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
Directors' Responsibilities for Health and Safety
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
decimomal  
#1 Posted : 14 December 2011 14:32:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal

The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 states that directors can, in specific circumstances, be found personally guilty of a health and safety offence in their capacity as directors, e.g. under Sections 36(1) and 37.

INDG417 - Directors' Responsibilities for Health and Safety, describes best practice for Directors and encourages Directors to take responsibility for health and safety.

What legislation (if any) states that there MUST be a specific director delegated with responsibility for health and safety - or is it a collective responsibility of the MD and the Board?

Many thanks.
Back to top
MB1  
#2 Posted : 14 December 2011 14:52:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MB1
Deci,

This may be of help?
http://www.corporateacco.../hsc2005/reviewjames.pdf

As far as I am aware individual directors do not come under any specific law that imposes on them directly with the exception of S37 as corporate body.
Back to top
decimomal  
#3 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:36:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal
Thank you.

I note 56 views but only one response - does that mean not many know the answer?
Back to top
RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:48:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
Company Directors can only be prosecuted pursuant to s37 if there has been a h&s failure attributable to the company. Furthermore, company directors can be disqualified from holding a directorship pursuant to the Companies Act 2006,if the company has been found guilty of an indictable offence.
Back to top
decimomal  
#5 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:50:53(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal
Thank you Ray - any view on the third part of my query?
Back to top
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:54:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
'What legislation (if any) states that there MUST be a specific director delegated with responsibility for health and safety - or is it a collective responsibility of the MD and the Board?'

There is no legislation which specifies that a specific director is delegated and responsible for h&s, however the most senior person is accountable ie CEO, MD, etc in a court of law. The most senior director can delegate his responsibilities to an individual ie Director of Safety, but cannot negate his responsibilities by delegation.
Back to top
DaveDowan  
#7 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:55:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
DaveDowan
Hi

Health and safety law places duties on organisations and employers, and directors can be personally liable when these duties are breached: members of the board have both collective and individual responsibility for health and safety. The law does not require a specific management system but one that fits the undertaking. Some of these "requirements" are from standards 18001 et al
regard Dave
Back to top
NickH  
#8 Posted : 14 December 2011 15:55:54(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
NickH
As far as I'm aware, there is no legislation which states that there MUST be a specific director responsible for H&S. IIRC, INDG417 recommends there is, but that is as far as it goes.

Ultimately, it is a collective responsibility, and in a Utopian world, the 'controlling mind' is ultimately responsible, no matter which director is delegated H&S responsibilities. Essentially, such a director (if one exists in a given business) is responsible for reporting to the board, and delegating to the SMT of said business.

That's how I understand it anyway.
Back to top
rockybalboa  
#9 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:03:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rockybalboa
decimomal wrote:
Any view on the third part of my query?


Apathy.... *sigh



:P

Na, I think thats where the CMCH Act came from as there has to be a controlling mind and controlling body to get S37 to stick as far as Im aware. This is where the Herald of Free Enterprize (Zebrugge disaster) case fell apart as there was so many senior people they couldnt pin S37 on one person (controlling mind [hard to identify with multiple senior people] and body [easy to identify, its the company's senior representitive(s)]) whereas the CMCH Act does away with that requierment so it there is no need to prove the controlling mind and body, only the controlling body (the company). Either way, the Company gets it in the neck not the individual.
Back to top
decimomal  
#10 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:03:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal
Thank you all.

The responses echo my own understanding but I was asked the question and it planted a seed of doubt in my mind.


Much obliged.
Back to top
decimomal  
#11 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:04:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal
ROCKYBALBOA wrote:
decimomal wrote:
Any view on the third part of my query?


Apathy.... *sigh

Eh?
Back to top
rockybalboa  
#12 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:10:12(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
rockybalboa
decimomal wrote:
ROCKYBALBOA wrote:
decimomal wrote:
Any view on the third part of my query?


Apathy.... *sigh

Eh?






Being facetious, decimonal.
Back to top
decimomal  
#13 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:15:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
decimomal
It looks like you spelt it right too.

Ta Ta
Back to top
johnmurray  
#14 Posted : 14 December 2011 16:30:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray
Back to top
RayRapp  
#15 Posted : 15 December 2011 09:10:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
'Na, I think thats where the CMCH Act came from as there has to be a controlling mind and controlling body to get S37 to stick as far as Im aware. This is where the Herald of Free Enterprize (Zebrugge disaster) case fell apart as there was so many senior people they couldnt pin S37 on one person (controlling mind [hard to identify with multiple senior people] and body [easy to identify, its the company's senior representitive(s)]) whereas the CMCH Act does away with that requierment so it there is no need to prove the controlling mind and body, only the controlling body (the company). Either way, the Company gets it in the neck not the individual.'


rocky, the above is not strictly correct if you don't mind me saying so. The CMCH is a codified statute law loosley based on common law gross negligent manslaughter. An organisation is guily of an offence if in the way its activities are managed or organised causes a death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care to the deceased. A substantial part of the breach must have been in the way activities were managed by senior management. Therefore, the 'controlling mind' aspect has been in effect diluted and aggregated to take into account the 'senior management' test. A senior manager does not have to be a director of the company although in practice it will normally be a director of some descripition.
Back to top
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET