http://www.bbc.co.uk/new...land-manchester-33444514

A judge sums up as he passes an 8 month prison term and £150K fine in relation to the death of a 16 year old apprentice. The placement agency were also fined £75K for their failings whilst the supervisor received a 4 month suspended sentence and a £3K fine.

Long overdue and just perhaps other senior persons with responsibilities will start to pay a little bit more attention to meeting their duties.

Shocking. The negligence is tantamount to murder in my opinion especially given the age of the young lad. The agency got away lightly in my opinion and it also smacks of cheap labour. The supervisor's sanction is pathetic.

Unfortunately this company and owner is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many others out there who have no regard to health and safety laws. What happens when they do get caught without a tragic incident - usually only a EN at worst. So no incentive to comply.

I would assume for failing to conduct the proper suitability checks of the business they sent the poor lad to. If the company were as bad as the article suggests, then even a cursory inspection by a half-competent person would have identified it as an unsuitable place ot send a 16 year old

Indeed, but it's all stable door. Who is inspecting these premises?

The sad fact is that the mother of the deceased felt guilty because she encouraged him to be an apprentice. Also the agency will probably go to the wall given the nature of the fine. But sometimes, these so called companies don't derserve to be in business

Ron - you make a good point. This strikes a real chord with me and I really feel for the family. I used to work for the Skills Funding Agency and as part of the Coalition Govmnt cutbacks they got rid of their entire team of competent h & s managers who used to monitor the training companies that placed apprentices with employers. And, although the primary responsibility rests with the employer, I can only guess at the level of checks made at present but I fear it is less than adequate.

Its what happens when we have a government that considers low taxation is the 'be all and end all' when running a country.

Agree that there is far too much political stuff on this forum. This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with negligence and incompetence.

Post 10 is mine but it is more factual than political in my view. I agree that the employer is the main culprit here in relation to incompetence and negligence.

Dear All

First and foremost, the company bears responsibility for the death of the young apprentice. According to media reports, the company had refused offers to help with a risk assessment, knew of the risks and were aware that special care had to be taken with young people. It was a small company and a family business however I don’t know if this was used in mitigating factors.

As Alistair at #10 identified, as part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’ and reducing the burden of health and safety regulation, the Government made health and safety professionals redundant in some organisations that previously helped assess risks where young people went on work placements. [A political decision] No doubt this is helping turn back the ‘nanny state’.

Apparently the lad that was killed was on a Government funded apprenticeship. He had secured his apprenticeship via the Lime People Training Solutions agency, who received £4,500 from the Government – ie taxpayers. I presume that because they were fined £75,000 + £25,000 costs the judge felt they too had failed in their legal duties to ensure that the lad should have been protected.

I appreciate that some do not like political comment. Presumably this is because health and safety at work is such a non-contentious, politically neutral subject in which the employment rights of workers today are based on a 17th Century concept of ‘master’/servant’ relationship. Get dismissed unfairly at work today and you will have to cough up at least £1,200 to bring a case to an Employment Tribunal.

According to the Department of Work and Pensions leaflet ‘Jobseeker’s Allowance Sanctions’:

‘The reason your last job ended will always be checked, and benefit can be stopped if you were dismissed for misconduct, or left without good reason.’

So get dismissed unfairly; get no Job Seekers Allowance and find £1,200: workers on zero hours contracts must feel they have their employers over a barrel and can demand anything they want!!

Raising health and safety issues on construction sites got hundreds of workers onto an illegal blacklist – organised by the Consulting Association - supported, financed, run for and used by 42 construction companies who were caught red handed in 2009. Thus the workers were illegally deprived of employment in their chosen occupational field. Mr Cameron doesn’t think an investigation is necessary.

Thank goodness he supports working people: what state things would be in if he was against them doesn’t bear thinking about!

In January 2012 the Prime Minister stated that:

‘This coalition has a clear new year’s resolution: to kill off the health and safety culture for good.’

Sounds political to me.

Looks like he’s having some success.

Cheers.

Nigel

I think NigelB has explained the facts, which are very likely to be linked to the death of the apprentice, very clearly.

There is great deal of fairly recent history relating to the performance of the various Government funding bodies for apprenticeships (which covers the tenures of both the main political parties) when they have been either active or inactive in relation to h & s 'assurances'. Guess what - their inactive periods (may have) resulted in many more injuries and fatalities.

And I will need to stop even thinking about how my well earned tax contributions are being used as I will end up having a break down. Sorry - can't stop myself, have you seen the latest HSE myth buster =

A local charity shop refused the enquirers donation of a plastic baby bath because ‘health and safety’ meant that the new purchaser could sue if their baby were injured after slipping in it.

Wow, that really is important to us!!!

Not quite true. If you can prove you have no income to pay for the appeal you don't have to pay. Also if you have been unfairly dismissed you will win the case.

The director at the time of the incident has been banned from holding such a position as a consequence of this case - small family run business so the mantle has naturally transferred to the son prior to the court hearing... who was also the prosecuted supervisor at the time of the incident.

Politics aside such a significant failing should to my mind bring about a retrospective ban on holding such a responsible position - competence for the role brought in to question based upon the judgement issued.

Or perhaps that is the underlying problem with British H&S as opposed to too much red tape - too many (prospective) directors with absolutely no comprehension of their responsibility or legal accountability and a desire to have "plausible denial".

Well said Ron, the whole system is biased against the ex-employee, contrary to what the hype about it might say.

Most house contents insurance actually have provision for legal expenses for tribunals etc. Many people are not aware of it so it pays to read the policy fully.

If a clai mant is honest and straightforward with the tribunal they will support them especially in the initial stages. I have had experience of dealing with a tribunal and without using a solicitor. Whenever the other side came back asking for changes just reply to the tribunal as to how you feel and see the situation. It worked when I did it and the other side were not able to manipulate the system.
Take care
John C

Since long before that, I'm afraid. Someone who has been unfairly dismissed is not generally in a position to engage professional representation, unless they belong to an effective trade union, which is increasingly rare these days, and so tries to represent him/herself. The employer, on the other hand, can and does have access to legal representation, even a barrister if wanted. Straightaway, the odds are stacked against the ex-employee and it is not a level playing field. The tribunal chair can be biased either way (which should not happen, but I have experience of this being the case, even to the extent of denying what might be called natural justice).

Either both sides should have access to legal representation, or neither, if the system is to be considered fair, but I'm not holding my breath for this to happen.

that was a horrible read, poor kid