Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Dee
Fellow Forum Users,
I was interested to see if anyone else has experienced this. The information below was sent to me from one of my Client's suppliers.
The background is there was a near miss which involved a stanley knife blade being caught up in packaging of goods sent by the supplier.
No-one was injured but we record it as a near miss and duly advised the supplier and requested they advise us of their findings.
After 3-4 weeks we still haven't received necessary information, we call up and explain we would like to come and visit, lo and behold next day we receive the near miss report - end of story.............it is then followed by an e-mail entitled "Shadow Directorships" and the following which I will let you read at your leisure...........(I have tried to abbreviate it)
"The Directors Company X are advised that Company Z perform a Safety Inspection at Company X's premises.
Such a visit will involve Company Z in the Safety Procedures currently operated by the Directors at Company X. Any communications, instructions, advice , guidance or recommendations that Company Z may express before, during or after such an inspection that may lead to the Directors changing their respective discretions to accommodate
Company Z may lead to Company Z being considered as a Shadow Director of
Company X. ( Refer to: Secretary of State DTI v Deverell and Hopkins
With the above considerations in mind the Directors of Company X will hold a Board Meeting immediately on arrival of Company Z
Inspection Staff."
Now I have a fair idea that this has been bounced back to me with the Corporate Killing Bill in mind but surely it is a bit OTT?!?
Constructive discussion and comments always welcomed!
Dee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Catman
Hi Dee
Not sure how it would go in the courts but......
I know of several small companies who have one huge client, who will often tell the small company to change their process to suit the customer, or they will go elsewhere.
In that respect the small company has no choice but to change their practice or go out of business and as a result you could say the customer has a say in the 'direction' of the company.
However it has always been positive safety recommendations which added to the smaller business in my experience so the problem described has not arisen......
very interesting question though and I will be interested to see what the resident legal beagles say!!!!
Cheers
TW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dee
Thanks TW,
I was thinking along the same lines as you but this is not even a main supplier.
I too was hoping for some input from the legal experts that are kind enough to post their knowledge on this site.
We'll just have to wait and see!!
Dee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I am no legal beagle, but I hope that those who are would say that such a shadow directorship would only arise if significant changes in direction were enforced.
A safety audit/inspection should not be about changing direction, but to compare existing direction with written procedures and legal requirements.
I think the supplier could be right should you decide to go in and change their way of working radically - but in my experience, safety audits tend to lead to better adherence to their own promises - not to sea-changes of policy.
They can of course say what they like - or not say... but it will be the Court that actually applies any such shadow directorship, regardless of what is written by either party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.