UK: Health And Safety Update - August 2011

Last Updated: 15 August 2011
Article by Helen Brooks

CONSTRUCTION RICS has published construction sector safety guidance.

COSHH HSE is now providing the latest COSHH news and information free via an email bulletin or RSS feeds.


In July the CPS confirmed that a second company, Lion Steel Ltd, was being charged with corporate manslaughter under the new corporate manslaughter legislation. Three of the company's directors, Kevin Palliser, Richard Williams and Graham Coupe were also charged with gross negligence manslaughter. The charges come after the death of Steven Berry, who fell through a fragile roof panel in 2008 and died as a result the injuries sustained in the fall. The three directors and the company have also been charged under the Health and Safety at Work Act for failing to ensure the safety at work of their employees. A preliminary hearing opened at Manchester Crown Court on 2 August 2011.

This case will be watched with interest as Lion Steel is a much larger company (it employs over 100 employees) than Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings) Ltd (which employed fewer than five employees) the only other company prosecuted so far for corporate manslaughter under the new legislation. We will report on any developments in our next newsletter.


The Fire Industry Association (FIA) recently conducted a survey which concluded UK employers are potentially putting their employees' lives at risk by cutting back on fire safety in the current economic climate. Almost a fifth of bosses admitted to revising fire safety procedures, through actions such as delaying maintenance checks of fire safety equipment, reducing staff training or delaying updating their fire risk assessments.


  • CIEH argues for more local food safety services The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has continued to make a robust case for local food safety services rather than a central delivery model following an Open Board meeting of the Food Standards Agency (FSA).
  • FSA Annual report and accounts 2010/2011 The Food Standards Agency has published its annual report and accounts.


  • Death at work HSE provisional statistics for April 2010 to March 2011 show an increase in the number of workers killed at 171 compared to last year when 147 died – which was the lowest number on record. There has also been an increase in the number of near-miss reports. The HSE says that it takes this as "welcome sign of increased awareness amongst staff leading to a richer source of information about safety performance".
  • One in three openly admit to skiving One in three UK workers admit to lying to take time off work, mainly because they're disillusioned with their jobs, according to research commissioned by Price Waterhouse Coopers on attitudes to absence. While good weather, hangovers, and romance are motivations for 11%, 18% and 5% of 'skivers' respectively, the majority (61%) claim they are simply bored and depressed with work. Just over one in five workers said family responsibilities are the real reason behind 'sick' days.
  • Long-term absence impacts on work colleagues New research from Aviva UK Health has concluded that long-term absence is not only an issue for over two thirds of employers but it also has a major impact on their staff. Nearly 70% of the employers questioned said it was an issue for their company with nearly 20% of employees having taken long-term leave due to mental health issues and 24% due to muscular or skeletal conditions.
  • Mental health website A new mental health at work website has been launched by the Royal College of Psychiatrists offering guidance on mental health in the workplace.
  • Stress A survey by mental health charity MIND found that one in five employees feared that mentioning stress to their boss would put them first in line for redundancy.
  • Disability discrimination compensation Two recent cases involving high levels of compensation in respect of disability discrimination are a warning to employers to ensure they comply with their duties under the Equality Act. Jewson recently paid nearly £400,000 for failing to make reasonable adjustments after a branch manager suffered a stroke. It has also been reported that a city law firm has settled a disability discrimination claim brought by an autistic member of staff for £1.3million. Although the terms of the settlement are confidential it is understood that the firm has also promised to implement internal training and policies educating staff on non-visible disabilities such as autism, dyslexia and Asperger's syndrome.
  • Consultation on employment services for the disabled On 11 July the Government launched its consultation on recommendations to reform disability support employment programmes and services. The recommendations it is consulting on include the reform of Remploy and residential training colleges. Funding would then be available to support individual aspirations for sustainable work and career choices using the Access to Work scheme, rather than disability-specific workplaces or facilities. Information about available support, technology and services provided by the Access to Work scheme should be accessible to both employers and employees over the internet, and Access to Work awards would be transferable between employers. The consultation closes on 17 October 2011.


  • Health and safety dismissals – two stage test In Oudahar v Esporta Group Ltd the EAT gave guidance to tribunals on when a dismissal is to be regarded as automatically unfair for a health and safety reason setting out a two-stage test. The EAT held that the correct approach is to focus firstly on whether the employee reasonably believed there was a serious and imminent danger and took steps to protect himself and others. If so, the tribunal should then look at whether sole or main reason for dismissal was because the employee took those steps.

