Employment 7- UK Health and Safety Law Flashcards
intro health and safety law?
Clear focus ept2 = discrim law Harras v and also reme discri la Having comlete discrim law Topics cover bc requirements law that we cover them LESS CARENTRY BE IN EXAM B UTT POSSIBEL, Today = basic if uk
review of lec 6?
Review:
In lecture 6, we acquired the ability to:
(i) explain in detail and apply the law on remedies re a discrimination claim; and
(ii) explain in detail and apply the remaining 2 of the 4 main types of prohibited conduct (PCo), namely:
S 26: Harassment; and
S 27: Victimisation;
the other 2 main types being:
S 13: Direct discrimination; and
S 19: Indirect discrimination
preview of lec 7?
Preview:
Lecture 7:
In lecture 7, we’ll finally move away from discrimination law and consider the topic of health and safety law, with a particular focus on the general duties owed by an employer under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) 1974 and the guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HASE)
intro to lec 7?
Welcome to lecture 7 of our Employment Law 2 module, our only lecture on health and safety law
what about HAWASA?
The Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) 1974 is not in our statute book, so there is less expectation on us to provide statutory authority in our answers should there be an exam question on Health and Safety (HAS)
WHAT IS IT BOTH?
It’s both an implied term and a specific statutory duty under the HASAWA that all employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the HAS of their employees
intro in other wors?
Key stat above
Hassle health and saf work- not in sta book but sitl refer to some stat
Basic helath safety in uk
Its both impleid terma nd stat duty hat all employr have duty to take rreaosnable care for health and safety employees- basic start point
Found speci s.2 health safte- says give employer sbeit leeway has to be reaosmable practicable – ptoetc health and safety of ppl in workplace
why is HAS a controversial area?
HAS is a controversial area because employers hugely resent the burden placed on them by:
(i) the wording of the HASAWA; and
(ii) the guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HASE), places on them
the coservative party continues to?
The Conservative Party continues to promise to reduce these burdens to help small UK businesses
always been contro in other words?
Always been contro area bc much like discrim emloyers resentful of burdens imposed byr req of hasle and alwell been aware of act have to be aware of health safety execut= indepdnant watch dog
it kind of in a wa what in other words?
. Its kind of in away attached to deprment of trade and industry but supposed to be idnepdnant than gov. but is clear connected between health and safety exec and department for trade and industry.
now something else in other words?
Now soemthign else keep agreeing that as a general rule the labour aprty focuses its attention n protecting rght for workers wheras labour for employrs. So perhaps not surpisng whever conserve keep maing promises dow hat they can to reduce burden imposed by employers help uk business to thrive. Helath safety as disliked emplyes as will discrim law
HASAWA was passed when?
The HASAWA was passed in 1974 because the Robens Committee had decided that, rather like discrimination law before the Equality Act 2010, there were too many different statutes which needed to be consolidated
under the hawasa?
Under the HASAWA, 1 body, the HASE, is charged with overseeing HAS
what does hawas cover?
The HASAWA covers all employees and non-employees except domestic workers
what is the key?
The key is whether employers control them:
passed when in other words?>
Passed way abck 1974 bc commite above – unne complica leg at time.
Un ifed equal act 2010- various did acts unifed con in the health and safety work so as we agreed its that act that makes it job of health and safety exec to supervise and oversee the helathy and safety of workers around he uk. It cobvers pretty much everybody so s.2 looks at wording relates to employees but s.3 4 extend beyond employes to even sometimes visitors who dotn even work for them, why employers don’t like cos wide.
Employer lec 9/10 various test court apply – 1 test was control test, more conrrol that employer excercised over worked, the greater chance court consie worker to be employee. And similarly with h and s and liability for h and s the court will consider the bgretaer control employer has over worker, more likely considerd liable and repson for he and s of that worker
what is the case?
Biffa Waste Services Ltd (BWS) v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GmbH (MEH) 2008:
biffa waste case in depth?
BWS sued MEH which had contracted to build a plant for BWS but had sub-contracted the work to an independent company which had caused a fire
The HC: MEH was responsible for the sub-contractor’s failure as MEH had imposed sufficient control over the way the plant had been built to have become responsible
The CA: allowed MEH’s appeal, ruling that BWS could not establish MEH’s liability as the sub-contractor’s workers had too much independence as MEH supervised but didn’t control them
biffa important point?
