Archive for the ‘Health and Safety’ Category
By Olivia - Tuesday, May 18th, 2010
It is a well established principle that employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees acting in the course of their employment. Sometimes this can have devastating consequences such as in this case reported on by the Health and Safety Executive.
Great Western Hospitals Trust has been fined £75,000 after a drug mix up killed a mother hours after giving birth. Maria Cabrera, who was also a nurse at the hospital in Swindon, was given an epidural drug in her arm instead of a saline solution. Investigations showed that the two drugs were stored in the same racking system, despite having almost identical packaging.
The NHS Trust admitted breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 by putting the safety of patients at risk due to the unacceptable storing of drugs and the administration of drugs. By way of reminder, section 3 (1) states ‘it shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.’‘
Sadly it has taken some six years since Mrs Cabrera’s death for this case to be resolved.
Posted in Health and Safety | 1 comment »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Monday, March 15th, 2010
In the case of Mr Jennings - v - H & P Freightway Limited the EAT upheld the Tribunal’s decision that the Claimant’s dismissal was not automatically unfair under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
In brief the Claimant had been employed for less than 12 month’s as a HGV driver. In November 1998 the Claimant was in Dewsbury when he received a telephone call from his line manager requesting that he pick up a load from Billingham the following morning. The Claimant informed his line manager that he had had a heavy week and he was not likely to be a state to do the job the following morning. The conversation was left with the Claimant’s line manager having given him an instruction to pick a load up the folloiwng morning.
However, the following day the Claimant spent three hours in Hull and returned to Teesside without having picked the load up in Billingham. He refused to return to get the load and was subsequently dismissed for refusing to obey reasonable instructions.
The Claimant, who had less than 12 month’s service, claimed that his dismissal was automatically unfair. He claimed that he refused to collect the load because he had had a busy week and he was tired. He therefore argued that his refusal was on the grounds of health and safety and his subsequent dismissal for refusing to obey an instruction was automatically unfair.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant did not give any evidence to suggest that he believed there was any danger in picking up the load, he was only tired, and he had not exceeded his driving hours. Therefore, the Tribunal found that his refusal to do the job he was instructed to do did not amount to a health and safety risk and his subsequent dismissal was not tyherefore automatically unfair.
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Tuesday, October 27th, 2009
The BSI has published a Code of Practice which gives recommendations for the provision of services based on lone worker devices.
Increasing number of people in the UK work alone and use lone worker devices for personal safety as they transmit location, identity and voice to a monitoring centre and are able to request assistance.
If you are a lone worker or an employer with employees working from home or during abnormal hours (bearing in mind you have an obligation to ensure the health and safety of your workforce whether they are in the office or working at home) then the recommendations set out in this C.O.P may be of interest. See www.bsigroup.com for more information.
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Olivia - Wednesday, September 9th, 2009
A second wave of the swine flu virus is anticipated this autumn/winter. The government last week predicted that peak absence rates until May 2010 could reach 12%. Employers groups, are however, anticipating absence rates of up to 27% and larger organisations such as Sainsbury’s and the BBC are putting in place contingency plans.
Business continuity plans are, in our view, a must for all business, size regardless, in these circumstances. Indeed, it is smaller employers who are more likely to struggle if employees are off sick or to care for dependants. That said, the BBC do concede they may have slightly overreacted in stockpiling Tamiflu, masks, and protective suits and boots!
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Tuesday, July 21st, 2009
I loved this joke from the practice management team today which I thought I would share….
If you wake up looking like this then please don’t go to work. I know it is a real pig but you need to stay at home!
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Sarah - Thursday, July 9th, 2009
The Department of Health has said it is actively considering allowing employees to self-cert for two weeks for “swine flu” as part of the measures it is exploring to contain the outbreak. It is estimated that the cost of a swine flue outbreak could cost employers millions across the UK economy if it gets as bad as experts predict.
The difficulty with the extension to self-cert that employers groups are cautious about, is the ability for employees to abuse the system. The difficulty is that the symptoms of swine flu are very similar to ordinary flu at the outset until diagnosis is made. Is this system open to a higher degree of abuse than the current rules or is it necessary to save costs in the long run?
Posted in Health and Safety, Sick Pay | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Wednesday, October 1st, 2008
This month would appear to be the month for changes in employment law.
