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

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Kay  
#1 Posted : 16 January 2013 10:52:24(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Hello Everyone

I had to ask because it's beginning to annoy me that i can't find it.

I am fully aware of the requirement to have written RAs if you employ 5 or more from reg 3 of MHSWR, but where is the requirement relating to 5 or more employees for a written H&S Policy in HASAWA? section 2(3) obviously mentions written Policy but not any specific number of employees....

Thanks :)
Kate  
#2 Posted : 16 January 2013 11:23:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

You can't find it there however hard you look, because it's in the the Employers' Health and Safety Policy Statements (Exception) Regulations 1975.

I hope that makes you less annoyed.
Kay  
#3 Posted : 16 January 2013 11:46:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Kay

Well I never!

Thank you very much Kate, I have learned something today!

Kay
John Murphy  
#4 Posted : 17 January 2013 09:56:06(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
John Murphy

The exemption is for those with FEWER THAN FIVE employees rather than five or more.

Regards

John
peter gotch  
#5 Posted : 17 January 2013 13:17:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Kay "in which for the time being he employers fewer than five employees" was interpreted in Osborne v Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd 1982 was that regard must be only to employees present on the premises at the same time.

So it is possible that an employer might either

(a) employ 4 on day shift and 4 on night shift or

(b) employ 4 at one site and 4 at another

....and be deemed to be excepted from the requirement, though I've never heard this argument from an employer, probably as they've never heard of the above judgment and they won't have a copy of Redgrave's Health and Safety or other source of case law.
David Bannister  
#6 Posted : 17 January 2013 13:24:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
David Bannister

Peter, is that still a current judgement of has it been superceded by a more recent case?

It has been my understanding that "under 5" included all employees, including casuals, temps and labour-only subcontract staff.

If current, there are many retail employers not legally required to write their H&S stuff down.
peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 17 January 2013 16:29:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

David - as far as I'm aware it's the only judgment - and I didn't find it until AFTER I'd left HSE!!
bob youel  
#8 Posted : 17 January 2013 16:46:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

this business of writing things down only if certain things apply is a load of rubbish in my view - try using that as an excuse in a court after you have killed your one and only employee - do what your common sense tels you to do to protect/ cover your self, your company and your employee/employees!
Barnaby again  
#9 Posted : 17 January 2013 22:32:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Barnaby again

peter gotch wrote:
- - - "in which for the time being he employers fewer than five employees" was interpreted in Osborne v Bill Taylor of Huyton Ltd 1982 was that regard must be only to employees present on the premises at the same time.



That was in a High Court case about contravention of an improvement notice. The Court did decide that "for the time being" meant "at any one time", so if fewer than five were employed "at any one time" a written policy would not be required. However, the defendant had 30 odd betting shops (each with about 3 employees at any one time)! So the court then considered whether that involved a number of separate businesses or the one business in several sites? It ruled that it was just the one so a written Safety Policy was required. It would have put the cat among the pigeons if they’d decided the former though I suspect it (or a subsequent case) would have gone to the Court of Appeal.
peter gotch  
#10 Posted : 18 January 2013 13:37:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Thanks Barnaby.

Redgrave misleading me!
cal08  
#11 Posted : 23 January 2013 10:49:56(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
cal08

I live in Jersey and here the Health and Safety At Work (Jersey) Law 1989 has the requirement in Article 4(3) "It shall be the duty of every employer employing 5 or more employees.....". As i understand it this Law was based loosely around the old Factories Act, so this may be where you can find the original source of where "5 or more employees" comes from in UK law.
peter gotch  
#12 Posted : 23 January 2013 13:24:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Cal

Your local legislation is almost an exact rewrite of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 albeit with some of the section numbers shuffled around to confuse!

By the time the Jersey legislation was being drafted, we'd already got the exception to Section 2(3) of HSWA.
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.