Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Hanley
Your views on a situation that has arose at work would be appreciated. I recently started work for a property holding and development group. The structure of the group consists of the parent holding company and a number of smaller limited companies trading under seperate names and types of buisness. My problem is that the Managing Director insists that one safety policy is sufficient for the whole group, but i disagree with this and insist that each company has its own individual policy detailing procedures for managing health and safety in that company. Any opinions are much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
So the MD wants to be soley responsible and accepts all risk for all the other groups activities associated with the parent company.
I agree with you, the sattelite companies should have their own policy statment deriving from the generic group one.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I see no problem with a "group" safety policy (very common in big or multi site/ multi national organisations) however you need to define local "arrangements" ie responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
I work for a large multinational company that amongst other things manufactures central heating boilers. We have a group policy statement that sets out the overall aims of the company with regard to managing health and safety and similarly a "generic" organisational section. When it comes to the arrangements section we have a group set of minimum standards that forms the basis on which each individual company within the group can build eg different sites will have their own SSWs or procedures for dealing with emergencies etc. We find that this ensures that the safety philosophy is a common one but allows flexibility in the way individual sites manage particular isues.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By R Joe
Michael, some additional thoughts. Underlying your question is the issue of the governance of health and safety and what this should look like in your case. As the other contributors have highlighted, the issues of where respective group / local and also individual responsibilities sit, to what extent, how they could (or should) be discharged, and the associated advantages and disadvantages of these things are all part of this.
In my view, there is no universal model and the degree of control that the holding company exerts over its subsidiaries, and how this is achieved is important here, as well as issues such as common directors (or not). If you’ve not done so already, I’d talk to your company secretary about this to get a full understanding of your particular set up. The recent consultation on Corporate Manslaughter is also worth thinking about with regard to the issue of culpability of parent companies and where ‘management control’ sits.
Documented governance arrangements are important, and done well will help turn responsibilities into what are even more important – accountabilities - at both a group and local level.
The safety policy(ies) should reflect the agreed approach to health and safety governance as well as confirming (hopefully) the organisation’s beliefs and commitments with regard to health and safety. Generally, with separate subsidiaries that are limited companies in their own right, an overall group policy supplemented by more specific local policies would tend to be the approach. I’m not an advocate of including all ‘organisation and arrangements’ in policies, and would outline them in the policies along with where the detail can be found at both a group and local level.
Hope this helps.
Regards RJ.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Michael Hanley
Thank you for the information and views it is very helpful.
|
|
|
|
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.