Offences by Bodies Corporate - Case Study Example

Section 2(1) This is the section that stipulates on the general duties of employers to their employees. These general duty include requires, as stipulated within the section that it will be the responsibility if the every employer at the work place to ensure safety of the employees. It adds, “so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” According to the same section, the section that has been applicable and should be of equal importance to the case of the bakery is the ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ the main reason for its applicability or qualification is due its weight in health and safety law. Another important aspect that is contained in section 2(1) is; ‘It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” This section means that any duty that the employee has to be executed must be done under healthy and safety environment and this is ensured by the employer. This section has been breached since they did not act responsibly. Basing this section with regard to the situation of David Mayes and Ian Erickson, it can be realised that employers did not follow part of this and can be charged in the court of law. A similar case involves that of Edwards v National Coal Board [1949] where Mr. Edwards succumbed to death as a result of unsupported section of a travelling road around the mine gave way. This company made an argument that the cost of shoring up all the available roads in every part of the mine was prohibited compared to the risk. On the other hand, the court held that, “Reasonably practicable is a narrower term than ‘physically possible’ and implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed in one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert the risk is placed in the other; and that, if it is shown that there is a gross disproportion between them, the risk being insignificant in relation to the sacrifice, the person upon whom the duty is laid discharges the burden of proving that compliance was not reasonably practicable. This computation falls to be made at a point of time anterior to the happening of the incident complained of”. Comment There are some aspects as seen the section above that have not been well explained. This is makes this case regarding the bakery victims lack clear outline of what exactly we can term as “duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” as outlined in section 2(1). However, in the mix of that, the case that was concluded can give an idea regarding making a place safe. For instance, case of Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v English [1938], means that making a place safe is to ensure, “provision and maintenance of: a safe place and safe systems of work; reasonably safe and competent fellow employees; and safe plant and appliances” Relevant Case Law This company need to be responsible for the culminating events in the bakery due to failure to be responsible and making the place safe in accordance to the area discussed. This case is not different with Thompson, Gray, Nicholson v Smiths Ship Repairers where the employer breached duty of care. This is also supported by Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14. Section 2(2) This is the section that can be seen as continuation of Section 2(2). For instance, the previous one has a full description of the duty of the employer to be all inclusive to the employees. That is, on this case, the employer should have ensured that plants and systems are maintained and safe without any risk to health. Subsection (2) elaborate ways through which the employees of the bakery ought to fulfill their duties and responsibilities. On the other hand, Section 2(2)(a) states that the employer should, “...provide and maintain plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health.” This section translates that the management team present during the occurrence of the accident ought to have maintained the oven so as to make it safe. This section was breached because the company did not let the plant coal for the required period of time. A good example of the applicability of this section is the case of Wilson & Clyde Coal Co V English (1938). Another important aspect to be mentioned regarding the case is the Section 2(2)d. That is, “Without prejudice to the generality of an employer’s duty under the preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include in particular -” It therefore translates that both parties must be ready to accept specific requirements. There are other areas that need to be considered for instance, in the event the bakery will comply with the requirement as contained in the sections above then the company will have to ensure that the entire requirement as contained in the subsection 1 is looked into. Another area of the law that the company broke was section 2(2) c as explained by R V Swan Hunter Shipbuilders (1982). For example, it is alleged that the victims were not having any information regarding the dangers as they crawled into the oven. Let us now consider section 2(2)(d) which states the responsibility of the company to, “…maintain, so far as is reasonably practicable, any place of work under the employer’s control, in a safe condition and without risks to health and to ensure safe means of access and egress to and from that place.” this means that the company should take care of its plants before subjecting their employees to work in it. The company breached this section since it failed to provide necessary information to David Mayes and Ian Erickson regarding the state of the oven. In fact, none of the employers mentioned in this case bothered to explain to the victims the situation regarding the oven in as much as it appears that they were familiar with such. For example, there is no adherence to Regulation 13 regarding capabilities and training which the company did not offer to the two victims. Comment This section deals with the responsibility and duties of the employee and whether that has been contravened by the company. The company according to the law has not acted responsibly. This area requires that the two victims ought to have carried their duties after clear instruction and training---something that did not happen. Regulation 3 also deals with the assessment of risks. Based on this, the company will still be liable. Relevant Case Law A case which is coherent to the situation at the bakery or this particular case is that of Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v English [1937] 3 All ER 628 held by House of Lords that (1). Lord Wright stated that the employer did not follow due process according to responsibility bestowed upon them. Section 7 This area regards the section general duties of employees at work. This has also been extended by The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14. It goes “the duty of every employee while at work: to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work” This area requires that the two victims ought to have carried their duties after clear instruction and training---something that did not happen. Other areas that the bakery did not consider is that any duty or requirement as thought of by the company that has been imposed on by the employer or under any of the relevant statutory provisions should co-operate with him/her so as to necessitate the duty. Comment This section was not adhered to by the company and the best way is to compensate the dependants of the family. However, there is an area that has not been mentioned in this case according to Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 14. That is, the aspect of “work in accordance with any training or instruction and to inform the employer of any health and safety” has not been mentioned. Another area related to this is the Regulation 13 regarding capabilities and training which the company did not offer to the two victims. Relevant Case Law Relevant civil case regarding section 7 is the Criteria for Breach of Statutory Duty. What we are seeing here is not only injury but death contemplated by the statute. Relevant case is the Lister v Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co. Ltd [1957]. In this the House of Lords by a majority of 3 to 2 made a ruling that the employer and the son pay the victim. Section 37 This section deals with Offences by Bodies Corporate---to mean that management team in this company will also be responsible, according to this section, liable for the law contravened thus should be taken to court. It explains, “...the board of directors, individual functional directors and senior managers can all be prosecuted under this section.” Comment Management team in this company should be responsible for the death of the workers because they are responsible for the death of the two workers. Furthermore, it can be seen that with regard to Regulation 10, Information for Employees was not given. Relevant Case Law A clear case of Offences by Bodies Corporate regards J Armour v J Skeen where the workman died after falling while repairing a bridge. The director of roads for regional council was held responsible because of supervising safety health of the road in accordance with Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Read More