Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi All,
I have been asked the question and wanted some of my peers advice please as its not as straight forward...
As opposed to naming an indivdual as director in charge of health & safety can you name a board of directors at the company as a group in charge of health & safety?
More specifically, in this circumstance, if there are 2 named directors and 2 others who help run the business (this could be backed up in a court of law) but due to immigration status are not directors does that mean they are liable to H&S prosecution risk too?
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
if you are liable for the ups e.g. a share in the profits you are also liable for the downs and yep joint and several can apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I have a similar situation with a client of a small firm that both directors (There is only 2) have responsibility for H&S.
I posted on this forum a while ago and had agreement that it was acceptable.
Rob35
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
luke
I will try to answer this tricky question. Directors are directors whatever there domicile status as per the Companies Act 2002. I believe there are three types of director status, executive, non executive and sleeping, but could be wrong with the latter. All types of directors are responsible and accountable under UK law and that includes health and safety. H&S offences are normally covered under s37 of HSWA for directors and other senior officers of the company.
Best I can do at short notice.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks Ray & everyone else.
Now for the other half of the question, how would you go about designating a board as being responsible for health & safety as opposed to naming a specific director in charge? (i.e. for the purpose of satisfying legalities and the statement of intent etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
You don't ask easy questions...As far as I'm aware only one person who is also the most senior board member is responsible for health and safety of the company. In practice it rarely applies that way. In terms of individual liability, as opposed to corporate liability, there are only three meaningful sanctions that can be applied to directors that I am aware of for h&s offences. Disqualification as a director, gross negligence manslaughter and a charge under s37. Even where there is a named individual eg Director of Safety, this does not infer in itself that the person would be held responsible for health and safety failures. Anyway, most prosecutions are against the company and not individuals of the company, which also includes Corporate Manslaughter.
So, to answer your question, in terms of the law it is irrevelant how the board of directors are formulated. They do by de facto have legal responsibilities inferred upon them by virtue of their status. Phew, got there in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
RayRapp wrote:
So, to answer your question, in terms of the law it is irrevelant how the board of directors are formulated. They do by de facto have legal responsibilities inferred upon them by virtue of their status. Phew, got there in the end.
Luke, you might find this transcript of the first reading of a 10 minute bill in January this year re Directors Liability useful in outlining the somewhat obtuse nature of the current situation. It has some nice references within the text that summarise the issues that are not helpful when boards consider such matters. http://www.theyworkforyo...es/?id=2010-01-19b.166.0I agree with Rays comment above and would say that all you need to do in the POA documents is to make sure that this is stated and that the arrangements confirm what they will do, when etc. However, I must also say that I would be recommending as hard as I could that one Director should take the lead, as recommended in the IOD/HSE guidance, and help the Board to manage it effectively. If that decision is not made then my money says that the Chair of the Board (or whoever it is that chairs the board meetings) would be seen as the one who would be expected to make sure it was managed effectively as part of the Board business protocols.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
In OHSAS terms however you cannot achive certification without there being a single named Top Management Representative - this does mean a single director has to be nominated. Yes I know some cases of this being overlooked by the third party auditor but the standard is clear.
Personally I think that the larger the organisation the weaker the case for not naming a single individual - it is rather like saying there is to be no single stated Financial Director or similar.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Bob, a good point and one that underlines that it is good business practice and not, as yet anyway, a legal requirement to do so. It is often much easier to gain acceptance of a nominated Director in a larger organisation since they are used to the reality that work has to be shared even at Board level. In a smaller group it can be quite tricky sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.