Law for Managers, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - Essay Example

? Law for Managers Law for Managers The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is an act of Parliament that defines the structure of reinforcing and regulating health and safety in the workplace. The Act covers a large variety of duties that are imposed on employees, employers, suppliers, contractors, and material and substances that are in use in the progressed work. It also includes duties of the people who are in charge of the maintenance and managing of the premises used for the work. The law has been established to create a system of government regulation enforced by statutory law in many of the industries as it seemed necessary in those years. The law is imposed to criminal sanctions and extensions to unlimited fines and imprisonment too. After many statutory enforcements of laws related to the health and safety of employment, the Health and Safety Act at Work 1974 was introduced to refine all the complex existing laws (Lewis, Sargeant, 2004). The provisions of this act were structured to serve for the security of the people’s health, safety and welfare at work, to protect the persons at work from any risks to their health in regard or connection to the activities that the person has at work, to control the use and presence of highly inflammable dangerous substances, and otherwise preventing the illegal use of such substances, and lastly to control the emission of hazardous gases into the atmosphere from the premises. As the law sets out its structure and enforces the provisions of this act, the general duties that are imposed under the act to the specific people regarded under this law have been given. The general duties of the employers towards their employees are that they should ensure health, safety and welfare of all the employees working under them. However, in some cases these duties extend such as the health and least risk provided while working under power plants and systems at work. There should be arrangements of safety and least risk in the use, handling and transportation of the articles and substances at work. The employers should make sure that they provide the workers with the information, instruction and training to ensure the health and safety measures given to them. The place that is provided to work should be safe and maintained. Every employer should consult to a representative and make updated appointments with the Secretary of State to make documents featuring the written health and safety policies provided to their workers (Mandelstam, 2002). The act also specifies various duties of the person who is in charge of the premises towards the people other than employees. These duties are towards those people who are not employees but they use the non domestic premises available to them as a place of their work where they may use the plant or substances. The section legalizes the duties of the persons who have the hold of the premises towards all the people who have the access to the premises to make sure they are safe and least at risk while using plant or any substance present on the premises. General duties towards the articles used at work may refer to any plant that is designed to be used by persons at work or any article designed as a component in any such plant. The duty of the person is to make sure that the designed article is constructed in a way that it is safe and least risky at all times when it is being used or cleaned or maintained by any person at work (Selwyn, 2006). The person in charge is also supposed to carry out examinations and testing to ensure the safety at regular intervals. He is also enforced to take responsibility of securing and providing the people with adequate information about the substance and all about it. According to the act, a person may rely on the testing which is carried out by others as long as it is reasonable to do so. A person may also rely on a written document by any other person to be sure about a safety item. Under the section 6 of the act, designers and manufactures must carry out proper research to identify the health risks and work on them to remove them. The installers have the responsibility to make sure that the article is safely installed and is free from any risks to health at all times for all persons at work (Bain, 1997). The section 6(4) of the law defines the duties of the person who manufactures and supplies any substance for use at work. The duty of this person is to be able to ensure firstly that the substance is safe and without any risks to the people at work and their health whenever it is being used, handles, maintained or transported. Steps should also be taken to make sure that the supplier has provided a written document to ensure the quality of the substance and to provide adequate information to the people through which they can understand the status of the substance clearly whether it is harmful or not. The report must contain the complete information about any tests carried out with the substance, or any conditions that are necessary to fulfill while working with the substance, and should warn them clearly about any aspect of the substance that could give a rise to the risk while using it. For the suppliers, there are some exceptions that are made under this law. The law suggests that the duties of the suppliers only apply to matters which are within their control. Any substance which is imported and not designed and manufactured in the UK can be exempted from the liability under this act for any activities that took place outside the UK. Secondly, the finance companies often purchase their substances of articles used in the business by ways of hire purchase or credit agreement, such companies have no legal liability towards the persons at work using their substances at any time (Rush and Ottley, 2006). The section 7 of the act states that the employees also have certain duties towards the other people at work. It suggests that the employees have a duty to take reasonable care of their selves and other people around them at work who might be affected by each other’s actions while at work. The employees also have the duty to cooperate with other employees at work and ensure, to the extent possible, that all the employees are able to perform their duties and requirements under the act. For every other general person, the law suggests that they should not intentionally or otherwise interfere in the misuse of the substance or anything that is provided in the interests of health and safety provisions. It is very important to focus on the fact that how the law applies. Under the common law, the voluntary organization and the individual volunteers hold a duty of care towards each other and any others who are or may be affected by their activities. Wherever something goes wrong or any duty is breached, the individuals may sue for damages under the civil law if any injuries are caused due to the result of another person’s negligence and inability to fulfill their duties. However, there are certain exceptions and limitations in the ways that these laws are applied. Hence, for a negligence claim to be successful, the person who is injured must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care towards him and the injury has been caused and suffered directly because of that breach of duty. Moreover, the injured person should be able to prove that the loss for which damages are being claimed was a foreseeable result of the breach of that duty (Stranks, 2005). The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is a criminal law act which clearly aims to protect the employees and other people who tend to be affected by the work activities. This law is enforced mainly by HSE and the local authorities. The Health and safety legislation does not impose duties generally on those who are not employers or employees or in any case related to the work or work premises. However it is not possible to sue for the damages directly under the Health and safety act itself, even though the breach of health and safety regulations may be mentioned as part of