Not if it's presented in the deeply flawed way as in that current e-campaign previously mentioned (the previous thread on this was pulled by the Mods). p.s. it's Regulation 14, not Section 14. ".....many employees do not report safety concerns - or insist on safety shortcomings being remedied...." How do you know?

It very much depends upon the safety/organisational culture. Organisations with positive/mature safety culture generally will have employees being pro-active and working in a spirit of co-operation as that is a win-win for both. We have a system where any employee can ( and they really do!) report a "potential hazard" with a telephone call to our facilities management contractor who then has to follow it up and deal with it. This is in addition to our formal reporting system for potential hazards, near misses, incidents and accidents. We have specific definitions for them. It is also important that the reporting system assures all that it will be a "just culture" (i.e not allocating individual blame unless there is misconduct)

No. onj two counts: 1st - becuase the last thing that is going to work is written instruction on health and safety law to employees - who reads the poster? Not me. Personally I think the poster is a waste of space. Employees don't bother with such things in my experience. 2nd - because you are assuming that both employees and employers have the H&S knowledge and the willingness for better standards for increased reporting to work. Health and safety standards have little to do with employee under reporting IMO.

Hi Jay, I am all for encouraging a pro-active reporting culture and you are entitled to be very proud of what you have achieved in this respect at your workplace. The problem is that there are lots of organisations that do not encourage reporting and in fact actively discourage it - by 'shooting the messenger' and a reputation for doing this can seriously deter employees from reporting. If everyone knew about the legal protection available to employees under S44 Employment Rights Act 1996, more people would feel encouraged not only to (in the public interest) report safety shortcomings, but also insist on the shortcomings being remedied. I think the most effective way to inform everyone would be to incorporate the info into the Health & Safety Information for Employees Poster. Can you think of a better way?

IMO is IMO- In My Opinion IMO

Employees are not entitled to withdraw labour over "safety concerns", s.44 is specifically about "serious and immiment" danger. Neither is there any absolute gaurantee of protection of employment. Ultimately a Tribunal would decide based on the individual circumstances.

Hi, If senior management feel they are denied the information to effectively manage risk, then they need to have an effective monitoring system and adequate training that ensures all levels of supervision are adopting the same 'positive safety culture' expected of the employees. This would then help to ensure supervisors encourage proactivity in hazard reporting by employees. Often it is the negative reaction from varying levels of supervision to employees raising safety concerns that limits hazard reporting, not the lack of awareness or understanding of the law by employees

You would seem to be contradicting yourself , oh Teacher of Toth.

Hi RayRapp, I appreciate your support for the proposal. I know how difficult it can be to get senior management buy in to improvements in safety - but an incentive that would find hard to resist is having to pay wages to an employee (or workforce) that is off work.

Hi all, I am not going to be able to view further comments until Wednesday. Sorry! But, please do keep your comments coming - in particular whether you agree or disagree with the proposal - and I will catch up asap.

Hi again, Ron - I'm not clear about the point of your comment "danger" does not equate to "safety concern", or what you are trying to convey when you say "The meaning you assign to s.7 of HASAWA is contextually incorrect." (In an earlier post I had said "It is a fundamental right as well as a duty (s7 HSWA) to refrain from doing work that is unsafe." If you would care to elaborate, I would be happy to discuss your views. Meanwhile, I will address your final comment "Anyway, assuming there was a concensus for additional wording on the H&S Poster, how would you propose that this "great secret" be revealed?" I recognise that the expense of altering the wording on the latest H&S Poster (last re-published April 2009) may well outweigh the usefulness of including additional information on the legal protection that S44 provides for employees - and also that (supporting Clairel's earlier posting) the main reason why the HSE poster changed was that an HSE review of the pre-1999 poster found that employees rarely read the poster and found it unappealing. However, a reasonably practicable way forward would be for HSE to begin including information about the legal protection provided by S44 in the "Health & Safety Law - What you need to know" leaflet (ISBN 978071786352) instead of simply referring readers to go to www.direct.gov.uk to find out about Employment Rights. I also recognise that to achieve what I see as the aim - i.e. that the legal protection against suffering "detriment" as a consequence of reporting a safety concern becomes common knowledge - the HSE are going to have to be convinced of the business case for achieving the aim (or alternatively, be compelled to publish the information in clear terms - as required by their statutory remit.) Before that can happen, there would need to be 'buy in' to the cause from influential bodies - such as IOSH. "With more than 39,000 members, IOSH is the world's biggest professional health and safety organisation, sets standards, is the voice of the profession and campaigns on issues that affect millions of working people." If a clear concensus existed amongst IOSH members of the health and safety benefits of achieving 'the aim', that would hopefully prompt IOSH (as an organisation) to campaign for it to happen. As a start, IOSH could begin to include the information in future training courses and materials. Once the ball starts rolling, HSE would surely have to come on board. So, what do you say guys?

Hi all, The shocking results of the Care Quality Commission's report following unannounced visits at 100 hospitals exemplifies why the legal protection provided by S44 Employment Rights Act should be common knowledge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15279796 I can say confidently that the baseline reason why things have got so bad is staff are afraid to report their concerns - and the same is endemic across the NHS due to the manner in which the NHS has historically badly treated people working in the NHS who have reported unsafe/unacceptable circumstances. The Internet abounds with details. (Just Google: 'NHS Whistleblower") I believe that a primary reason why the NHS has managed to 'frighten' Nurses into keeping quiet is because they don't know about the protection afforded by S44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. This is in spite of the fact that S.8.2 of the NMC code of professional conduct, standards for conduct, performance and ethics states: "You should be aware of the terms of legislation that offer protection for people who raise concerns about health and safety issues." The BBC news report states: As one staff member said: "Sometimes I am the only [one] to feed on the ward. How can I feed all these people? Sometimes by the time I get to the last bay either the food is cold or it has been taken away." The quote makes it clear that the same 'situation' had happened more than once - and was likely to happen again unless something was done to prevent it - yet the nurse clearly felt powerless to get it prevented (e.g. more staff). Come on guys, how bad does it have to get before something is done?

