Rapid Essay Researchers We offer fast essays with the best content
Student name:
Module code: LC4S041
Title: Legislative and Professional Issues
Submission date:
Module Lecturer: Rob Wilks
Word count:
Contents
List of figures: 3
Introduction: 4
Background research: 5
The overview of The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974: 5
The overview of Case Law UK: 6
About the incident: 8
Further studies to measure the effectiveness of Health and Safety Act 1974: 11
Discussions and conclusion: 12
Recommendations: 13
Bibliography 14
List of figures:
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Case Law/Court Structure – England and Wales (SOAS, 2012) 6
Introduction:
The enclosed report is aimed exclusively to discuss about Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 that is practised in the UK at workplace. For the effectiveness of
discussions on workplace safety two companies based in the UK are chosen to demonstrate how Health and Safety Act 1974 are applied and evaluated how the act is applied
on daily basis.
Further the discussions are based on the UK case law in the context of workplace safety. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (abbreviated as HASAWA) is a
legislation that is related to Occupational Health and Safety in Great Britain. As a part of this act local authorities and enforcement executives are responsible in
order to bring and apply acts at workplace in order to keep and maintain required amount of health and safety required (HSE, 2015).
The underpinning aims of this act are to ensure health, safety and welfare of workforce at work place who are exposed to wide range of working conditions. Wide range
of aspects within health and safety aspects are covered as a part of this act such as use of harmful substances, gases, emissions related issues etc. Employees and
employers of every organisation are the key stakeholders of this practice for safe working conditions.
With the use of case law and health and safety acts the author has aimed to demonstrate how far this act is adapted in the workplace. Finally under the conclusion and
recommendations individual view is presented and future actions that are needed to make this act more effective and to ensure effective health and safety act is
practiced.
Background research:
To quantify how case law can help to employee as per HASAWA it is realistic to apply this on a particular incident on any industry along with use of Case Law to
demonstrate the actions that is required from both parties (employee & employer). To account for this a situation is utilised on an employee who is facing significant
challenges and poor working conditions at workplace. Based on the facts and figures of the incident the Case Law UK at the magistrate’s court is utilised to
demonstrate how law can help.
The overview of The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974:
HASAWA act 1974 sets out framework on health and safety for all employees in their work activities. This act covers educational institution, professionals,
manufacturing sectors, suppliers and self-employed (TUC, 2015). It is the responsibility of both employee and employer to comply with the law and a brief summary is
provided below,
Section 2 – It is the duty of employer to ensure health, safety and also welfare at workplace and should be to reasonably practicable. Trade unions and employers are
expected to be working together in order to promote better workplace health and safety.
Section 3 – This section particularly aims at young pupil (ex. educational institution) who may be affected by work related activities. Employer should ensure there
are no risks on their health and safety.
Section 4- Applicable to places where machinery within manufacturing plant does not endanger the personnel using them.
Section 5 – It is the duty of the employer to prevent and control harmful emissions to the atmosphere.
Section 6 – Related to designers, manufacturers to ensure the substances are safe to use.
Section 7 – Employees will require co-operation with their employers to maintain good health and safety issues.
Section 8 – Employees shall not misuse not interfere with anything do to with health and safety (ATL, 2015).
The overview of Case Law UK:
The UK Case Law is used to reprint full text of a judgement that mainly comprises of statements of facts and judicial reasoning that are made by the judges in the
court. Further the law comprises of additional material that are summary documents of legal issues, comprehensive list of cases cited and other key facts.
Figure 1. Hierarchy of Case Law/Court Structure – England and Wales (SOAS, 2012)
Figure 1 shows the hierarchy of how a reported case would progress in various courts in the UK. A number of cases go unnoticed in England and Wales and are heard on
annual basis. Bulk of cases never finds its way through to published report as they do not involved any significant point of law. Based on Figure 1 one of the reported
incidents from Hydro Aluminium Extrusion Ltd. is taken into account and presented using the Case Law as the expectation of this law is to use predefined format to
report out all the key facts.
The law has changed post 1865 in the way it is reported. Prior to 1865 law reports collection were published privately by individuals and these reporters were
collectively refer as “Nominate Reports”. Ever since the Bar Council setup the incorporated Council of Law reporting and henceforth Official Law Reports that is
comprised of all major courts.
The health and safety regulations and Case Law are arguably true and they are binding to each other as the responsibilities of the employers will need certain duties
of care at work place need to be practiced alongside they are responsible for the charges in the event of any negligence as per section 37. Relevant fines and
imprisonment are the consequences as per the safety act as confirmed by the case law (LibGuides, 2015).
From earlier discussions brief summary on the HASAWA number of areas the law changes are discussed. Using an incident that has occurred in one of the UK based employer
related to health and safety the UK Case Law is applied. The main objective of applying the Case Law is to demonstrate the core responsibilities of both employee and
employer and to specifically understand the consequences of poor health and safety at workplace. The Law (as briefly discussed earlier) will capture finite details of
the issue, the facts about the incident, the held, comments from the judgement with final judgement statement stating the guilty and the penalty.
About the incident:
Note: The incident is assumed and is exclusively to demonstrate and apply UK Case Law. The company Caparo Tubes is chosen as there are reports that suggests the poor
working conditions for their employees and therefore it make good fitment to demonstrate the law (Anon., 2011) (Thompsons, 2011).
Employee “X” is a shop floor personnel working for Caparo Tubes division in Oldbury West Midlands in the UK. His role involve working closely with hot and molten metal
working that involved high temperature exposure along with dangerous gases that are emitted during the molten metal processing and during various stages.
On several occasions Employee “X” have indicated the poor working conditions that does not offer safety equipment’s that is causing respiratory disorders along with
long shift of 10 to 12 hours a day. In order to withstand the harsh work environment in the last few days he has been addicted to excessive alcohol consumption in
order to compensate for the stress he is going through. Upon consulting a doctor it has come to light that he will need minor operation to cure respiratory disorders
and lungs are already damaged as a result of long term smoke at workplace. Currently the employee is filing a court place at the local court for poor health and safety
practice.
Using this incident the author will apply The Case Law UK and is presented below,
Employee “X” v Caparo Tube Ltd.
Court: Warwick magistrate’s court.
Judge: Judge “Y”
Date: 01/11/2015
Summary: Workplace health and safety, safety negligence, Section 2 & Section 5, harmful gases.
Facts: Based on consideration of full details of the complaint made by Employee “X” of Caparo Tube Ltd. it is learnt by the court that the employer have not practiced
health and safety at workplace as per HASAWA 1974 and in particular Section 2 & 5. The damages to the environment is seen due to harmful gases emitted to atmosphere
along with evidence submitted by employee related to respiratory disorders that are currently experienced and further advice for minor operation made by his doctor.
Separate applications and information were submitted dated 10/11/2015 & 19/11/2015 suggests long working hours which is against the employment terms and conditions are
considered by the court. Caparo Tube Ltd. have shown breach of employment rules, poor health and safety practice and failure to provide minimum required equipment’s on
shop floor.
Issue:
1. To examine the factual information provided is legitimate on behalf of the claimant?
2. What jurisdiction should the magistrate’s court to bring the employer to justice?
Held:
Following evidences were considered as provided by Employee “X” against his employer Caparo Tube Ltd. based on the health and safety grounds at workplace.
• Doctor certificates confirming the need for minor operation that is caused and proved from the exposure of toxic gases.
• Counselling report confirming the addiction to alcohol that is driven by the harsh and stressful working environment.
• Witnesses (Employee “X” colleagues) confirming the working conditions are appalling and that they do undergo stressful and long hours are work.
• Representatives from Caparo Tube Ltd. management failing to show relevant history and evidence of accurate practices related to health and safety.
Comments:
Applying the HASAWA 1975 act the employer’s treatment to its employees is an act of ignorance and abuse of environmental pollution control. Under the relevant
legislation for both employer duties towards environmental pollution and poor health and safety practices which are violation of Section 2 and 5 respectively. Criminal
proceedings are required on the employer based on the facts. There were enough opportunities available to the employer in order to understand the inadequate health and
safety practices along with emission regulations to address. Personal Injury Compensation Claim is needed for Section 2 violation on behalf on the employee to cover
the medical treatment needed as per doctor suggestion, claim for causing long term respiratory disorders, and claim for creating stressful working environment with no
emphasis on health and safety (Thompsons, 2011).
Judgement:
Author’s view based on the incident that is taken into consideration is that Caparo Tubes Ltd. have breached the laws in protecting their workforce and that they have
shown negligence on the environmental care that is part of employer’s responsibility. The Health and Safety Act 1974 clearly sets up the requirement for the employer
to adapt in the work place and that they should be reasonably practicable. Given that Caparo Tube Ltd. is an organisation that consists of more than five employees, it
is solely the responsibility of the employer to set general rules from Health and Safety point of view in their everyday work activities (5rb, 2012).
Further studies to measure the effectiveness of Health and Safety Act 1974:
The above incident on Caparo Tube Ltd. does not practice and have implemented Health and Safety 1974 act. However the study is extended further to another employer in
the UK to investigate on how this act has been treated by them. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. is one of the cutting edge industry and is a manufacturing company who will need
strict practice of health and safety at their manufacturing sites along with their supplier companies.
One of the incident that is gathered from their manufacturing plant in Solihull, UK suggests that one of the apprentice engineer cut his finger whilst he was on the
shop floor assembling a sheet metal using hand tools. The incident when discovered the engineer has been taken through the below procedure by the company health and
safety department,
• First aid services were instantly provided to stop bleeding.
• Full scan of the finger was taken in the manufacturing plant.
• Full details of the incident were taken by the doctor in the presence of qualified Health and Safety officer.
