Health and Safety at Work - Case Study Example

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC ACT 1974 (HASAWA 1974). Introduction HASAWA 1974 has made astounding strides in facilitating the safety of the workplace for both the employees and any other individuals who visit the workplace, especially in the case of service organizations such as health care facilities. Initially, the legislation was focused at mechanical and technical considerations in the workplace, putting more emphasis on the hazards towards which employees may be exposed to. Nevertheless, the Act has undergone huge changes regarding its implementation and scope, embracing the need to protect the patients from a prevention perspective, requiring the employer to consult with the employees in the establishment of different measures through which their safety can be enhanced. The Act manages the safety of employees with all aspects of safety considered, right from the technical facet to the theoretical construct (Lèfstedt 2011, p. 5). As such, employers are expected to provide knowledge and training necessary for the employees to uphold their safety in the workplace. Also, the need to protect the clients of an organization from injury or any other form of harm that could have been otherwise prevented by the organization has increasingly been noted. Both the employers and the employed have a role to play in the implementation of the Act. This paper is going to review the depth to which the HSWA 1974 is providing safety at the workplace. Employer Responsibility The employer has the primary responsibility in upholding the safety and health at the workplace. The mandate lies with the management to ensure that a proper framework has been put in place to enable the management of health and safety matters, and that the work environment is set according to standards of good health and safety. The employers play the central role in coordinating all stakeholder efforts towards safeguarding the health of the employers and any other person that interacts with the organizations within its premise, including the consumers and the suppliers (Griffith, Tengnah, & Patel 2010, p. 236). The HASAWA 1974 has changed this mere responsibility into a requirement by law, whereby the law demands the active role of employers in ensuring the safety of their employees from any form of harm while on duty or within the business premise. The employers are also required by law to make sure that other people’s safety is upheld, especially in service industries where there is direct interaction between the business and the customers, who come within their premises, or with whom they interact in rendering their services outside the premises. Contributions made by the employer towards ensuring health and safety at the workplace is integral in the effectiveness of the HASAWA 1974. It is through the HASAWA 1974 that the need for health and safety at the workplace has become a right and not a mere privilege that can be provided by some of the employers and not others. The employers are obligated to provide such health and safety under the provisions of the Act, making them legally liable for any injuries incurred as a result of failure to observe safety measures. This has greatly influenced the level of involvement of the employers in health and safety management at the workplace with most of them embracing precautionary measures in the view of avoiding negative repercussions. Ensuring Workplace Safety Section 2 of HSWA 1974 provides that all employers should do their best to safeguard the welfare, safety, and health of employees while at work. As such, the employer is expected to put all measures in place in ensuring that the equipment used at the workplace and the procedures are considerate of the safety of the employees. The HSE conducts inspection of organizational facilities to ensure that all the procedures and equipment are designed according to the provisions and uphold the safety and health of the employees (Griffith & Tengnah, p. 220). The HSWA provision has been well expounded such that it could hold individual administrators within the organization liable for any injury or harm that an employee may be exposed to as a result of their negligence. Unlike initially where such liability could only be placed on the entire organization, the current approach has allowed for increased accountability among managers and directors in organizations. This has increased the accountability of the directors and managers within companies when it comes to the management of employees’ safety and health. Initially, such individuals would hide beneath the umbrella of their organizations as they knew that the organization would be held liable and take care of any involved costs. However, the effectiveness of the HSWA in isolating individuals who are negligent from the cocoon created by the organizations from which they work has made the Act more effective in ensuring safety and the workplace. Such application of the law was evident in the cases “JM Enterprises of Wetherby Ltd – Mather: case nos. C911/68-75; Jackson: case nos. C921/77-82” (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CIPD] 2006, p. 6/13). In this case, Mather and Jackson were held liable for the death of Mick Mason that resulted from explosives that he had bought from their company. Unlike in previous cases, the company was not held liable alongside these individuals. The administrators