25
|
P a g e
The employers duty is not just to provide a safe system of work, but to provide a system
of work which can be said to be reasonably safe in all circumstances. It will be obvious
to you that not all places of work carry the same potential dangers, so what might be
said to be reasonable in one instance may not be so in another. Many aspects have to be
considered carefully.
For example, are adequate warning notices displayed? If so, are they printed in a
language that all employees can understand? A person who is unable to read English is
entitled to the same protection in law as the person who can, and this point is in no way
merely directed towards foreign workers. There are many people in Britain who, for
one reason or another, are unable to read.
The fact that the system of work has been in operation without incident for a period of
time is no evidence for its being a safe system of work. In recent years, emphasis has
centered on how work is carried out, i.e. on the necessity for work to be planned and
carried out according to a defined method.
A safe system of work could require the provision of a permit to work system. Where
this is used, due regard must be paid to pointing out hazards and the means of dealing
with them. Accurate information in respect of a particular task must be provided if a
safe system of work is to be achieved.
Competent and Safety-conscious Personnel
An employer is liable for the acts of all his employees, but there is a duty to take
reasonable care when selecting staff. It would be courting disaster, for example, to
engage a person who was illiterate and then put him to work on complicated machinery
where there was a requirement to read and understand important operating
instructions.
We cannot leave this area without looking at the so-called cases of horse-play or sky-
larking. People have always acted foolishly at work on occasions and, sadly, will
continue to do so. In many industries there are initiation ceremonies which,
traditionally, have resulted in young persons, particularly apprentices, being subjected
to the sometimes dangerous acts of their fellow workers. In the majority of cases these
ceremonies pass without mishap but, nevertheless, sky-larking has on occasions proved
to be dangerous and sometimes fatal for the recipient. When such an occurrence is
brought to light, the question to be considered is: Who is to blame, the employer, the
employees or both?
Should the employer turn a blind eye to the sky-larking, he will run the risk of being
held liable for any injury that might be caused to an employee. On the other hand, it
seems fairly clear that where an employer is unaware of the dangerous practice, he may
not be liable, but each case must be decided on its merits. A person who is guilty of sky-
larking always stands in great danger of being sued for damages.
