Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 02 July 2003 07:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By James Winter
Hi All

Just wondering if anyone had any takes on the recent case regarding Fatty Arbuckles, am i right in thinking that we may see more H+S people prosecuted. There is an interesting article regarding this in this months SHP on page 20, looking for advice as i am relatively new to the H+S industry and am starting to wonder if the above is going to set a trend! then why do we as individuals put ourselves at risk of prosecution. I know that if we do our jobs correctly then we should( in theory) have no problems.

Any advice would be appreciated

Regards

James
Admin  
#2 Posted : 02 July 2003 08:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Hilary Charlton
I think the likelihood of us being prosecuted is very low, he was prosecuted under Section 7 of the HSW as far as I am aware (but I'm sure if this is wrong someone will correct me) which is the employees duties to take of themselves and others blah, blah. Therefore, theoretically anyone could be prosecuted under these guidelines, you do not need to be a H&S Practitioner.

I understand that the powers that be are working on an appeal on this case at the moment as the Judge ruling actually stated he was a scapegoat for the organisation that went belly-up, this, by any standards, is grossly unfair.

Although it is concerning, there are many, many jobs in which you could be prosecuted for failure to do it properly, or for improper behaviour ie doctors, nurses, forensic scientists, policemen etc, etc and I think the likelihood of our being prosecuted is nil to zero.

Keep on with the profession, it's a good one and a worthwhile one and don't let the negatives cloud your judgement.

Hilary
Admin  
#3 Posted : 04 July 2003 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Steve Appleton
On the HSE Prosecution Database there are details of 34 cases since March 2001 in which individuals were prosecuted for breaches of Section 7 of the HSW Act – resulting in fines up to £5,000.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 05 July 2003 11:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Rachelle Smith
James

Of course, you were right to highlight case. I have in hand the papers relating to this judgment as recorded for the District Judge in March of this year (was Section 33 HSW charge also). As practitioners we would be foolish not to examine this case and overlay the circumstances and determine if we too could find that the great axe could fall our way.

Helmrich (former Fatty Arbuckles safety person) had many hats to wear, a position that most support (non operational arm)people will attest to.

Helmrich was not only responsible for Occupational Safety (I include Public Liability issues arising from Fatty Arbuckles having 58 outlets in the UK here) and FOOD safety.

Going forward James, my suggestion to you, is that you conduct your own assessment of your personal risk exposure when operating as a company safety person. I would prepare before interviews a few basic questions such as :
What resources (all types) are available to ensure I can complete the tasks?
Determine (in detail)what the company actually expects of you and is this reasonable and achieveable? (i.e. could be 58 stores across the UK with huge food/public liability/staff and building safety problems to deal with as in Fatty Arbuckles)

Would you have the full support of the Board (does the Board think by recruiting a safety person no futher expenditure is required)?

Finally I would sample their current business culture - how do they really value their staff?? (they often foolishly quote people are our number one priority ....and then fail to deliver on this statement)

In so far as this legal doctrine of this case being a threat to safety / risk professionals this case rightly points out that we must only accept positions after conducting our own due diligence checks. (Then when you see stupid adverts in journals seeking a safety bod offering 20K and a Nebosh Cert with UK coverage ...... maybe they wont be on YOUR radar). All the best James.

MA MIOSH RSP (Grad)IRM
Admin  
#5 Posted : 06 July 2003 10:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Having only an implicit knowledge of the case but enough to suggest that it opens up a number of pertinent thoughts.

Clearly, those who are tasked with ensuring health and safety within a company must be sure that they have suitable support to carry out their duties. This may include examining their own 'code of ethics'to ensure they do not transgress from those principles, at the same time protecting themselves from any liability.

Health and safety may be a 'mad world' but the recent case of the HSE prosecuting the current and former chief's of the Met Police, highlights another chapter of 'blamism' and 'claims' culture. Pardoxically, the HSE are being sued by the insurers of Thames Trains with regards to the Paddington rail accident, for failing to ensure a safe track and signalling system (SHP, July 2003: p4).

The moral of the story is...

Regards

Ray

Admin  
#6 Posted : 06 July 2003 10:37:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Nick Higginson
Again,

I don't have all the facts, but I believe the case related to an electric shock from some equipment that had not been maintained.

This is not a case of a safety professional diligently going about his work. This was an overworked manager who had health and safety thrust upon him, who had neglected to recommend that risk assessments were carried out on the most basic of issues.

It does appear that he has been made a scapegoat for the inadequate resources and training offered by Fatty's in respect of health and safety.

Back to the point of the query, I don't believe there is anything for conscientous, real safety professionals to lose any sleep over.

Kind regards

Nick
Admin  
#7 Posted : 07 July 2003 10:16:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Some of the press coverage also indicates that he was at some time a director of the company but was then 'retired' at the time and took on these responsibilities.

I am not sure that the facts of this case are readily transferrable but I am concerned that EHOs seem more ready to pursue some cases that the HSE probably would not take on - Met Police noted however. On the Thames Train issue there are some things which indicate a degree of responsibility on the Inspectorate as they agreed the operation of the signal even with the recognised limitations and confusions.

Our profession always seems to face some gritty problems!

Bob
Admin  
#8 Posted : 07 July 2003 11:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson
Bob,

As an ex EHo its funny you should say that, think its more to do with the fact that LA enforce H&S in the 'Service Sector' where generally the hazards and risk are lower than in 'factory' Environments (HSE enforced) and it may be that what the LA deem as important the HSE deem not so important which gives rise to heightened media coverage.

Do yopu honestly believe that this story would be so hyped by the media if it was not "Good Copy", if I understand it correctly an employee was electrocuted and the company (this chap) knew about the possibility and yet did nothing to prevent and he was the man who took the decision.
(Corrcet me if i'm wrong anyone)

So in the light of that if you as a H&S professional knew that the company were exposing their employees, on a frequent basis, to a potentially lethal hazard and you then made a concious decision not to do anything about it or delay putting in a fix, would you be liable personally ?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.