In this case there was a dispute as to whether a chef had been dismissed for a health and safety concern when he refused to clean behind the fryers because he considered exposed wires made the area unsafe or whether he had been dismissed for insubordination and a breach of food hygiene rules. His employer considered there was no health and safety risk and the tribunal upheld the dismissal. However, on appeal the EAT confirmed that the tribunal had been wrong to focus on whether the employer believed in the presence of danger. What the tribunal needed to do was focus on the employee's state of mind and why he acted as he did. The case was remitted back to the tribunal to apply the correct test.

  • Reasonable adjustments: employer's knowledge of disability In Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services Ltd the EAT looked at the correct approach to assessing whether an employer knows or could reasonably have been expected to know that an employee was disabled to trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Although medical issues had been raised in relation to the employee's anxiety resulting in stress-related absence, the tribunal found there was nothing to suggest the employer had actual or constructive knowledge of the employee's disability until it received a medical report at the direction of the tribunal.

On the facts of this case the employee's reluctance to provide information or acknowledge she had a psychiatric problem resulted in a delay in fixing her employer with knowledge about her disability.

  • Disability discrimination: changing redundancy selection criteria was not reasonable adjustment In Lancaster v TBWA Manchester the EAT considered whether changing certain redundancy selection criteria was a reasonable adjustment under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 where the disabled employee would have been selected in any event. (The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. It found the tribunal correctly decided that the suggested adjustments were not reasonable given that they would not have prevented the employee from being selected for redundancy.
  • Protection from Harassment Act: course of conduct amounting to harassment In Marinello v City of Edinburgh Council the Inner House of the Court of Session considered what was required for an identified course of conduct to amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The Inner House of the Court of Session held that the proper approach to deciding whether there has been a"course of conduct" is for all the evidence to be considered in the round. In this case the judge at first instance should therefore have heard all the evidence, rather than dismissing the case at a preliminary stage on the basis that the alleged incidents were not sufficiently connected to amount to a course of conduct.

The court also endorsed the view previously expressed by the Court of Appeal in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors that courts should look at whether the course of conduct as a whole amounts to harassment and not assess each incident separately.

  • Public sector employer liable under the RRA for third-party harassment In Sheffield City Council v Norouzi the EAT upheld a tribunal's decision that a public sector employer, which in the tribunal's view did not do enough to protect a social worker from regular racial harassment at the hands of a child in a care home, was liable for indirect race discrimination and race harassment under the RRA and the EC Race Directive.

The Equality Act 2010 contains provisions which mean an employer could be liable for the harassment of its employees by third parties where the harassment is related to a protected characteristic, although the Government is currently considering whether this provision is "workable".

  • Accident at team building day – not during the course of employment In Reynolds v Strutt and Parker the High Court held that an employee who was injured whilst cycling in a race as part of an event for all employees, organised by his employer, was not participating in the course of his employment for the purposes of health and safety legislation. However, the Court did go on to find that the partners who organised the event breached their duty of care. Neither partner who had responsibility for the event had the necessary skills and knowledge to make the necessary risk assessment. The employee was held to be 2/3 contributorily negligent through his failure to wear a helmet.


" Lofstedt Health and Safety legislation review The Lofstedt review announced in March and covered in our May newsletter has called for evidence. The review is considering the extent to which health and safety regulations have impacted on positive health and safety outcomes and businesses; have led to unreasonable outcomes, or inappropriate litigation and compensation; and have unnecessarily enhanced the requirements of an EU directive.

At the same time a survey of nearly 6,000 employers by the British Chambers of Commerce found that nearly half of businesses claim regulation around health and safety issues is a burden on their business.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which is contributing to the Lofstedt Review, has said that in addition to improving regulatory "housekeeping" the review should consider how businesses, particularly smaller firms, can be helped to avoid accidents and ill health. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has warned Ministers that they risk inviting an increase in claims if they relax health and safety legislation. While the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has told the review that there is no scope for cutting health and safety legislation and that it should be merged provided this does not weaken the employer's responsibilities for protecting its staff.

  • Red tape challenge Business owners, employees, the public and inspectors and enforcement officers are now being urged to "blow the whistle on inconsistent and over-zealous enforcement of rules and regulations" by having their say on the Red Tape Challenge website. The new drive is the result of comments already made by the public as part of the Red Tape Challenge. Health and safety took over as the focus for the Government's challenge for 21 days from 30 June. This is designed to feed into the Lofstedt review.
  • Common Sense, Common Safety: a progress report As reported in our last newsletter, the DWP has continued to update the recommendations on its website following the report by Lord Young last October. In July, it published a further update and, in particular, notes that the Minister for Employment, Chris Grayling MP, has overall responsibility for implementing Lord Young's recommendations and lists all recommendations along with progress to date.
  • Proposed amendments to RIDDOR HSE is consulting on proposals to change the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has warned that plans to increase the threshold for reporting workplace injuries from three days to more than seven will make it harder to gather evidence on workplace safety.


