MORE than half of all UK companies are at risk of hefty fines under the impending Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act making it easier for organisations to be convicted of manslaughter from work-related deaths and injuries, according to new research by UK health and safety consultant, Croner.

In a recent survey of employers, 51.4% admitted to not being prepared for the legislation, expected to come into force this year, while 47.9% answered that they do not think it will affect them.

Croner said this lack of preparation stems in part from the length of time the Bill has been debated in parliament, including recent proposed amendments and discussions with interested parties such as the Crown Prosecution Service and the CBI.

But with increasing public pressure in the wake of disasters such as Paddington, Hatfield and Potters Bar, the company is advising businesses to consider the law’s implications now and take steps to review and implement progressive health and safety policies.

Under current law, an organisation can only be convicted of manslaughter where a management failure can be identified, which is problematic in large companies where management structures are more complex and responsibilities divided.

Successful prosecutions have therefore been rare, highlighted by the failure to convict companies involved in high profile disasters such as the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise and the Piper Alpha Oil Platform catastrophe in which 167 people died.

The government’s proposal  seeks to remedy this, and will make large businesses liable to conviction where there is a workrelated death or injury stemming from management failure. This situation that can be attributed to any senior member of staff’s neglect or consent and render the organisation open to huge fines.

In a wider view of reforms in relation to work-related deaths, consideration is being given to new offences of killing by recklessness and killing by gross carelessness carrying terms of imprisonment Stuart Mutch, Croner field operations manager said: “The complexity of current law has allowed companies with severe safety management failures to escape prosecution in manslaughter cases.

“In light of the new proposals, organisations that are not meeting current health and safety standards need to start reviewing structures and policies now, rather than later.”

Companies that are already complying with current standards, such as regulations on slips and trips and working at height, have no need to panic.

But Croner is advising them to see this as an opportunity to go one step further and implement positive health and safety cultures.

Mutch said: “Health and safety is the responsibility of the organisation as a whole, starting from senior management, and should be made as much of a priority as making a profit and service or product.

“Relevant policies and procedures need to be communicated throughout the organisation regularly – not just pinned to the notice board. This can take the form of promoting health and safety committees internally to establish a real health and safety culture.”

CONTRACTORS RISK SUING AFTER CIS SCHEME

BUILDERS could be sued for millions following accidents if they do not adequately insure their subcontractors according to their correct employment status, as highlighted in the new Construction Industry Scheme.

Aon Construction Direct is advising builders to check their subcontractors’ status thoroughly to ensure that all their labour-only subcontractors are included under their employer’s liability policy.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs launched the new scheme on Good Friday and a key aim is to ensure that contractors correctly determine the employment status of their workers as either self-employed subcontractors or employees.

Contractors will now have to sign the monthly declaration to confirm that this has been checked. The knock-on effect could be devastating if contractors do not make the link between their subcontractors’ employment status and their legal obligation to place employees under insurance.

Suzanne Kenney, team manager at Aon Construction Direct, said: “We realised that there was much confusion around the status of subcontractors. While some contractors fully understood the implications of subcontractor’s employment status on their insurance, many did not grasp its significance and consequently were leaving themselves needlessly exposed.”

PROTECT MIGRANT WORKER SAFETY, WARN LAWYERS

A LEADING law firm is warning construction firms that they must ensure eastern European workers are given adequate training in health and safety legislation or face serious punishment.

Mace and Jones partner and construction industry specialist Ken Salmon said the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is ready to crack down hard on employers in inspections in response to mounting evidence that eastern Europeans are facing higher workplace accidents levels. Research carried out for the HSE by London Metropolitan University found that migrant workers are concentrated in more hazardous jobs without adequate training and are working longer hours and shifts. The HSE initiated the research after suspecting elevated accident risks to migrant workers were not being reflected in official statistics.

“Employers have a duty to improve migrant workers limited understanding of health and safety,’ he said. “Employers need to put in place a procedure to ensure that any problems with communication or lack of familiarity with the jobs are properly prepared for and ironed out through rigorous training. Failure to protect the safety of migrant workers risks stiff penalties and fines. Employers simply cannot afford to be complacent in this vitally important area of Labour market.”

However Mr Salmon said employers needed to tread with real care not to discriminate against eastern Europeans.
“Although tests to assess eastern European applicants standard of written and oral English are advisable they must be applied to all candidates regardless of nationality to avoid accusations of discrimination,’ he said.

“Moreover, the tests should not go beyond assessing the candidates ability to fulfill the job description. Overly onerous tests could again be seen as potentially discriminatory.”

---