a civil claim for the compensation which is based on the breach of statutory duty. The HSE and the local authorities’ health and safety officers have no power to investigate the incidents or follow the enforcement action in regard to the most simply voluntary activities. The health and safety legislation and the regulations made under this act are applied if any organization including a voluntary organization, has at the least one employee. The act refers to the employees clearly as the “dutyholders”. The health and safety act sets out many of the general duties that the employers may have towards the employees. It also requires the employers and the employees to take care of others in the premises of work from risks and rising health and safety issues (Walters, 1996). The application of the legislation and the steps that should be taken for the risk assessment method are also important. Some steps are given but at times they are unsuccessful. All the organizations can take different approaches towards the management of risk. These are five general steps that may be suggested. The first step is about identifying the hazards and understanding that the work activities carried out are not just tasks since these tasks may often involve a number of work activities. It is right to be able to focus on the main and the most significant hazards, even though it seems to be very difficult for individuals to be able to distinguish one from another. These also include the health and safety hazards (Davies, 2010). The second step focuses on the need to realize that the health is important and not merely the business of accidents and injuries. The act should have specified the actual meaning of the work hazards and risk. Accidents are injuries are caused, but they are the outcomes of the risk, not hazards. The hazard levels should be organized and appropriate to be able to maintain and apply in the businesses. The act specifies the hazards that may be caused because of the breach of duty, or that initially exist. It is important to know when applying the health and safety legislation that the risk may not only be the possibilities. It is about much more than just the likelihood. The business should make sure that the strictness and the consequence of the hazards are realized. The risk is about the consequences and the end result that is caused by the hazards. The risks that are interesting and precarious are the ones that have the low probability but may cause high consequences in terms of hazards and damages caused. Such risks should be avoided and focused on more as they can cause severe results (Ridley and Channing, 2012). The next step is to be able to calculate and prioritize the amount and consequences of risks. When we are dealing with the risks and the hazards, it should be known that both of them are closely linked together and they will always cause the direct consequences that are affected by one another. To be able to calculate the risk and the amount of risk associated with certain activities or substances used in the business, the business should have enough expertise knowledge and representatives who could clearly show the clear picture. Prioritizing the hazards would enable the business to provide care to their employees to the fullest under the legislation (James and Johnstone, 2007). The last step which enables the business to follow the act is to identify and control the risks and take preventive measures to make sure that the risk is eliminated. No matter how much the hazards level and the risk calculation may be, in the end the thing which matters is what measures have been taken to control these risks and keep the employees safe at the work premises. Implementation of controlling measures should be taken as preventive and protective measures that would stop the accidents and any ill-health that could be caused to the workers in the work place. There should also be measures taken to eliminate the hazardous substances and activities from the business operations as the hazard elimination is the best way to ensure that there are no risks. Despite the many cases and the steps taken to apply the legislation to the business organizations, the performance of the act has been judged and reviewed by many of the leading observers. The review of the act in 2008 was made by Lord Grocott, and he suggested that ever since the law has been put in form till the recent years that is 2007, the number of critical injuries that have taken place at the workplace has been reduced by a great amount of 73 percent. Moreover, the number of injuries that were non-fatal and reported fell by 70 percent. UK had the lowest rate of employment injuries in the European Union in 2003. This was a great achievement and proved how affective this law has been (Stranks, 2010). When a health and safety offence is committed due to the breach of duty at work or the negligence of the director, manager, secretary or any other similar officer who is a part of the organization, then that person and the organization will be prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work Act. Recent studies have also shown that the directors can not neglect the charge under the section 37 of the act. The ones who are found guilty are liable for fines and in some severe cases, imprisonment. In addition, the court asks the organization to disqualify the individual who has convicted the offence. This power is exercised at the decision of the court and it will require no additional investigation or evidence (Mayhew and Bohle, 2001). My learning experience through this assignment was to be able to understand the legislation thoroughly. This assignment has enabled me to clearly understand the duties that exist between the employers and the employees and it has made me realize how important these legislations are. They have covered a wide range of possibilities and consequences that could occur at the work place. This show how flexible the British law is and how it includes the rights and duties of all the groups specifically and allows them to handle their duties and responsibilities in regard to each other. This not only strengthens the laws and the government, but also allows and gives a chance to the citizens and in this case, the employers and the employees to create strong and healthy ties with one another. The assignment has taught me how to understand the role of every group in the work place separately whether it is the employer, the employee or the care taker of the premises. The performance of the act and the views show that it has been successful and thus, should be considered as one of the most important laws in the British legislation. References Bain, P. (1997). Human resource malpractice: the deregulation of health and safety at work in the USA and Britain. London: Wiley Online Library. Davies, A. (2010). Workplace Law Handbook 2011 - Health and Safety, Premises and Environment. Texas: Workplace Law Group. James, P., Johnstone, R. (2007). “Regulating supply chains to improve health and safety”. Industrial Law Journal 36(1), pp. 163-187. Lewis, D. and Sargeant, M. (2004). Essentials of Employment Law. NY: CIPD Publishing. Mayhew. C. and Bohle P. (2001). The global expansion of precarious employment, work disorganization, and consequences for ?occupational health: a review of recent research. Int J Health Serv. 31(2), pp335-414.? Mandelstam, M. (2002). Manual Handling in Health and Social Care: An A-Z of Law and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Rush, J. and Ottley M. (2006). Business Law. UK: Cengage Learning EMEA. Ridley J. and Channing J. (2012).Safety at work. London: Routledge. Selwyn, N. (2006). Selwyn's Law of Employment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stranks, J. (2005) Health and Safety Law. London: Prentice Hall. Stranks, J. (2010). Health and Safety at Work: An Essential Guide for Managers. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Walters, D. (1996). “Trade unions and the effectiveness of worker representation in health and safety in Britain”. International Journal of Health Services 26 (4), pp 625 – 641. Read More