  • UK to oppose European Parliament proposal to increase maternity leave and pay A consortium of ministers from eight to eleven EU member states is reported to be planning to block a proposal to increase paid maternity leave. In October 2010, the European Parliament voted to amend the Pregnant Workers Directive and extend the minimum period for maternity leave from 18 weeks to 20 weeks, during which the employee on leave would be entitled to her full salary. The consortium opposing the extension includes the UK and Germany. The proposals to amend the directive are subject to qualified majority voting, meaning that the consortium's opposition could cause the draft legislation to be shelved indefinitely.


The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Government's proposed ban on cigarette vending machines is lawful.


  • Advocate General Opinion on long-term sickness and holiday The Advocate General has delivered her opinion in KHS AG v Schulte, a case concerning the relationship between holiday rights under the Working Time Directive and long-term sick leave.

She concluded that:

EU law does not require that workers on long-term sick leave accumulate, without any time limitation, the right to paid annual leave or to payments in lieu of such entitlement. Allowing a worker to take accrued leave several years after the leave year to which it related would not achieve the Directive's purpose of enabling the worker to recuperate from the effort and stresses of that year.

A national law under which annual leave entitlement extinguishes 18 months after the end of the relevant leave year (effectively giving workers up to two and a half years to use a year's leave entitlement) does not offend against the Directive. An 18-month minimum period is a guideline which member states should follow as far as possible for the purposes of implementing the Directive: a carry-over period of only six months is insufficient. The ECJ is not obliged to follow the Advocate General's opinion. Nevertheless, the opinion is interesting given the uncertainty caused by the ECJ's decisions in Stringer and others v HM

Revenue & Customs and Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA.

  • Sick worker's entitlement to statutory holiday and pay carried over to next leave year In NHS Leeds v Larner, the EAT considered whether a worker, who had been off sick for an entire leave year without requesting any statutory holiday, was entitled to a payment in respect of that year's holiday entitlement when her employment terminated.

The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. The claimant's failure to request holiday during the relevant leave year did not mean that she lost the right to payment. It held there was no distinction between the claimant's situation and that of the worker in the ECJ case of Pereda v Madrid Movilidad SA; owing to sickness, she had not been well enough to exercise her "right to enjoy a period of relaxation and leisure". In the circumstances, her holiday entitlement carried over to the next leave year, even though she did not expressly request carry over. Her right to be paid in respect of that entitlement crystallised on the termination of her employment. It is understood that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is being sought.

  • Advocate General: pilots' holiday pay must reflect normal remuneration including supplements The Advocate General has given her opinion in Williams and others v British Airways plc which concerns how holiday pay must be calculated under the Working Time Directive and the Aviation Directive.

In the Advocate General's opinion, the Working Time Directive and the Aviation Directive require a worker's statutory holiday pay to correspond to their "normal remuneration". Where remuneration varies, this equates to the worker's average earnings in a representative reference period. The calculation of average earnings must include supplements usually due as part of remuneration, such as the "flying pay supplements" and "time away from base allowances" payable to the pilots in this case.

If the ECJ agrees with the Advocate General, the Court of Appeal's decision that British Airways was entitled to exclude the above supplements from its pilots' statutory holiday pay under the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 is likely to be overturned.


  • One in three unaware of health and safety procedures at work Three-quarters of employees questioned in a recent survey claimed to be 'unaware' of the health and safety procedures within their workplace. The study also found that 49% of the 1,561 employees surveyed claimed that they had never seen any written documentation of safety procedures in place, despite working in a business employing five or more people.
  • HSE newsletter – Summer 2011 The HSE has replaced its printed newsletter with a new online interactive version. This covers all the latest HSE news, case studies, court stories and guidance – much of which we have also referred to in our newsletters.
  • HSE consultation on cost recovery scheme The HSE has started a three-month consultation ending on 14 October 2011 on how a cost recovery scheme for intervention will work. Costs would be recovered if, during an inspection or investigation, a material breach - a failure to adhere to health and safety law identified by an inspector as requiring formal action - is discovered. HSE expects to charge non-compliant businesses around £133 an hour for cost recovery. Under the proposals, the costs of any specialist supported needed by HSE would also be passed on. The introduction of charging for advice to remedy breaches is set for April 2012.
  • HSE annual report HSE has published its annual report and accounts for 2010/2011
  • New Workers HSE has published 6 steps to protect new starters as they are more likely to have an accident through lack of experience, lack of familiarity and eagerness to impress colleagues.


The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.