| Contractors fined for failing to protect person
The duty of contractors to protect persons not in their employment from risks to their health and safety has been highlighted once more by a prosecution brought by the HSE against two firms and a company director.
The case surrounds work carried out at Southfield School, Kettering, during which asbestos ceiling tiles were removed as part of work to upgrade the school’s electrical system. During the works, asbestos was released into the air posing a danger to workers and cleaners at the school. Pupils were not at risk as the work was undertaken during the summer holidays, but they were unable to return to school until the following Easter.
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such as way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”
Briggs and Forrester (Electrical) Ltd were fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000 after pleading guilty to two charges at Northampton Crown court.
- It failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of employees working at the school, who were exposed to asbestos while installing electrical equipment, thereby contravening the duty imposed by Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA).
- It failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of persons not in its employment who were exposed to asbestos while electrical equipment installation was being undertaken, thereby contravening the duty imposed by Section 3(1) of the HSWA.
B & W Asbestos Removal Specialists Ltd was also fined £30,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000 after pleading guilty to three charges:
- It failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of employees working at the school, who were exposed to asbestos whilst removing ceiling tiles, contravening the duty imposed by Section 2(1) of the HSWA.
- It failed to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health of persons who were not their employees as a result of work at the school, contravening Section 2(1) of the HSWA.
- It contravened Regulation 3(1) of the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 by failing to notify the work.
- It contravened Regulation 6(1) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 (the CAW Regulations) by failing to plan the work.
Marcus Buckle, Managing Director of B & W Asbestos Removal Specialists Ltd, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000 after pleading guilty to the following charges:
- Between 1 July and 22 August 2003 the contravention of Regulation 3(1) of the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 was committed with his consent or connivance or was attributable to his neglect.
- Between 30 May and 22 August 2003 the contravention of Regulation 6(1) of the CAW Regulations 2002 was committed with his consent or connivance or was attributable to his neglect.
Where contractors are employed to carry out certain tasks within the workplace, there is frequently confusion over health and safety responsibilities – both those of the contractor and the client. Workplace Law Magazine examines these issues in the upcoming May issue, which is dedicated to an in-depth look at the issues that working with contractors raises.
The magazine highlights some key case law involving the health and safety of both contractors and those affected by the work of contractors. In the leading case of R v. Associated Octel (1996), an employee of a specialist cleaning contractor was badly burned while working at Octel’s plant. Like all other contractors on the site, the contractor worked subject to the defendant’s ‘permit to work system’.
Octel was prosecuted for a breach of section 3(1). It claimed there was no case as the employee was from an independent contractor and not part of its undertaking. The case went to the House of Lords, which held that the key issue of the extent to which an independent contractor can be left to its own devices will depend on whether the work forms part of the employer’s undertaking. If it does form part of the undertaking, then the employer’s duty under section 3 extends to ensuring that, so far as is reasonably practicable, the contractor’s work is undertaken without risk.
Other cases discussed within the magazine include Beckingham, Tebay, Hatfield rail crash, and the recent grayrigg incident.
* re-produced with kind permission of ARCA |
