No 71, August 2001
• Workers die while Government dithers
• Victory on reps' rights
• Tube manager busted
• Revitalised reps vote for action
• Voluntary sector training project reaches conclusion
• Management Council dayschool
Workers die while Government dithers
Shocking new figures from the Health and Safety Executive show that workplace deaths climbed by more than a third in 2000/01 compared with the previous year. There were 295 fatalities compared with 220 in 1999/2000. With 106 deaths, the construction industry accounted for more than a third of the fatalities. Agriculture and the service sector were other black spots.
There was a decline in the reported numbers of major and over-three-day injuries in 2000/01 but Bill Callaghan, chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), pointed to an increase in under-reporting as a possible reason.
While official concern was expressed about the disastrous new figures, the newly elected Government showed little sign of action to meet its own targets for reductions in deaths and injuries at work.
There was no mention of the anticipated Safety Bill in the Queen's Speech setting out the legislative programme of the new Government. It was expected that the Government would propose tightening up of company directors' duties on health and safety and some improvements in safety reps' rights. Also missing from the Queen's Speech was any reference to new legislation on corporate manslaughter.
Subsequently, Alan Whitehead, the new safety minister, speaking to the TUC's health and safety specialists, reaffirmed the intention to bring in a Safety Bill. However, he was not able to say when this might happen. He did say that the Government would consult before legislating though the general understanding is that consultation had already taken place some time ago.
In another recent development, the Government's desire to introduce a pilot scheme for roving safety representatives in the construction industry seems to be running into trouble. Last year, ministers were adamant that a pilot would begin in the construction industry this March. But all that happened was that major companies pledged to co-operate with union safety reps wherever they exist. Now the plan is run pilots in construction, the leisure industry, light manufacturing, retail and the voluntary sector with a completion date of December 2002. The HSC has hired a consultant to try and find any employers willing to co-operate while the unions are still considering how to find reps willing to take part in the scheme.
Speaking at the Hazards Campaign Conference in June, Bill Callaghan came out strongly against the introduction of Provisional Improvement Notices (PINs). These are much wanted by safety reps as a means of dealing with management time-wasting and obstruction. But Callaghan, describing PINs as "bureaucratic," made it clear that the HSC did not favour their introduction.
Labour Must Deliver
The Hazards Campaign delegates clearly did not like this message and later in the conference unanimously agreed to start a campaign for the inclusion of workplace safety legislation in Labour's programme. The GMB and the Hazards Campaign will organise a fringe meeting at the TUC conference in order to encourage unions to make a stand on the issue.
In another sign of current dissatisfaction, the GMB and UNISON both slammed new guidance from the HSE on stress at work. UNISON in particular suggested to its reps that they throw the guidance in the bin.
The position on corporate manslaughter also needs to be cleared up. Labour has been long committed to bringing in custodial sentences for company directors found to be negligent in causing workplace deaths and this was repeated in the Election Manifesto.
But no legislation was proposed in the Queen's Speech. However, speaking at a British Safety Council event shortly after the Election, new Home Office minister Keith Bradley restated the intention to bring in a corporate manslaughter law.
However, he did not give a date when this is going to happen and there may not be any movement until the next session of Parliament which is not due to start until November 2002. The reason for the delay is apparently a need for continuing consultations on such issues as crown immunity. It is not quite clear why such matters should cause a hold-up when the legislation has been under discussion for such a very long time.
The post-election picture that emerges is not one of Labour moving forward on occupational health and safety but rather of a Government which is at best maintaining the status quo and which may be retreating from its previous commitments. Some of the demands of the Hazards Campaign charter, which had seemed to be realisable, now might drift out of reach again. The situation calls for a response from safety reps who have already campaigned long and hard for improved legislation and who are unlikely to take kindly to the idea that this might not be forthcoming. It remains to be seen where exactly the Government stands on workplace health and safety, but there are many reps who will think, especially after the feeble reforms of the first term, that it is now time for Labour to deliver.
[picture: A delegate makes her point at the 2001 Hazards Conference]
Victory on reps' rights
A key Employment Tribunal decision has consolidated the right of safety reps to time off to attend the TUC's Stage III training courses. Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) rep Sue Catten, who works for the Benefits Agency in Hackney, brought a complaint, with the support of the union, under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee (SRSC) Regulations after she was refused permission to go on a Stage III course. In a ruling delivered earlier this year, an Employment Tribunal decided her complaint was well founded.
Stage III has been designed by the TUC primarily for experienced reps. It provides both information and skills and reps who complete it successfully obtain a qualification from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. The course lasts for one day per week for an academic year but can be taken over a maximum of three years.
Sue had been through the Stage I and II courses and wanted to go on to the more advanced course but was refused time off by her line manager. Sue appealed against this decision through the PCS but was not able to get it changed inside the Benefits Agency. Managers, acting on the advice of the personnel department, maintained that the advanced training was outside the scope of the SRSC Regulations. The managers claimed to have an opinion from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to this effect but were not able to support this with documentation. The union side took a contrary view, and it was this difference that was fought out at the Tribunal.
The Tribunal's decision was unequivocal. Their view of the duties of safety reps was that "they may reasonably and legitimately require detailed further training beyond the basic training the representative should receive." They accepted that advanced training would enable reps to represent members better and to improve their understanding of information emanating from the HSE.
The Benefits Agency tried to argue that there was no "business need" for a rep to go on a Stage III course but the Tribunal rejected this approach, commenting that statutory requirements and Codes of Practice had priority. The Tribunal therefore ignored all questions of business need. The Code of Practice underpinning the SRSC Regulations defined a requirement on reps' training which in the Tribunal's view provided a justification for attendance on the Stage III course.