The important point re Biffa 2008 is that it was the case in which the CA established the control principle:
Where an employer controls an independent contractor, it is vicariously liable for the HAS of the independent contractor’s workers
Breach of the HASAWA leads to a criminal prosecution rather than civil liability
There are around 1,000 prosecutions per year
wasnt efficient in other words?
Wasnr effiencient but did establish trst
if found to have rbeached any sectios its actually crime so subject to cim prosecution than civl most go to fine b ut still a crime
s.20-22 in other words and normal?
Sections 20-22 HASAWA grant powers to HASE Inspectors
Detail alter sec – s.2 duty care where practicle
s.20- 22 cover pwers inspectors do to ensur safety of worke rin work place.
s.21 and 22 bas cover genral right sinspector has to try ensure h and s of workers in workplace
concepts of vic liability?
The concepts of vicarious liability, harassment and bullying, which we came across when considering discrimination law, all apply equally to HAS
s.20 1?
Section 20(1): If an Inspector believes an employer is in breach of a statutory provision, he can issue against the employer an Improvement Notice (IN) to remedy the breach
s.20 2?
Section 20(2): Inspectors can enter premises at reasonable or dangerous times, and can take away items for examination and investigation if they feel this is necessary
s.20 2 in other words?
s.20 2 has massive lsit of power grnated to inspector e.g enter premises, if ehard com heard by nutcase polic constable, take away items for exmainatio, they can bring with them equip, hey can conduct investi, many powers to enabele inspectgors of ha nd s exec to supervie and investigate the working practise of emplpyer to ensure no dodgy machines, that non workers lives at risk
A in must give what?
An IN must give the employer at least 21 days to remedy the breach
An IN may give details of how to remedy the situation in a schedule attached to the notice
An IN does not remain in force when an employer appeals against it
s/21 in other words?
s.21 improvement notice and s.22 is prohibition notice. Prohib most feared by emplpoyer but employer not hughely innumberd by improve notice.
Improve norice 21 days to ,make improve e.g machine needs improved month to replace or alter so no logner dang
And contained within notice mgith eb isntrutions provided by isnpectior to do to bring in line with h and s law.
1 reason employer appeals it seizies to be live until appeal heard that improvement notice put on stand stil meven where appeals
Prohibition notice continues to apply even where employer appeals
Impro – bad
Prohiv - badder
s.22 ?
Section 22: If an Inspector believes an employer is in breach of a statutory provision, and to carry on in this way will involve a risk of serious personal injury, they can issue against the employer a prohibition notice (PN)
an example of pn?
An example of a PN is a requirement that workers wear safety equipment such as safety goggles to use certain machines
pn usually has what?
A PN usually has immediate effect but may kick in after a certain period
as with in a pn what?
As with an IN, a PN may give details of how to remedy the situation in a schedule attached to the notice
unlike improvement employer what?
Unlike improvement employer no time to repair its immediate and if aston were to appeal wouldn’t tstop it being live,nto stp it beig valid prohib notice
Detila in notice before employee cnan continue to operate
Limtied to sit where feels SERIOUS PERSONA INJURY- vague risk = improve but serious= prohib
however unlike IN?
However, unlike an IN, a PN remains in force when an employer appeals against it
what will an et consider?
An ET will consider whether the duty the IN or PN imposes is:
(i) reasonably practicable - Associate Dairies Ltd v Hartley 1979; - or
(ii) absolute - South Surbiton Co-operative Society v Wilcox 1974
what is another thing to note?
Another thing to note duty is sometimes the notice provided = include wording where REASONABLY PROACTICABLE and sometimes absolute…
Gotta be reaombale aksing wmplyer to do.
1 standard h and safety law- ALAR – as low as reasonable possible. So sometimes zero tol but sometimes requirements risk of injry alr
the distinction is important bc what? and et
The distinction is important because, provided the duty the IN or PN imposes is reasonably practicable rather than absolute, there are 4 grounds on which an employer can appeal to the ET re an IN or PN
what can et confirm?
The ET can affirm, modify or cancel an IN or PN
The 4 grounds of appeal are:
(i) it did not breach a statutory duty;