Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - Assignment Example

Title: Your name:   Course name:         Professors’ name: Date: Content Introduction pg. 3 Scene Setting pg.3 Preparation pg.4 Risk Assessment pg.4 a. Employers Duties pg. 4 b. Employee Duties pg. 7 Conclusion pg. 8 Reference List pg. 10 Introduction Before 1974 more than 9 million workers in Britain had no legal health and safety protection in the workplace environment. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) provides the legal framework to stimulate, promote and encourage high standards of safety and health in workplace.1 It protects the public and employees from workplace activities. Under this act, every person including employers, trainees, employees, manufacturers, self-employed, designers, suppliers, importers of work equipment etc. Therefore, managing risk means taking any practical steps to identify, minimize or eliminate risk.2 If it is not reasonable feasible or practicable to eliminate or prevent risks then a risk should be minimized. While companies have been conducting risk assessments and evaluation for many years, many of these companies still find it challenging to assess their risk.3 The linkage of risk assessment and evaluation to drivers of shareholders key and value objectives has been lost in many companies.4 Therefore, a robust risk assessment and evaluation process can form a foundation for an effective company risk management program. In the U.K it is a legal requirement for all companies to carry risk assessments and evaluation in their workplace environment. Scene Setting The assessment and evaluation was carried out in a warehouse which is used for storing packaging materials and redundant equipment including some damaged wooden racking. The premise housing the warehouse is falling into a state of disrepair and there is a large hole in the upper floor and the floorboards. Signs with ‘Danger No Entry’ have been placed on the ground floor adjacent to each of the two staircases and the electricity supply to the building has been disconnected. The security company that has been contracted to supervise the site has reported signs of unlawful entry into the warehouse. Most movements of goods stored in the warehouse involve lift trucks but some manual handling is used when non-palletized goods are handled when stored. Preparation An assessment of the warehouse was done and the risk assessment was based on the 5 steps booklet, How to Implement a Formal Occupational Health and Safety Program. Using the information in the publication, a preliminary assessment checklist was carried out which identified the main risks and hazards that was likely to be found in the warehouse and their associated issues that would be considered further. From the risk assessment, the following possible breaches of civil statute law and criminal statute law were outlined. Risk Assessment a. Employers Duties. Every employer under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) has a ‘duty of care’ to ensure, health, welfare and safety of his or her staffs are taken cared off while at workplace. Under the act, every employer is required to undertake a mandatory risk assessment at the workplace in order to spot possible safety and health hazards to the employee. From the assessment of the case scenario, the possible breached of The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) include: Section 2 and 3 of the Act. According to this section 2 of the act, its upon the duty of every employer to ensure the health, welfare and safety of their employees are taken care of. While under Section 3 of the Act, require every employee to prepare, and maintain an up to date, statement showing the policy on health and safety of the company. In addition, the act also requires employers to ensure that all staffs are aware of the health and safety policy of the company. Unlike some statutes that concerned with health and safety at workplace, HASAWA deals only with criminal liability and not civil liability. In other words, when an employee breaches section 2 and 3, it will not automatically create civil liability, although evidence in the convictions may be used in a civil claim. These two sections (i.e. section 2 and section 3) create a responsibility towards the employer. Broadly, an offence will be committed under section 2 if there is risk to the safety of the workers and the employer has not taken any necessary steps to avoid the risk. Whilst section 3 will only applied if there is risk to the safety of a non-worker who have been or may be affected by the way the employer runs his organization or business and the employer has not taken any step to prevent or minimize the risk. In the case scenario, the building condition was failing into a state of disrepair and the large hole in the floorboards on the upper floor was a risk to the employees working at the warehouse. The lack of electricity at the building was also causing a risk to the employees. The poor or no visibility to the employees working during the night shift such as security guard may fall through the hole that appeared through the floorboards on the upper floor. Lastly, the warehouse is not well protected because the previously the security company supervising the warehouse have reported signs of unlawful entry into the premise. This put the life of security guards at risk from imminent attack from unauthorized people entering the premise. For example, in Jolley v Sutton Borough Council case, two teenage boys were attracted to a boat which was abandoned by the council. While the two boys were playing on it, the boat fell on one of the boys causing serious injury. The council was held liable by the court. In the case of Staples of West Dorset District Council the defender council was liable for hazard where there was notice of it. The claimant in the case fell on wet and slippery floor and was injured. The court felt it was obvious therefore a notice was necessary to warn of immediate hazard. In Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company [1938] case, an employer was held liable by the court. In this case law, an employee was electrocuted causing severe injuries to the employee. In the ruling, the court argued that it was the duty of an employer to provide a safe place of work to their employees. In this case, the contractor failed to provide sufficient insulation in an electrical kiosk. The court also ruled that the employer’s duty was a personal one. The employer was fully responsible for the accident even though he has delegated the duty to insulate the kiosk from electricity shock to a competent independent contractor. b. Employee’s Duties Every employee has a duty of care to exercise reasonable skill and care in their relationship with their fellow colleagues or employer. This is extends to co-operating with other employees to enable their employer to be able to fulfill their legal requirement under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA). Under the HASAWA act, and employee is required not to obstruct or interfere anything that is provided in the interest of safety and health at workplace. In other words, employees are required to take care of their own safety and health and that of their colleagues or other employee who may be affected by what they did not do or what they did; cooperate with their employers and others such as contractors in meeting the safety and health requirements; and report. In addition, it is the duty of an employee to report any shortcomings in health and safety arrangements and not to misuse or interfere anything that is provided for in assuring the welfare, health or safety at work. Under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) an employee who breached any requirement under the act may be dismissed from work for being in reach of a contractual duty to carry out work with appropriate skill and care or he or she may be liable to pay fine on conviction. The employees in the case study were using the warehouse to store redundant equipments that include some damaged wooden racking. Under the act, the employees were not taking reasonable care for their health and safety for themselves and other persons who frequent visit the warehouse. The employees failed to report all the health and safety hazards to their employers.5 Reporting these incidents will help to safeguard social welfare and other rights which may arise as a result of an occupational accident. For example, a recent case that was brought against Plymouth City Council has highlighted just how onerous the provisions of HASAWA legislation can be. A cleaner that was employed by Plymouth City Council had injured her back and knee after falling over a plastic lunch box container. The container was used by the school to store student’s lunch boxes throughout the day. An earlier court decision had ruled in favor of the claimant under the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA). The council managed to appeal against the court’s decision on the grounds that it was part of the cleaner’s duties to tidy up. The appellant court agreed with the Plymouth City Council that the cleaner employed by the council had been the author of his own misfortune. In Priestly v. Fowler case, in this case, a delivery truck driven by a company driver overturned and caused serious injuries to another employee. The company was found to be liable, but the lawsuit was overturned by the appellant court in favor of favor of the company. The court argued that if suits such as Fowler were permitted against companies or employer, employees would soon forget about their duty not to hurt themselves. Conclusion All people whether employers or employees have legal right to be protected from health and safety risks. In general the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) and other common law imposes a range of duties of employees, employers and the self employed as well as others such as manufacturers, designers. These are expressed as broad general duties in the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Act but are spelt out in more detail in subsidiary regulations such as those dealing with the management of health and safety and specific health and safety issues. Read More