Posted By Kieran J Duignan Hello Barry The principle here is that substantive conflict between two legal duties may really only be decided on a case basis rather than in abstract terms. If your assertion that the social worker 'had to provide care' is derived from her contract of employment, under the Employment Rights Act, the employer's (and employee's) duty to safeguard her pre-empts her putting herself at risk of injury by the very terms of her employment. So, there's actually no real conflict in this situation unless her manager physically forced her.... which in itself would be a violation by the employer. Likewise when an obligation to observe 'the Official Secrets Act' when it is a term of a contract of employment, there's no real conflict since the same contract obliges employer and employee to safeguard him/her-self and a case IN THEORY could be made that non-compliance with the OSA might be justified. It could then be a case for a court to decide whether such non-compliance was justified, just as some breaches of the OSA have been found justified by courts in the past.

Posted By Tabs Yes, the two examples chosen to illustrate the imperatives, are actually very different. The provision of care is an obligation made on the Local Authority - the organisation, not the individual (employee) - whereas the Official Secrets Act is signed and contracts the individual only. The organisation has to find a way of providing care without endangering the employee. H&S legislation has the higher authority here. The individual has to find a way of completing their obligations to an employer without compromising their promise. Made in the OSA.