were indicted under section 37 of the HSWA 1974 considering the type of control they had within the company, which made them responsible for major decisions, including the selling of the Turbo 3 Rockets, which had been termed unsafe. This case was a clear indication of the responsibility of the employer in safeguarding the safety and health of both employees and consumers of their products and services. As such, employers have been pushed by the Act towards ensuring that both their premise and product and services observe all the safety standards in place and that they mitigate any chances of jeopardizing the health and safety of consumers and employees (Public and Commercial Service Union [PCS] 2015; The National Archives 2015). Risk Assessment The "Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 [MHSWR]" acknowledges the importance of establishing a system for safety management to allow for proper implementation of the HSWA (Matthews & Ageros 2010). A sufficient and effective risk assessment framework forms an integral part of the system. Regulation 3 of the MHSWR requires employers to ensure they consistently assess the risk presented by the employees working environs, both within the premises and outside the premises (Matthews & Ageros 2010, p. 355; Bateman 2006, p. 115). Besides employers are expected to assess any risk that other stakeholders including the consumers and suppliers may be exposed to in their interaction with the employer’s company. This also applies to the activities that involve the employees, some of which may be carried out outside the premise at a work station, where the public is exposed to risk. It is up to the employer to ensure that all possible measures are put in place to mitigate such exposure to risk. Therefore, risk assessment forms an important part of the employer’s mandate in upholding employee health and safety. This has been made possible by the HSWA through the provided framework which offers employers with guidelines for risk assessment, an aspect that has allowed them to base their local policies and measures on such board approaches. Through guiding the employers on how to carry out risk assessment, the HSWA has thus increased effectiveness in the efforts of the employers directed towards upholding the safety of the employees and other stakeholders. In organizations with more than five employees, it is required of the employee to make frequent assessments of the equipment and procedures and to document the findings (Stranks, 2010 p. 53). It is only through proper assessment of risk that the employers can be aware of the areas that are likely to cause harm or injury to the employees and other persons who may be affected by their activities. It is based on such awareness that proper measures are established to safeguard the health and safety of the employees and other persons. In cases where the employers fail to assess risk, such risks develop into actual events and expose their organizations to liability under the law. Case in point, in the case of Fresha Bakeries: “case no.F090000173; Harvestime Ltd: case no. F090000174”, a bakery in Leicester was asked to pay costs of up to £69,300 and £105,000 in fine after they pleaded guilty to violation of section 37 of the HSWA 1974 (CIPD, 2006, p. 6/12). This judgement followed the events of 16 May 1998 when two of the company’s employees died in an oven after they had been asked to enter into it and retrieve a piece that had broken off. With a conveyor belt that was moving at a slow pace, exposure of the employees to temperatures above 100⁰ C led to their death. It was upon the bakery to conduct an assessment of the oven and to determine the risk associated with sending in employees or any other parties while they are heated. Lack of prior assessment of the condition towards which the employees were being exposed led to no realization of the danger involved and thus the death of the employees. The HSE has made clear its intent to ensure that all organizations are compliant to this regulation and that they constantly assess and document the condition of their systems and procedures (Hughes & Ferrett 2015). Such records could be demanded at any point for inspection. In addition, when an employee sustains an injury while on duty, records of risk assessment are used to determine whether the employer is liable for the damages caused or not. Health and Safety Policy Section 2 of the HSWA 1974 also requires employers to establish a health policy that covers employees' health and safety related matters and the firm at large (The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 2014). Such a policy is expected to be revised as often as possible and to be communicated to the employees effectively. Constant revision of the policy could be attributed to the changing work environment, which are characteristic of changes in the risks that employees may be exposed to. Topic specific guidance and provisions within the local policies also supplement an organization’s policy, providing terms and conditions under which the employees are expected to work. A policy provides a framework upon which the larger HSWA legislation is interpreted. This involves breaking down the legislation into its constituent smaller parts that can be well understood with respect to the organizational design. Employers are expected to not only provide the employee with information concerning the policy, but to educate