Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By James Sneddon
Which of the two forms of regulation above i.e Civil or Criminal is most likely to affect the safety management activities of employers?
Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
Both when put accross correctly.
I had task or writing report for my safety manager.
I did this at home (Enthusiasm I guess).
I had a copy of Coroners legal expert at home and decided to pull info from this as it was my first report.
Situation was machinery being moved to new location and oil leaks.
After putting all the legal bla bla in i was lucky enough to come accross a civil case where the machine owners claimed they were putting absorbant sand every day so had done what was reasonably practicabal.
I remember something about the judge saying this was not satisfactory bla bla and because they were putting sand down did not excuse them from tackeling the route cause of the problem.
The plaintiff won thousands.
The report was touched up by my manager and put forward to the board of 13 directors. Some on the defensive as they sanctioned the move etc.
In meeting for 1 Hr then manager came back with assurance things will be put right and the estimate was £200,000. So in my opinion get a combination.
P.s That was my first so i was Chuffed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
James,
Not being an expert on the subject I would suggest that it may depend on the actual harm, injury etc. For example, occupational stress is likely to be pursued as a civil claim through compensation. To the best of my knowledge stress is rarely pursued as a criminal offence.
It will be interesting to see the views of others on this topical subject.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
James
I think that civil law is the better driver of management for the only reason that many managers understand - money.
Civil claims can (and in the UK, must) be insured against through Employers Liability Insurance and if the insurers don't like what is being done in the cause of effective H & S management they can put the premiums up. A company I have visited recently has suffered a 300% increase in insurance premium (to about £400,000) in the last couple of years. They have started to take H & S very seriously indeed!
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
There's quite a lot of research around on this. In the UK we tend to respond to rules (consider the way various EC Directives don't really get off the ground in other parts of Europe). The threat of prosecution is certainly thought to work well, if you look at the many adverts which tell people they can be prosecuted in they don't do whatever's being sold. However, premium hikes may be catching up as a persuader. Wonder how many firms are just not going to buy insurance and carry on regardless? What are the odds on them getting away with it? I'd say pretty good especially in the SMEs where injury in relatively uncommon - service industries and the like.
On the other hand, in the USA attorneys especially will tell you that the civil claim is the only real driver and OSHA is a joke. I know from personal experience that the enforcing authority is held in low regard by almost everyone there, which is not the case in the UK.
So, it's a cultural thing, isn't it? What prompted the question?
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arthur Hendry Paterson
I am no law expert. But here is the way I see
it.
I agree with Jason Gould. ' BOTH '
We have to understand where the law is
coming from.
Civil law, prosecutions could arrive from
a criminal act. Both need to be investigated
by legal experts. It's a mine field for those
in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Sinclair
The previous two respondants are correct, the answer is Both. Particularly since the exclusion of civil liability in health and safety law (specifically the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations)in relation to employees, is about to be abolished (probably late 2003, or early 2004).
This is in addition to "C" changes in the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance and professional indemnity markets.
Regards.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By James Sneddon
Certainly the costs associated with compensating plaintiffs followed by a possible 'Hike' in Employer Liability Insurance premiums are motivators for employers to implement a management system that secures the health, safety and welfare of people at work. Equally so is the thought of being punished by fines and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses such as Gross Negligence Manslaughter. I for one wouldn't like to go to prison nor would management.
It would be interesting to know which of the two would be more expensive?
Anyway thanks to all who have responded to my question.
Regards,
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Excellent question.
Intuitively I'd like to go along with the general answer of 'both' but experience and a couple of recent happenings seem to be affecting that answer.
Recently there have been some cases where the workers and supervisors have been prosecuted. I'm finding this has an immediate effect on awareness - more so than insurance costs which are perceived as being borne by the company and out of their control.
Of the companies I work with the driver with the majority of them was the fear of a visit by an EHO and a resultant prosecution (or they had already been visited and there was a real threat of prosecution).
For the minority it is because they want to provide a healthy workplace and neither of the two factors are a major driver.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 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.