Toth's Good luck on your crusade... although you may wish that an IOSH forum is the place to start it with close links to the NHS?? Fortunately my employer has an open mind with regards to integrity and have seen plenty of proof that the system we use works without any history of incrimination. Not so in many other industries but in the modern world slave labour is few & far between and I understand that I have choices as we all have. maybe you wish to communicate with members of the major trade unions in stamping out such practices? I very much doubt many of the NHS trusts will be hugely affected by naming & shaming as historically they become immune!

Hi Irwin43241, Re: your comment "This issue is about patient safety". Sorry, have to disagree. It's about staff safety too! Imagine how stressful it must be for nursing staff to have to tolerate working conditions where they all know they are not delivering the standard of care that they should be - but feel powerless to do anything about it! A statistic that comes to mind is that 28% of Nurses are expected to suffer from clinical levels of stress and depression related to their job - this compares to 18% in the general population.

I wonder if Toth's T is a nurse?? (Bring back the SEN)! There are also other routes if nurses are 'scared of whistleblowing' within their provisional nursing & midwifery council, union etc Looking at balanced opinions regarding the latest CQC reports is a damming of not only the management, but also the people who are actually tasked to carry out the procedures... I may be a little byest but too many chiefs on a hospital ward makes terrible work for the lowly care assistants to carry them out whilst the degree related managers are glued to their nursing stations! Rant over

Hello The Stafford Hospital enquiry provides plenty of evidence that whistle-blowing causes a great deal of pain to the whistle-blowers, and that the 'protection' supposedly provided by the 1996 Act does not tend to be effective in practice. As for the NHS, I have no idea why effective action is not taken against blatant breaches that happen time and time again - as summarised here.

Sorry - could not resist a final rant! Everyone knows that (at present) reporting a safety concern is something that can result in employees suffering recriminations from their employer, line manager/supervisor and this is a primary reason for not reporting. However, if people knew aboout S44, reporting a (valid) safety concern would be a much more attractive proposition and could even be a career enhancing move - because any subsequent attempt to mistreat or bully, the 'whistleblower' could legally be interpreted as a 'detriment' - presenting the employee with a strong case for Constructive Dismissal and unlimited compensation at the discretion of the Employment Tribunal. This is the power provided by S44 Employment Rights Act. Think about this..... In the event of a serious conflict between an employee and a supervisor/manager and particularly if an official grievance has been registered by the employee, it is not unusual for the employee to become so stressed that they go to their GP and get signed off work. The employee then stays off work (sick). This inevitably protracts the resolution of the conflict/grievance because the employee is considered too unwell to be able to be interviewed etc. GPs will usually keep renewing the Sick Certificate - no problem. They would not want to risk saying no. The grievance process then grinds to a stop, often for months, involving the employee in increasing stress until eventually after they have been off work for six months their pay is reduced down to statutory sick pay only - causing them more stress and inviting them to quit! If the matter ends in an Employment Tribunal (which can take months and involve a huge weight of paperwork for the stressed employee) and they then win their case of constructive dismissal, the employee cannot claim for the loss of their income resulting from their illness (i.e. the difference between their normal wages - and usual overtime payments - because they have been 'certificated sick'. So, even if they win their case, it is only ever a pyrrhic victory - often followed by a separation. However, if, the employee had been aware of the protection provided by Section 44 and had confidently asserted their right to remain away from the workplace - i.e. on the grounds that returning to normal working presented a 'serious and imminent danger' to themselves (e.g. of suffering dangerous levels of stress and anxiety - and this could be the prospect of a face to face conflict with the person they have raised a grievance against, as well as, any other danger presented by the risks they'd complained of) they would be legally protected against suffering any reduction in their income (i.e. down to statutory sick pay) - and any such reduction would be interpreted as 'detriment'. In addition, the Tribunal could make an (unlimited) award of compensation to the employee for having done 'the right thing'. Off work on full pay for as long as it takes the employer to remedy shortcomings? Wow! IMO the best way to improve safety standards would be to tell everyone about the power of S44. The reason for the existence of S44 was ARTICLE 8 (3) of COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (89/391/EEC) dated 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. http://eur-lex.europa.eu...CELEX:31989L0391:en:HTML The purpose of Section 44 was to ensure that, in the public interest, employees speak up when safety shortcomings exist. Why was it included in Employment Rights Law and not Health & Safety legislation when the effect of doing so was to enable the HSE to keep schtuum and say that Employment Rights are outside their remit? IMO the answer is that it was done very deliberately, so as to be able to avoid having to tell employees that they - and not employers - have the upper hand in decisions about workplace safety standards. I believe that the time has come to tell everyone (especially NHS staff). Clearly, some people do not agree. Perhaps they would care to say why?

Hi TT, Section 44 Employment Rights Act 1996 is titled "Health and Safety Cases" and is legislation that would only ever be invoked in Health and Safety cases. Sadly, I am not in a position to directly influence the NHS.