them on aspects of the policy and safety measures that ought to be uphold within the organization to prevent injury to the employees and any other stakeholders, and to cut on the cost of liability (Brumfitt, Barnes, & Norris 2001, p. 58). Such a rule imposed by the HSWA has made it possible for safety at the work place to be dealt with proactively and not reactively, with the management being forced to come up with a safety strategic plan, through which they are able to check and counter-check risk areas and address them appropriately before they turn into real safety problems Employee consultation The employers are also required by the provisions of the HSWA 1974, to discuss with the employees regarding any matters that involve safety and health of the latter (Mansfield et al. 2012, p. 100). As such, the employees are expected to play an active role in their health and safety initiative. Engagement of the employee in making such timely and challenging decisions is important as these decisions directly affect them in their practice within the organization. By engaging the employees, they can contribute various ideas, which when sieved through may provide the best ideas that can be used in safeguarding their health and safety. The employees are likely to offer the best ideas since they interact more with the pre-determined risks and understand their problems on the floor of the organization more that the employer. Organizations that fail to consult the employees in the establishment of measures that would improve safety are not only discouraged from imminent failure of their approaches but are also held liable under the law (Mansfield et al. 2012, p. 101). Such a provision under the HSWA has promoted effectiveness of the Act in managing health and safety at the workplace through promotion of a collaborative approach towards identification and management of problems. It is important to note that engagement of employees allows them to develop a sense of ownership pof the initiative, making them active players in the management of the safety. Employee Responsibility Unlike the employer, the role of employees in workplace health and safety is peripheral but equally important. In most cases, the role of the employee revolves around compliance with the already established frameworks and directives by the law. Nevertheless, there has been a continuous push by the law towards ensuring the employees are well engaged in the process of development of health and safety measures. Engagement in policy development Employees are highly engaged in the process of establishment of workplace safety and health. The law requires the employers to consult the employers in the development of a health and safety framework that would govern all the operations of the organizations in upholding the safety and health needs of all the professions within the organization (Gennard & Judge 2002, p. 258). Such consultation by the employer is not limited to certain aspects but involves all the issues that may have an impact on the safety, health, and welfare of the employees. Employees, thus, have a responsibility either directly or through their representatives to express their opinions concerning work organization, processes, or equipment, which may have an impact on their health, welfare and safety (Marson & Ferris 2015, p. 544). Through making it a legal mandate for the employees to be consulted in safety management at the workplace, the HSWA has promoted adoption of mechanisms that work by the employers since the employees, who are directly affected by the mechanisms, play a role in the establishment of such mechanisms. This has led to increased effectiveness of the health and safety initiatives as the employees employ mechanisms and goals that they approve and thus lay the lead role in implementing them. Complying with risk management work systems Employees are expected to comply with the risk assessments that have been agreed upon, as provided for by the hierarchical approach of “Control of Substances Hazardous to Health [COSHH]” (HSE 2015). Specifically, the effectiveness of systems of work can only be affirmed through compliance by individuals to them. As such, the employees are required to comply with various rules including policies for disposal, laboratory rules, disinfection and decontamination procedures, and sharps policies. It is important for the employee also to play an active role in the identification of the risks within an organization as related to their work, and reporting such risk to the employer to enable undertaking of measures to improve the condition (Sagar, Mead, & Bampton 2009, p. 121). Noncompliance with the provided system of work may lead to an employee being held liable for any dangers that they may expose to other persons within an organization. Various cases as posted on the HSE website have shown employees held liable for violation of Section 7 of the HSWA, through equipment misuse or utilization of equipment that they are not skilled at handling. Case in point, in S. Carroll: case no. F080000383, the defendant exposed another employee within the company to risk considering his knowledge of the forklift and the instances in which it can be used (CIPD 2006, p. 6/8). The defendant was fined £259 upon pleading guilty of violation of section 7. Through allowing for consultation with the employer and establishment of a system of work, the HSWA allows the employee to participate