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

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

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

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 ?