This is not  that unusual. The legal duties that exist under Health and Safety at Work Act are aimed mainly art the employer, the organisation  not individuals. Section 37 of course places a duty on “any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity”  and Armour vs Skeen makes it clear that this depends on the persons responsibilities not their title. HSG 65 and other guidance  such as INDG 343 suggest that it would be a good idea for businesses to appoint a director/board level  person to oversee H&S issues but that is not a legal requirement  and most business don’t bother. So, H&S issues at board level will be hammered out between the board members, with each pitching for their area: finance wanting to save money; operations will want to streamline process etc.   If the business is owned  by a group of partners  or a co-op  or some other format it makes no difference. The liability rests with the company and the personal responsibility  depends on what people are doing not their title.  

Doesn’t every H&S policy document start with the line “health and safety is everybody’s responsibility”?

I do have a contrary anecdote about this.  I once had a job interview with a legal firm, and their feedback was that I gave the wrong answer to the question of how different I thought it would be to work for such a business.  I'd said it wouldn't be that different to what I'd done before.  They said that because of the way the legal firm was structured as a partnership, it did make a difference.  Sadly, as the interview was unsuccessful, I can't describe what would be different in practice.

Originally Posted by: Kate

I do have a contrary anecdote about this.  I once had a job interview with a legal firm, and their feedback was that I gave the wrong answer to the question of how different I thought it would be to work for such a business.  I'd said it wouldn't be that different to what I'd done before.  They said that because of the way the legal firm was structured as a partnership, it did make a difference.  Sadly, as the interview was unsuccessful, I can't describe what would be different in practice.

Once prosecuted a solicitors about 25 years ago after an accident in their store room, the irony was they specialised in accident compensation. Because of the complex structure we were told we would have to name all the partners on the summons, however one of the senior partners who was about to retire decided to accept the charges on behalf of the law firm as it can be difficult practising with a criminal conviction. We were told if it was one of the big London firms we could have had dozens of partners to name on the summons.