I am sure you are all aware that as of today, the minimum wage has increased to the following: -
- Workers aged 22 years and above are now to receive a minimum wage of £5.73 per hour,
- A development rate of £4.77 per hour is to be paid to workers aged 18-21 (inclusive)
- Workers under 18 years of age and no longer of compulsory school age receive the rate of £3.53 per hour
Secondly as of today the legislation concerning the displaying of employer liability insurance certificates has been changed. As I am sure you are aware, employers are legally obliged to display at least one copy of this certificate at each place of business where employees work. It is now satisfactory for this certificate to be available in an electronic form provided that each employee has access to it in that form. For more information please click here.
A third change impacts on maternity legislation. Women expecting babies after the 5 October will be entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment when they are on additional maternity leave as when they are on ordinary maternity leave.
A fourth change takes effect as of the 27 October 2008. The Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable) Treatment Regulations will be amended to enable agency workers employed under fixed term contracts of less than 3 months to be entitled to Statutory Sick Pay. For the draft Regulations please click here.
The fifth and final change comes into force on 27 October 2008 and creates a benefit called Employment and Support Allowance which will effectively combine Incapacity Benefit and Income Support for new applicants claiming incapacity benefit. For more information please click here.
In a nutshell, these are the main changes coming into effect this month, which you need to be aware of and, if necessary, ensure provisions within your business are made to take account of them!!!
Posted in Family Friendly, Health and Safety, Maternity, National Minimum Wage, Sick Pay, Uncategorized | 2 comments »
Similar Posts:
By Jenny - Thursday, September 11th, 2008
There was a recent case at the EAT dealing with the issue of time off for safety representative training.
Regulation 4(2)(b) of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 states:
“An employer shall permit a safety representative to take such time off with pay during the employee’s working hours as shall be necessary for the purpose of:
(b) undergoing such training aspects of those functions as may be reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant provisions of the Code of Practice relating to time off for training approved for the time being by the Health and Safety Commission under section 16 of the 1974 Act.”
In this case the employee was permitted by his employer to take 2 half days a week to undertake his duties as Unison Branch Health and Safety Officer. He submitted a request to attend training courses outside his two half day weekly allocation, one a course about accidents and the second a health and safety course.
In relation to the accident course the Tribunal had found that it was reasonable that the employee attend the course but that this could have been done in the two half days he already had. In relation to the health and safety course the Tribunal had looked at whether it was necessary for the employee to attend the course and also at the fact that the employer had not actually refused the request. Because the request had not been refused the Tribunal dismissed the employee’s claim.
The EAT held that the Tribunal should have looked at whether the 2 half days was sufficient for the employee to discharge his duties. If it was then there was no claim, if it wasn’t then there was a failure by the employer to allow reasonable time off for his training. The EAT said that the Tribunal should have looked at the amount of time off necessary to undergo such training as was reasonable. The EAT remitted it back to a fresh Tribunal.
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Nicky - Tuesday, August 19th, 2008
A recent article in Personnel Today reports that the failure of a hospital to ensure proper safety precautions were in place for an employee working with hazardous chemicals, was fined £22,000.00.
The employee in question had worked with the chemical for several years before an inspection by the Health and Safety Executive, who announced that the hospital were in breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
This clearly demonstrates the importance for employers to ensure that their health and safety obligations are fulfilled within the workplace, and failure to do so may result in financial punishment!!
Posted in Health and Safety | No comments »
Similar Posts:
By Emma - Thursday, April 3rd, 2008
This case is an useful reminder of the need for employers to conduct risk assessments where they employ women of child bearing age. Paragraph 34 onwards of the decision outlines the process involved in undertaking a risk assessment in relation to a pregnant employee in an office environment - identifying the risks posed by lifting, bending over etc and then assessing steps to mitigate those risks. The case illustrates the practical steps that need to be taken to meet the legal requirements under health and safety law.
What is noteworthy is that under the snappily titled Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1999 there is a requirement on the employer to make a record of the risk assessment but no requirement to give that record to the pregnant employee. An oral notification is sufficient.
Readers are reminded that if an employer fails to undertake such a risk assessment that failure could constitute sex discrimination and be actionable in the employment tribunal
Posted in Health and Safety, Maternity, Sex/Race Discrimination | No comments »
Similar Posts:
