Because Work shouldnt kill, injure, nor poison

Document Sample
Because Work shouldnt kill, injure, nor poison Powered By Docstoc
					Health & Safety Organiser, Health and Safety Unit, UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London, WC1H 9AJ. Tel:
020 75511156. Email: Website:
Out to UNISON safety reps and officers every two months – inside this issue:
Alternative Penalties                Fire Safety
Back Pain                            Hazards Conf.
Consultation                         Involving Workers
Corp. Manslaughter                   Smoking Bans
Coroner Reform                       Stress Conf.
Enforcement Conf.                    Work Transport

October/November 2006                                                                           Issue 46

Because Work shouldn’t kill,
injure, nor poison
At the time of writing, the Corporate Manslaughter Bill was                         before the House of
Commons for its second consideration
UNISON’s concerns over the adequacy of the current law to deal with organisations whose failings lead to
death were highlighted following the Zeebrugge disaster, which led to a 187 deaths. It proved impossible to
successfully prosecute the operators of the vessel. Since then there have been further high-profile disasters,
including the King’s Cross Fire, the Southall and Hatfield rail crashes, the Marchioness Pleasure boat disaster,
and the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster; but not one successful prosecution.

Where there have been successful prosecutions these have all been against small companies, where the
‘directing mind’ (the person clearly in control and responsible) has been easy to identify. In most large
organisations, complex management structures and devolved functions mean that it is virtually impossible to
satisfy the current legal criteria for a successful prosecution.

Following pressure from UNISON and others; the Law Commission recommended the creation of a new
offence of Corporate Killing in 1996. This was incorporated into the Labour Party’s 1997 Manifesto and led
to the Home Office consulting on a new bill (draft law). The 2001 Manifesto again committed the
Government to introducing a new law. Finally in July 2006, the Corporate Manslaughter Bill was presented
to Parliament. UNISON welcomes this fact but is concerned that the Bill contains a number of flaws and
omissions, which need to be addressed.
The Bill

The Bill covers corporations and most public sector and voluntary organisations. An organisation will commit
an offence if the way its activities are managed or organised by its senior managers lead to a death due to a
‘gross’ breach of the duty of care. This means that there must be conduct falling far below standards which
can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances.

However, if convicted of the new offence, the only penalty will be an unlimited fine, with the courts also able
to order an organisation to remedy any breach. Whilst this is a considerable improvement on the existing
situation, whilst the Government has not completely hidden behind Crown Immunity and so will partially be
covered by the new law, and whilst we also welcome the fact that the courts will be able to order steps to
remedy any breaches of health and safety law that may have led to a death; there are nevertheless, a number of
key areas where the Bill is clearly inadequate.

The ‘Senior Management Test’

There has been considerable criticism over the current definition of ‘senior manager’ and the focus that the Bill
gives to this role. The Bill only covers those who play a significant role in making decisions about, or actually
managing the activities of the company as a whole, or a substantial part of it. The larger the organisation, the
less likely that an individual manager will be deemed to be responsible for a ‘substantial’ part. This reduces the
likelihood that the actions of any sectoral or regional managers’ will be covered.

In larger organisations with complex management structures or a considerable amount of work subcontracted,
it may prove just as difficult as at present to bring a charge against the organisation. The proposed definition
of ‘senior manager’ is imprecise and too restrictive.


UNISON is concerned that the only sanctions available against an organisation will be an unlimited fine or a
remedial order. This is no different to now. Other penalties must be considered, including corporate
probation and disqualification of directors. Where fines are imposed, they should be significantly higher than
currently and in large private companies, should be linked to the profits.

The Government is currently considering sentencing options generally under the Macrory Review (see page 4).
As part of this review the Government should look at innovative sentencing options once organisations are

Unincorporated Bodies

Although the scope of the Bill is relatively broad, it does exclude unincorporated bodies, such as partnerships.
A parliamentary committee has already requested that the Government rectify this so that all organisations are
covered equally. UNISON supports this proposal, otherwise workplace deaths will still occur with no
organisation is held to account.


It is not organisations that kill, it is the actions or inactions of the people inside. Those people should be held
to account as individuals. There is nothing currently in the Bill which will do this.

UNISON recognises that this Bill is only able to deal with issues relating to corporate manslaughter as
opposed to individual directors’ duties. However, a new offence of corporate manslaughter will only be
effective if there is also a specific legal duty on directors. UNISON therefore strongly urges the Government
to impose a statutory duty on directors to take all reasonable steps to comply with health and safety obligations
as soon as possible.

UNISON also believes that the Bill should establish secondary liability, as recommended by a parliamentary
committee, for those who connive, conspire, or collude in an act which results in death. It is unclear why the
Government rejected this recommendation, and we urge that it is reconsidered.
In Conclusion

UNISON is pleased that the Government has finally introduced a bill and welcomes its broad coverage, but is
convinced that without considerable changes, without a positive duty on directors, and without greater
penalties; its effectiveness will be significantly compromised.

Next Steps

UNISON is briefing MP’s and has proposed two amendments to the Bill, focusing on the definition of a
manager and on the issue of individual liability.

• Families Against Corporate Killers (FACK) held a protest at the House of Commons on the day of the
second reading, to highlight the inadequacy of the current proposals. Family members held photos of their
loved ones who were killed at work, and then attended a meeting with MPs hosted by UNISON MP Katy
Clarke. For more on FACK, see the last issue of this newsletter.

Better Backs
Back pain is the leading cause of disability affecting over 1 million employees, including many UNISON
members. It is also a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) priority, and so earlier this October the HSE
officially re-launched its Better Backs campaign. UNISON has been involved with and supports this campaign.
Go                    to:                         and for more information, downloadable materials,
suggestions for organising events or how to get involved, a checklist (also at:, and more. Or call the HSE Infoline on
0845 345 0055.

Bullying - Update
A landmark decision will give added protection to those bullied at work. William Majrowski had suffered
persistent homophobic bullying from his manager. In ruling that the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act
applies to harassment and bullying at work even when the employer has not caused nor failed to prevent it, the
House of Lords held the employer vicariously liable. This means that an employer need not have negligently
failed to have stopped the bullying, nor must the victim have suffered psychological damage. Now the onus is
on the employer to stamp out unwanted behaviour. Lip service is not an option. UNISON’s guide, Bullying at
Work, will be revised—watch this space.

Diary Dates
Health and Safety Week - 23 Oct.
For    more     on     this,   see   the    last       issue     of    this    newsletter    or     go     to:

Stress Awareness Day -1 Nov.
National Stress Awareness Day aims to raise awareness of stress and how to tackle it. For more information
including a list of useful UNISON materials have a look at our webpages for the Day at: Branches can use the Day to raise awareness amongst
workers      and    employers,     and       to    begin      to     jointly   tackle     the     problem.

CCA Enforcement Conf. - 3 Nov.
There’s just about time (deadline 31 Oct.) to book a place on Whither Enforcement, a Centre for Corporate
Accountability conference taking place in London. It will cover various recent developments including: the
Corporate Manslaughter Bill, levels of HSE enforcement, the Macrory Review (see page 4), and the Coroners
Reform Bill. For the full programme and registration see your branch safety officer, call the CCA on: 020 7490
4494 or go to:

Ban Bullying at Work Day - 7 Nov.
This important initiative aims to raise awareness about workplace bullying and is organised by the Andrea
Adams Trust. See its website with various materials at: UNISON also has
various materials which will be of use. See our webpages for the Day and for Health and Safety Week 2006 at: UNISON will also be forwarding several copies of a new
poster for the Day direct to branch safety officers.
UNISON branch action might include:
• raising awareness of the problem - hold a meeting for members or a training
    session for safety reps,
• surveying members and discuss the results and how to tackle the problem with the employer, and
• With the employer jointly developing, revising, or promoting policies and procedures on workplace

Sickness Absence Conf. - 18 Nov.
Managing Sickness Absence with Care, is the theme for this years National Stress Network Conference which
UNISON        supports     and      is    involved   with.        For     more     information   go    to: or write to: Les Roberts, 33 Old Street,
Upton, Upon Severn, WORCS, WR8 0HN.

Hazards Conference - 2007
Hazards Conference is the UK’s best and largest safety reps conference, and next takes place from 27 - 29 July
2007 at the University of Manchester. Nationally, UNISON supports and sponsors the Conference and
further details will be sent out in due course. Hazards 2006 was extremely successful, with 258 UNISON safety
activists (50% of union delegates) experiencing a range of plenaries, meetings, and workshops.

But can you help? Sponsorship is urgently so that delegate fees can be kept to a reasonable figure. The
Conference is organised on a not for profit basis and is very good value for money. Your branch can support
the Conference by completing the sponsorship form sent to all branch health and safety officers and also
available on UNISON’s website at:

                                 Special Feature

Fire Risk Assessing
This article is a summary of UNISON’s fire safety information sheet and will give a basic understanding of
fire safety and fire risk assessments. The full information sheet which contains a two-page checklist is
available at: or from the Health and Safety Unit. More
detailed official guidance is also available - see below.

The Revised Law

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005., applicable to England and Wales only and in force from 1
October 2006 is a consolidation of existing fire safety laws so that all workplaces and other non-domestic
premises are now covered by the same law. Fire certificates which had covered many work places no-longer
have legal status. This does not mean that employers can just abandon specified fire precautions. Relatively
up to date though now obsolete fire certificates will contain sensible advice, specifying what fire precautions
must be taken: including escape routes, the number of persons that can be on the premises at any one time,
and any training requirements. They will therefore contain sensible considerations for when fire risk assessing.

Employers must review their fire risk assessments to ensure that they fulfil the requirements of the law and
adequately: identify the hazards, evaluate the risks, consider who is at risk, and put in place appropriate
measures to prevent where possible and otherwise control those risks.

Fire Risk Assessments

Responsibility for compliance will fall to a responsible person, normally the employer, or any other person in
control of the premises. There is now a far greater emphasis on fire prevention through risk assessment. One
or more competent persons, that is with the appropriate experience, knowledge, and training; will have to be
appointed to identify the preventative and protective measures and carry out the other specific duties.

Employers must:

• fire risk assess (specifically or as part of   their general risk assessments):
  - to identify fire hazards and the risk of fire,
   - to check that a fire can be detected in a reasonable time and that people can be warned and escape,
   - considering all employees and others who may be affected by a workplace fire and identifying those who
   might be especially at risk, and
   - to put into place measures to remove or reduce the risks identified, including adequate provision for
   people with disabilities or special needs who use or may be present at the premises;
   - to plan how to deal with an emergency

• record the findings of the assessment if more than five people are employed;

• review the assessment whenever there is reason to suspect that it is no longer valid or if there has been a
significant change in the matters to which it relates;

• provide and maintain such fire precautions as are necessary to safe guard those at work, such as:
    - fire fighting equipment, detectors, and alarms,
    - fire-fighting equipment which is not automatic must be readily accessible, easy to use, and indicated by
    - nominating and training employees responsible for implementing fire fighting measures and for
undertaking any special roles which are required under the emergency plan for the workplace,
    - a suitable system for the regular service and maintenance of fire equipment , and
    - keeping emergency routes clear and complying with specific criteria relating to routes, doors, and signs so
that those in the building can get out; and

• provide information, instruction, and training to all employees about fire risks and precautions in the
workplace so that they know what to do in the event of a fire.

Employers must also:

• consult with safety reps about the nominations and about proposals for improving fire safety;

• inform other employers in the same building of any significant risks they have identified which might affect
  the safety of their employees, and co-operate on proposals to reduce and control these risks and;

• establish a suitable and easy means of contacting the emergency services.

Safety Rep Action

Remember your rights to consultation. Ask whether the fire risk assessment has been reviewed. If it has,
check that it is suitable and sufficient, and that the precautions identified have been taken. If it hasn’t, ask
when it will be and ensure you’re consulted.
Use the checklist within UNISON’s full fire safety information sheet to assist you in deciding whether all
necessary considerations have been taken into account and consider conducting a workplace inspection.

Liaise with fire officers when they visit your workplace and ask for a copy of any report they produce.

Remember to speak to the employees – they often know far more about potential hazards (such as the waste
materials which accumulate in the basement next to the fire exit before collection day).

Further Advice

The local fire authorities are generally responsible for fire safety at work. For further advice, contact the local
fire service and ask for the Fire Prevention Officer.

New or altered buildings must meet the appropriate building regulations, which cover various issues including
fire safety.

The Government has produced a series of guides, both general and specific to various types of workplace
which are free to download (although most are priced if a hardcopy is ordered) including a very user friendly
“Entry Level Guide”. Go to: This site also includes
a frequently asked questions page.

Further guidance on fire safety is also                       available    from     the    HSE      website     at:

          UNISON- Campaigning and
         Lobbying on Health and Safety
In addition to the Corporate Manslaughter Bill (see page 1), UNISON has recently been involved in a number
of high profile consultation exercises (see below). Despite the various proposals, the consistent theme
throughout was that significant improvements in workplace health and safety will only occur when employers
are effectively held to account.

Macrory - Alternative Penalties

The Macrory Review of Alternatives Penalties, Regulatory Justice: Sanctioning in a post-Hampton World, examined a
number of alternative penalties that could be applied after conviction, or in place of prosecution by an
enforcing authority. It also considered training judges on health and safety offences and linking fines to

However, UNISON believes that whilst most of its proposals may be useful, by far the greatest problem is the
current lack of enforcement, and the lack of a deterrent effect from penalties once applied. UNISON believes
that the current enforcement notice regime could achieve many of the outcomes outlined for alternative
penalties if only the enforcing authorities had sufficient resources to implement these effectively, especially
when considering rogue employers. At the moment, employers can choose to run the risk of breaking health
and safety law, knowing that in all likelihood they won’t get caught, and if they do, the fine will be small
compared to the profits achieved.

Coroner Reform: - Draft Law

The main concerns with this proposed new law were: that it still left room for real or perceived bias by
coroners or coroners officers, the removal of jury inquests following workplace deaths, the no-longer
automatic right to an inquest following a death abroad; and the wider effects that these could have on the
coroner system, and health and safety in general.
Workplace Transport Route Map

Effectively, a guide to the law and best practice on transport used on work sites (as opposed to the public
roads), UNISON again raised the need to not just encourage and educate employers, but also to enforce the
law by inspections and prosecutions. Other concerns included insufficient references to the need to consult,
and the issue of drug testing.

Smoke Free Regulations

By the summer of 2007, the whole of the UK is likely to be covered by a legal smoking ban applicable to
workplaces and public places which are either enclosed or substantially enclosed. UNISON believes that
workers should not be exposed to second-hand (passive) smoke whilst at work, but employers must take a
sensible approach. Positively encouraging staff to quit should they wish is to be welcomed, but there must be
recognised that smoking is addictive and that some staff may not be able to give up. Above all, there must be
consultation on the development of workplace policies.

Scotland’s ban now in force, and the bans proposed for Northern Ireland, Wales, and England are with a few
exceptions, all expected to follow a similar approach. They do or will prohibit smoking in most workplaces
but allow exemptions in certain residential accommodation and do/will not apply to a service users own home.
This means that some UNISON members will continue to be exposed.

UNISON is continuing its campaign for a sensible approach to smoking bans which acknowledges the
addiction and offers protection for those workers who visit the homes of service users. As such, UNISON
has registered as a stakeholder with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

The Government has asked NICE to produce guidance on workplace smoking bans. UNISON is gathering
relevant evidence (via a bulletin to branch safety officers, and where we have an address, an email to UNISON
safety activists) for inclusion within its formal response to NICE’s proposals. We will especially be raising
enforcement/compliance difficulties caused by of employers imposing total smoking bans (such as during
working hours, whilst identifiable or in uniform, or whilst anywhere on site even when out in the open) and
how to tackle exposure for those who work in someone else's home. UNISON will also be updating our own
guidance as appropriate.

Improving Worker Involvement

The HSE’s Improving Worker Involvement – Improving Health and Safety, considers how to improve employers
compliance with the legal requirement to consult, whilst recognising that this is only the foundation for the
longer term goal for worker involvement, which it terms as “participant involvement” or “full engagement.”
Such it says would involve the sorts of changes in behaviour in managers and workers that will lead to safer
and healthier workplaces.

UNISON supports the proposals to specifically require employers to consult on risk assessments and to
respond to safety rep queries, even though the former is already required under general provisions, and the
latter is implicit in the Brown Book. There are however serious shortfalls in the scope of the proposals.

There is no consideration of the role of enforcement - there has never been a prosecution for failing to
consult. Good practice guidance and voluntary standards are examined when the evidence suggests that
without effective enforcement, these don’t work. Other difficulties experienced by safety reps in trying to use
their rights under the Brown Book are also not considered, nor are: PINS, the right to stop the job, or
adequate protection from victimisation. Consideration is given to how to encourage worker/safety rep
involvement but it is dismissive of roving safety reps because of “funding difficulties”. UNISON believes that
this “difficulty” could possibly be tackled by a scheme which reimburses employers like statutory maternity or
sick pay. Recent research by the HSE’s own laboratory is also ignored. This concluded that non-unionised
workplaces were generally clueless about the requirement to consult and about health and safety laws. Lastly
the cost benefit analysis of the limited proposals over-estimates the costs, whilst vastly under-estimates the
possible benefits. Even their own figures suggest that the benefit could be far higher.

UNISON’s Consultation Responses

UNISON’s responses to the above and                                    others           can        be     found   on   the   web   at:

                                   Printed and published by: UNISON, 1 Mabledon Place, London WC1H 9AJ.

Shared By:
Description: Because Work shouldnt kill, injure, nor poison