actively in the evaluation of the established safety systems and their effectiveness in meeting the health and safety needs of the workforce within the organization. Employment or provided controls Employees should properly use any controls that they are provided with by the employer and other regulations (Booth et al. 2009, p. 109). The employees determine the success or the failure of the implementation of the provisions of the law that governs health and safety at the workplace. When employees fail to observe the controls given to them, they are likely to expose themselves, or other parties to risks. Organizational health and safety frameworks are important in guiding employees towards achievement of the health and safety goals of the organization. The employees also have a role in the identification of any problems within the provided work system, and to make sure that, if problems exist, they are well reported and addressed. Employees who fail to consider the controls provided to them may be held liable for the damages they cause and the risk they expose themselves or others within an organization. For instance, in the case of “John Patton Bell: case no. F140000365, Patton Bell” was fined £150 for injuring himself as a result of driving a Side Loader. The court held that the defendant failed to take reasonable care for his health and safety as well as that of other persons including a school-age child, whom he carried in the ride just before the accident (CIPD 2006, p. 6/8). It is clear from the court’s ruling that the employee has a responsibility to adhere to any controls that may be forwarded to them to promote their health and safety. By holding employees legally liable for damages cause by their acts of negligence under the HSWA, the Act ensures that employees are more cognizant of their steps at the workplace and that they are always evaluating their efforts against the set standards and the organizational standards to avert any possibilities of being subjected to court processes. Conclusion It is evident that HASAWA 1974 is active and well embedded into the work environment and into both operational and strategic approaches towards ensuring that each employee is provided with a working environment that is suitable for them. Various provisions of the Act have been applied in the courts of law to define justice in cases that involved various individuals and organizations, which failed to consider the basics of health and safety at the workplace. The roles of the employer and the employee in the implementation of this Act are distinct but related. The employer’s responsibilities are central to the implementation of the Act as the employer sets the workplace environment and implements most of the other legal regulations to promote risk assessment. On the contrary, the employee’s role is to comply with the provided instructions with a notable increasing need for their input in the policy development process when consulted. From this paper, it is clear that the each player has a role to play in promoting an efficient workplace, with the roles differing but related. The importance of the issue of safety is unquestionable with the need for increased investment in employee safety training and assessment of the entire system of work likely to be prioritised in the future. Reference List Bateman, M 2006, Tolley's Practical Risk Assessment Handbook, Routledge, London. Booth, N Robson, C Welham, J Barnard, A & Bartlett, N 2009, Tolley's Managing a Diverse Workforce, Routledge, London. Brumfitt, K Barnes, S & Norris, L 2001, Human Resources, Nelson Thornes, Cheltenham. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2006, Employment Law in Practice, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Gennard, J & Judge, G 2002, Employee Relations, CIPD Publishing, London. Griffith, R & Tengnah, C 2010, Law and Professional Issues in Nursing, SAGE, New Castle. Griffith, R Tengnah, C & Patel, C 2010, Law and Professional Issues in Midwifery, SAGE, New Castle. Health and Safety Executive, 2013, Health board fined after failing to protect worker from attack, viewed 15 Nov 2015, Health and Safety Executive 2015, How to carry out a COSHH risk assessment, viewed 16 Nov 2015, Hughes, P & Ferrett, E 2015, Introduction to Health and Safety at Work: For the NEBOSH National General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety, Routledge, London. Lèfstedt, R 2011, Reclaiming Health and Safety for All: An Independent Review of Health and Safety Legislation, The Stationery Office, London. Mansfield, G Brown, D Forshaw, S Korn, A Palca, J & QC, D 2012, Blackstone's Employment Law Practice 2012, OUP Oxford, Oxford. Marson, J & Ferris, K 2015, Business Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Matthews, R & Ageros, J 2010, Health and Safety Enforcement: Law and Practice, OUP, Oxford. Public and Commercial Services Union 2015, Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, viewed 15 Nov 2015, Sagar, D Mead, L & Bampton, K 2009, CIMA Official Learning System Fundamentals of Ethics, Corporate Governance and Business Law, Elsevier, Philadelphia. Stranks, J 2010, Health and Safety at Work: An Essential Guide for Managers, Kogan Page Publishers, London, The National Archives, 2015, Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, viewed 15 Nov 2015, The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 2014, Health and Safety at Work Act, viewed 15 Nov 2015, Read More