Workers' health and safety
The coronavirus pandemic has shone a large spotlight on issues of health and safety at work, and the steps that individuals can take if they believe their employer is not providing a safe workplace.
Please note: the information contained in this legal update is correct as of the original date of publication.
The coronavirus pandemic has shone a large spotlight on issues of health and safety at work, and the steps that individuals can take if they believe their employer is not providing a safe workplace. It has also highlighted a discrepancy in wording in the UK legislation as to the protection offered to workers, compared to employees.
In a case brought by the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain against the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Union argued that European health and safety provisions, and associated provisions relating to PPE, had not been correctly implemented into UK law as the protections were not wide enough to cover workers.
The High Court considered the various definitions of “worker” and “employee” under EU and national law and concluded that the European Directives relating to health and safety and the provision of PPE apply to all workers, save for domestic servants, and not just employees.
The secondary argument run on behalf of the Secretaries of State was that although some UK provisions referred to employees only, there were other applicable provisions within UK law which provided comparable protection to workers, and that those alternative provisions were sufficient to implement the Directives.
In respect of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, whilst there are provisions which are specific to employees, there are also separate provisions which relate to anyone who is not an employee but who may be affected by the way in which the employer runs his undertaking. This would therefore include workers. The main difference between the two sets of provisions is that, in respect of employees, the duty relates to health, safety and welfare, whereas for non-employees, the duty relates to health and safety only - welfare is not mentioned. However, given that welfare is not a requirement of the European Directives, the High Court felt that the protection offered to workers was comparable.
Under s.44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees have a right not to be subjected to a detriment for certain health and safety reasons (see our previous update on health and safety issues here for further information). Counsel for the Secretaries of State argued that the “whistleblower” provisions provided comparable protection for workers as protected disclosures can include disclosures about health and safety issues. This argument was not accepted by the High Court – the Directives required workers to be protected regardless of whether they made a disclosure. There was therefore a finding that UK law had not correctly implemented EU law in respect of workers.
By contrast, s.100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (which protects employees from dismissal), did not need to be extended to workers – workers do not enjoy protection from unfair dismissal within the UK and so there was no obligation to confer protection specifically for health and safety reasons.
Lastly, the High Court considered the issue of the provision of PPE. It is worth highlighting that the Court was not considering any individual circumstances – and in particular, was not considering whether any specific individual should have been provided with PPE to protect against Covid-related risks. Instead, it was simply considering whether the European Directive in respect of PPE had been correctly implemented into UK law. It held that it had not – whilst a failure to provide PPE may also constitute a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the general obligations under that Act were not deemed to be sufficient to comply with the specific PPE obligations under European law.
This decision will have important ramifications for a significant number of workers, particularly those within the gig economy (such as taxi drivers, or those dealing with deliveries) on whom heavy reliance has been placed during the coronavirus pandemic.
A full copy of the judgment can be found here.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Opinion
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Online Event
Wellbeing and financial considerations – practical solutions for challenging times
Press Release
Browne Jacobson collaborates with The GLAA and University of Nottingham to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking
In Person Event
Navigating your way through high profile sensitive reviews and investigations
Legal Update
Teacher strikes – lessons learnt so far
Opinion
Can toilet facilities amount to sex discrimination?
Opinion
Consultation launched on minimum ambulance service levels during strike action
Opinion - Maternity services
Changes to redundancy protections for employees post-maternity leave
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Legal Update
Employee who refused to wear a face mask fairly dismissed
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
On-Demand
Employment update webinar
Opinion
Term-time school worker entitled to national minimum wage for unworked basic hours
Opinion
Fire and re-hire – draft statutory code
Opinion
Menopause and the workplace
Opinion
Consultation on holiday entitlement – part-year and irregular workers
Opinion
Government introduces new “anti-striking laws” to be discussed in Parliament
Opinion
Twitter facing employment claims following mass redundancies
News that Twitter is being threatened with multiple claims by UK employees following mass redundancies provides a reminder of the risks that comes with an employer implementing large scale redundancy exercises.
Legal Update
Industrial Action and Minimum Service Levels
Legal Update
Discrimination comes of age
Legal Update - Shared Insights
Shared Insights: Looking ahead to 2023 – what Health and Care employers need to know
Opinion
Rising Employment Tribunal backlog
Legal Update
Official statistics demonstrate a new wave of age discrimination claims
Opinion
Menopause and the NHS workforce addressing the female brain drain…
Opinion
4-day working week a success?
The Covid-19 pandemic drastically changed the world’s way of working, with increased flexibility being greatly desired by employees. Earlier on in the year, a number of organisations trialled the concept of a 4-day working week – which has clearly been a success for many.Legal Update
Coming of age
Official statistics show that 15,336 claims which included a complaint of age discrimination were received at the Employment Tribunals between March 2020 and March 2021.
Published Article
Starling Bank employment tribunal
The outcome of the Employment Tribunal claim brought by Gulnaz Raja against Starling Bank Limited (1) (Starling), and Matthew Newman (2) was reported last month.
Published Article
EU banks show slow progress on gender diversity
Opinion
Rising wages ahead
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Opinion
World Cup 2022 – how employers can avoid scoring an own goal!
The World Cup kicks off in Qatar on Sunday 20 November 2022, with the final taking place on Sunday 18 December 2022. Undoubtedly, this is a huge sporting event, and many employees will be keen to show their support for their favourite teams. However, due to the time difference, start times for the matches are between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. UK time, which could have an impact on employers if employees who wish to watch the matches are scheduled to work.
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Opinion
The vanishing dismissal
Where an employee appeals against their dismissal under a contractual appeal procedure and their appeal is successful, reinstatement to their previous role is automatic and does not require approval or agreement from the employee.
Opinion
Directors fined for unsafe removal of asbestos
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
Opinion
Don't look down
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
Opinion
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations post Bathgate?
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
Opinion
NHS England – Assuring and supporting complex change
NHS England has issued an updated (publication 11 October 2022) suite of Complex Change guidance about how it will assure and support proposals for complex change that are reportable to it. New and (where it is still in force) existing Complex Change guidance are as follows.
Legal Update
IR35 rules here to stay after government U-turn
A few weeks ago we brought you news that following the Government’s mini-budget it was confirmed that the off-payroll working rules (known as “IR35”) put in place for public and private sector businesses from 2017 and 2021 would be scrapped from April 2023.
Legal Update
Redundancy consultation and selection concerning expiry of a fixed term contract – EAT put the spotlight onto a ‘selection pool of one’
In Mogane v Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered whether it was fair to dismiss a nurse as redundant on the basis that that her fixed-term contract was due to expire before that of her colleague.
Opinion
Lying on your CV – what can possibly go wrong?
The majority of people do not feel the need to embellish their CV to get that coveted position and move on up the career ladder. Their worthiness and benefit to the hiring organisation are easily demonstrated through the recruitment process – application, psychometric testing, selection day or interview.
Opinion
HSE inspection of asbestos in schools
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have announced they will be carrying out a programme of inspections to primary and secondary school establishments from September 2022. The inspections will assess how schools are managing the risks from asbestos and meeting the Duty to Manage requirements, set out in Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.