Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi - I seem to recall, although not sure where from or what, that there is some case law relating to the relationship of an organisation and its subsidiaries.
For example, our business as a whole, worldwide, is a 'Group', where is has various subsidiary companies which are separately run from our UK business (Ltd), but are ultimately managed by our CEO.
Can anyone recall any case law in relation to accidents and responsibility (I think), where there has been a requirement for, in this case, The Group company to have H&S governance oversight of the subsids?
Also, I have searched on here for previous governance posts, which were very useful. Does anyone know if there is any useful websites / papers etc. regarding H&S governance for companies (as described above)?
Thanks in advance and hope it's clear'ish! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Buzz
I will start the ball rolling...it is a very difficult and complex question you ask and I will readily admit I don't know all the answers. In terms of corporate governance the Turnbull and Greenbury reports spring to mind. Furthermore, the relationship between the parent company and its subsidiaries is largely based on company law and specifically whether the subsidiary is a legal entity in its own right. UK law also has no jurisdiction in foreign countries.
For example, in the case of corporate manslaughter (CM&CHA 2007) the opinion was where a subsidiary is a legal entity with its own polices and procedures, the duty of care afforded to the deceased would be owed by the entity and not the parent company. This of course could be challenged - the law is in a constant state of flux as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I believe the following was a landmark case in this particular area, all depends on context I suppose!
David Chandler v Cape Plc (Court of Appeal 2012 EWCA CIV 525)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Buzzz
The following is another case directed against Cape plc of asbestos fame in which the HoL found for an employee who worked in South Africa thus extending liability across the seas-as it ought to be, [IMVHO] and also 'lifting or piercing the corporate veil' [ie The defendant cannot rely on this to shut down action against it]
It involved some 3000 African workers whose scope for compensation was severely limited in South Africa-low legal aid, limited resources, etc., etc.
Lubbe and Others and Cape Plc. and Related Appeals [2000] UKHL 41 (20th July, 2000)
HOUSE OF LORDS
a crucial element in the case -well worth reading as a historical document describing asbestos mining etc- is :
"Whether a parent company which is proved to exercise de facto control over the operations of a (foreign) subsidiary and which knows, through its directors, that those operations involve risks to the health of workers employed by the subsidiary and/or persons in the vicinity of its factory or other business premises, owes a duty of care to those workers and/or other persons in relation to the control which it exercises over and the advice which it gives to the subsidiary company?"
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi all - thanks for your responses to date, I will take a look.
I am going through an HSE research paper on the topic of 'defining best practice in corporate occupational health and governance' which is quite interesting which states that INDG 343 no longer reflects best practice governance in large UK companies and does not assist with robust governance arrangements in large global companies. What I can't work out is whether any subsequent action has been taken by the HSE to rectify this (as I haven't got this far).
Regarding case law however, I have found this (text below) in relation to parent companies and their subsids, which I will read through further, as well as what you have supplied above :)
The Inspector charged with the Investigation into the King's Cross Underground Fire in 1987 blamed the board for having loose supervision on the OHS of a subsidiary company (25):
"In my view it is imperative that a holding company charged with ensuring safety of operation should discharge its duty fully. It is not acceptable that it should try to discharge that duty by delegating it to its subsidiary, coupled with maintaining a loose supervision by having on the board of the main company a director of the subsidiary company.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Have you tried the IRM website? https://www.theirm.org/search?search=governance Not case law, obviously, but there's loads of stuff on governance from a risk perspective; though let's face it, governance should always be about risk & opportunity, John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No I haven't, thanks John.
David Chandler v Cape Plc (Court of Appeal 2012 EWCA CIV 525) - this is very helpful and provides lots of clarity.
Other documents re governance, the HSE paper, and other documents mentioned within the HSE paper, ROSPA etc. are also useful.
Thanks all :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Buzzz
You now have plenty of info outlining the responsibilities of companies and their subsidiaries including those which are foreign and you cant get much higher than H of L /C of A as precedents.
As it's an interesting question, what is the type of business you are in?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.