The Tribunal also rejected a suggestion that advanced training was unnecessary for reps who worked in an office. The Tribunal cited stress, violence from the public and repetitive strain injury as serious hazards which justified the need for training.
This is a comprehensive decision which strengthens the position of safety reps. It does not apply in every case, particular circumstances have always to be taken into account, but it does create a platform for negotiations with employers for time off for reps.
Tube manager busted
London Underground Ltd. (LUL) and one of its managers, David "Dangerous Dave" Elkington, have been found guilty of sending sub-contractors to work in areas where the high voltage railway track was still "live", sometimes less than 18 inches away and in wet weather. The contractors were under the threat of the sack if they didn't do what they were told.
The judge called Elkington a "dictatorial bully." He said LUL were guilty of "institutional blindness" in allowing the dangerous regime to fester for four years, that negligence went right to board level and could easily have led to loss of life. Elkington was fined 5,000 which included compensation for the men working under him.
The judge told LUL they'd "paid only lip service to safety" and fell lamentably short of the standards expected. But rather than fine LUL, he gave it six months to get its house in order. Keith Beattie, chief engineer of LUL, said the forthcoming review is "going to be root and branch."
Dangerous Dave was in charge of contract workers employed to do maintenance work on the Central Line. The work should be done when the current is switched off and the trains have finished at night. The court proved Elkington knew this but for several years he sent his gang to work near live rails, when trains were running and without a safe system of work.
Witnesses testified that several contractors received electric shocks. One was taken to hospital and linked to a heart-monitoring machine for 3.5 hours as a precaution.
Elkington had the right to hire and fire. When two of the contractors complained, they were summarily dismissed leaving colleagues feeling they had no choice but to work in the dangerous conditions. Workers spoke of how they feared for their lives, one saying: "We were terrified. There was nothing we could do about it because if you complained you were sacked. The money was good so you took the risk. It was a miracle no one died. London Underground should have done more."
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) tried to stop the "unbelievably dangerous" conditions by issuing a prohibition notice against LUL following a complaint by one of Elkington's gang. The notice stated the work should not be done on live track. LUL later issued a works notice to this effect which Elkington signed but in January 2001 he sent his gang out to work on live track again. The prosecution began after this incident. If the HSE had issued the notice against Elkington rather than LUL, there would have been a possibility of a prison sentence.
An RMT spokesperson said this situation was even more likely to occur after the Government's part-privatisation of the Underground under PPP. LUL has already spent 1m on a safety audit. London Transport has spent 76.7 million on consultants on PPP and restructuring over the last three years.
Revitalised reps vote for action
The 12th National Hazards Conference lived up to all expectations as 550 campaigners met in Manchester in June. At the main annual gathering for health and safety activists, attention focused on Hazard Charter demands around strengthened rights for safety representatives, and our demand for tougher punishment of companies who offend.
Although Bill Callaghan reassured conference that the Health and Safety Commission was committed to back room talks with Ministers around the missing Safety Bill, delegates recognised that the softly softly approach was insufficient. In fact there was general unhappiness about the Commission's complacency about a range of issues. Opportunities to bring in clear-cut Regulations have been missed because the Commission wants a "greater degree of consensus amongst the social partners." These issues include working time, where they appear to have given up on trying to enforce the health and safety aspects, and stress, where people want much more than awareness exercises. The TGWU staged a publicity event to highlight road traffic deaths, around 70 a week, many of which are work related and preventable: another area where regulation is needed.
Crosby Moni and Stirling Smith lead a lively plenary discussion on community and workers actions against the globalisation of corporate capitalism with positive examples of action against Cape in South Africa and the UK as well as horror stories about the export of hazards to the developing world.
Greater Manchester Hazards Centre is to be congratulated for everything running exceedingly smoothly, and for taking on the task of organising the next conference, due in September 2002.
Voluntary sector training project reaches conclusion
The Centre's three-year National Lottery funded voluntary sector training project, funded by the National lottery, ended June. In the first year over 550 organisations willing to participate in the projectwere identified. Their health and safety needs were established by consultation meetings in every London borough. Training modules were devised and three days training provided to all the participants in the second year.
In year three, all the participants were invited to apply for further support. More than 200 did so. The support took the form of:
The main findings of the project were:
A typical example of the conditions discovered is as follows. A day-centre manager attended all three days of the initial training. She then found there was no time available for health and safety management. She requested a visit by the Centre to carry out an inspection which revealed:
Though funding for the project has now expired, the need to raise standards in the voluntary sector is as acute as ever.
Management Council dayschool
Hot on the heels of the national Hazards Conference, London Hazards Centre held a dayschool for Management Council members and staff on 7 July. This discussed how the Centre adapts its services and develops in the immediate period, in the light of new developments and the changing needs of the Centre's users who remain predominantly trade union safety representatives, tenants groups and other community activists. Management Council members were keen to get involved in selling the Centre within their own organisations. Also, in a short period of time they produced a shopping list of topics they would like us to spend more time on, from rats on deprived council estates to violence at work as a problem that disproportionately affects black workers. From the need for harder arguments regarding the safety case against PPP schemes, to the need for better arguments on PINs, roving representatives, and other Hazards Charter demands. If we act on a fraction of the ideas, especially organisational matters regarding strengthening links with regional trade unions, we will be doing well. All who attended wanted a repeat session next year.
(c) London Hazards Centre 2001
Hampstead Town Hall Centre, 213 Haverstock Hill, London NW3 4QP, UK
mail@lhc.org.uk
The London Hazards Centre Trust is UK Registered Charity no 293677.
Home page