixtove Dock & Railway Co., 1975, said that long-term illness entitled to sympathetic consideration requiring enquiries from the employee and medically qualified advisors -including employee's, as to whether to cease to employ for the sake of business was essential.

Wiles -v- Fores (Sussex) Ltd., 1976, thought that if absence was disrupting the workplace a reasonably warning might suffice.

Warner -v- Barbers Stores Ltd., 1978, held it failure in due respect to refuse time off to attend a domestic problem.

Spalding -v- Port of London Authority, 1977: if behaviour reasonably jeopardised safety, the employer could issue a disciplinary warning.

These are an outline and may prove useful as guidelines.

May be of interest -click� TEACHER OF TEACHERS