Rank: Forum user 
|
To what extent is a H&S appointed person protected in their job role? Say a H&S manager did a risk assessment and advised PPE and which wasn't suitable and employee was injured as a result?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
The measure of competence and protection is a matter for the courts to determine.
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The measure of competence and protection is a matter for the courts to determine.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Is the H&S person an employee or an external consultant/paid for a service?
If an employee the principal of vicarious liability would come into play i.e. employer still responsible for poor advice.
If an external consultant then it is for a Court to decide liability, if pushed. Doubt if the employer would get away with no liability.
|
1 user thanked Ian Bell2 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is an interesting question and this is my take on it. If the H&S appointed person is an employee they have quite a bit of protection from prosecution. The onus falls on the company and not the individual unless they had a total disregard for H&S. Juries have been reluctant to find individuals guilty and it is for the HSE to prove their case. If you read the report about the Chevron explosion in Pembroke you will see there were failing by the plant manager and others but none were prosecuted. https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/chevron-pembroke-report-2020.pdf If the H&S appointed person is self-employed they are more exposed to prosecution. They will be treated more as a company and will have to prove compliance as apposed the HSE to proving their case. https://www.shponline.co.uk/common-workplace-hazards/consultant-didn-t-have-the-expertise-to-give-chemicals-advice/
|
1 user thanked Alfasev for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Section 7 Health and safety at work etc act, could apply, I remeber a FLT driver was prosecuted under this so maybe not so clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Some years ago it was widely reported that the H&S adviser for a restaurant chain was convicted over unsafe conditions. He was aware of the extent of the safety problems and had prioritised improvements in food hygiene over (if I remember correctly) electrical safety.
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Here's another example. A consultant was imprisoned over inadequate RAMS, inspections and failing to intervene.
https://www.shponline.co.uk/legislation-and-guidance/legal-implications-safety-advisers/
|
1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As has been said it all depends… the courts will look at an individual’s culpability and if they think they are responsible for what has gone wrong then they will prosecute the individual. In the Fatty Arbuckle’s case (for it was them) an external consultant ignored the fact that staff had mentioned that they kept getting electric shocks from a grill and focused solely on food hygiene issues. An employee was killed and the consultant, of course, took some of the blame and was prosecuted. As was customary in those dark days all he got was a fine and was trading again a few months later. In that case it was clear that they person was not doing their job and could be described as having caused the failure. In the case motioned: the wrong sort of PPE being recommended, it becomes about trickier. Why did they recommend the wrong PPE: if it was to save money for example they would definitely be culpable; if it was simply a failure to understand the real risk and chose the most appropriate PPE then they might get away with it but as a H&S professional you are expected to know the limits of your knowledge and know when to ask for help and advice. Edited by user 04 March 2020 11:44:08(UTC)
| Reason: avoiding being sued
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think you should have a read of the “sentencing guidelines”, there is a section on prosecution of individuals. It will answer your question and you should have a good idea where you stand after. Do your search on “UK sentencing guidelines” and you will come across it. Chris
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi everyone, Thanks for the replies and I should add as well this is just a hpyothetical question asked out of interest. The question around PPE was the first that came to mind so I can't answer any specific questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Kate  Some years ago it was widely reported that the H&S adviser for a restaurant chain was convicted over unsafe conditions. He was aware of the extent of the safety problems and had prioritised improvements in food hygiene over (if I remember correctly) electrical safety.
I remember that case - he worked for Fatty Arbuckles. I'm fairly certain that he 'was asked to leave' his professional body but I can't remeber if it was the CIEH...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
That's the one! I believe he was an employee and not a consultant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
During my training many years ago, I’m sure we were told that as it was an American company, the general management stayed away in America and the H&S person was the only one left they could go after. Either way, the sentencing guidelines, describe the various levels of negligence and what would be the outcome, from simple error to deliberate act. Remember H&S people are never wrong, just less right on occasion. Chris
|
1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I was told this story by a tame HSE inspector: a company had an incident involving an overhead travelling crane, where someone died. The HSE turned and they paid the H&S person a visit. They checked that a risk assessment was in place and asked few questions about the culture. This part of the process was described as “a courtesy call”. They expected that a risk assessment etc would be in place and that the H&S person had done what was expected of him and their meeting only lasted an hour. They then set to work on the operations manager and the managing director. That “conversation” lasted 4 days and they married out further inspections and then issued notices etc. then they took the company to court along with the managing director and the operations manager. They were not interested in the H&S bod; they knew where responsibility lay. As for Chris’s comments about running away to your home country, it begs the question: “Are H&S offences extraditable?”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
No-one can be idemnified against criminal proceedings (Crown issues notwithstanding!!).
A H&S Manager (as referred in OP) is perhaps more likely to face criminal charges than some lowly employee within the organisation.
Fatty Arbuckles (As others reference) a case in point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.