• Points were noted down on how the incident took place.
• Detailed questions on what knowledge and training the engineer has currently gone through were checked. Archive folders about his training programme and Health
and Safety awareness were checked.
• Relevant medicines were provided to cure the wound.
• Safety procedures that were provided at his job were scrutinised, his immediate line manager were contacted to check his track record in understanding his
knowledge on the shop floor from Health and Safety point of view.
• It was later discovered his own willing not to use safety gloves caused the incident.
• From further investigation in the last 365 days the Health and Safety records suggests only 3 minor and no major incidents reported that reflects on how
effective the procedures, policies and systems are devised within the plant that has ensured excellent track record.
• Following the incident, complete details about the incident was taken and recorded to train and educate similar apprentice engineers in the shop floor along
with more supervision provided to the engineer who cut his fingers.
From the above discussions it is very evident that the Health and Safety Act 1974 is practiced within Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. very accurately and therefore the engineer
cannot claim legal proceedings on the employer rather it is a negligence caused due to lack of poor practices that may have injuries.
From both situations and incidents that are seen from Caparo Tube Ltd. and Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. the author’s view is discussed below,
Two different employers have different views from Health and Safety Act point of view that is clearly reflected from their actions and the track record. One of the
strong reasons why Caparo Tube Ltd. is not practicing Health and Safety Law is the organisation mission and vision does not account the employee welfare. Previous
evidences and witness at their manufacturing facilities have proved their inferior practice.
From author’s view there are factual evidences that can prove there are no systems and process within the company that can govern nor train them for the benefit of
both employee and employer. On several occasions they have failed to establish the root cause to the situation and no evidence of investigations. Currently the
employee is undergoing long term health disorders that should be dealt with law and relevant justice should be provided to the claimant.
On the other example of Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. the firm has exhibited all necessary law, systems, processes and procedure in place that can allow the employee to
understand, learn and adapt and this can ensure high level of Health and Safety. Reflecting this back on the employee duties and responsibilities it is clear that the
company have understood the welfare of the employee in order to promote safe working environment. Further based on their previous track record on minor injuries it
signifies how effective their Health and Safety policies and how efficiently the workforce are trained to do simple to complex jobs. It is worth noting the deep dive
investigation that is conducted following the incident that records all the factual information that may allow them to prepare their workforce to even better and safe
working environment suggests there is utmost priority for safety at workplace to their employees.
Conclusion:
From the discussion presented in the earlier sections of the report the author can recall the use of Case Law on Caparo Tube Ltd. that showed negligence on its
workforce. Based on the facts and other evidences available from author’s point of view Caparo Tube Ltd. is holds the complete responsibility in showing negligence
towards employee welfare and therefore no evidence of practicing Health and Safety Law. As per the guidelines of the law and what is seen from the incident the
employer should be dealt with court and bring them to justice.
Further to investigate on how efficiently other company who also have manufacturing environment Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. is consider. A similar example of a minor wound
on its employee was dealt with high standards showing great deal of care and employee welfare. Therefore their vision and mission also is focused on the safe work
culture and aimed towards zero incidents.
From the investigation it can be concluded that employer shall get sufficient understanding on the consequences of such incidents via the Health and Safety Act board.
This is a joint effort that is needed from the employer and the safety council to promote safe working environment along with caring for their employees. The enclosed
report does not address the question of how many companies have been practicing the Health and Safety Act, rather it has taken into account two companies to compare
and contrast their view on health and safety. More awareness is needed for firms that are not practicing and more care are needed from companies who are currently
practicing and is therefore an ongoing continuous improvement process before it can be concluded all employers follow Health and Safety Law.
Bibliography
1. 5rb, 2012. MXB v East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust. [Online]
Available at: http://www.5rb.com/case/mxb-v-east-sussex-hospitals-nhs-trust/
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
2. Anon., 2011. Hazards Magazine. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hazards.org/news/2011/
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
3. ATL, 2015. Health and safety legislation. [Online]
Available at: https://www.atl.org.uk/health-and-safety/legal-framework/health-safety-legislation.asp#1
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
4. HSE, 2015. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/legislation/hswa.htm
[Accessed 14 November 2015].
5. LibGuides, O., 2015. UK law reporting. [Online]
Available at: http://ox.libguides.com/content.php?pid=141334&sid=1205597
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
6. SOAS, 2012. Understanding U K Case Law, s.l.: SOAS.
7. Thompsons, 2011. Shredded arm leads to steel firm paying damages. [Online]
Available at: http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ntext/shredded-arm-steel-firm-damages.htm
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
8. TUC, 2015. WHAT ARE MY EMPLOYER’S DUTIES UNDER THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ACT?. [Online]
Available at: https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/employer-duties/what-are-my-employers-duties-under-health-and-safety
[Accessed 29 November 2015].
TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENTS DONE AT A CHEAPER PRICE, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US NOW.