Health and Safety Legislation and Employee Rights Assignment Sample

• Type Assignment
• Downloads1071
• Pages10

Introduction

Get Free Online Assignment Samples from UK's Best Assignment Help Experts to boost your academic performance.

In the given case, Adam is programmer for developing software for the Alpha Ltd but suffers RSI or repetitive strain injury. Linda is one of the company's director and manager of the project being aware of the sufferings of Adam and his condition of pain during duty.

Adam is found to be sent for occupational therapy where he is recommended an adjustment in the equipment which is used by him earlier. After 2 months, the adjustment is done. However, there was not much improvement (Mei et al., 2020).

He took an off of three months but after returning a formal meet is called to let him inform regarding his poor performance which is not as per the standard. There was an announcement of the implementation of improvement plan in his performance. Adam give the explanation of his condition which leads to a below standard performance. After two months of the commencement of the improvement plan for his performance, he was found to be dismissed (Mei et al., 2020).

Rule

As per the act of Health and Safety at Work, the employer has the liability of securing the safety of employees during their working along with preventing their potential harm.

The effective safety and health legislation could create prevention of any sort of incident which creates costly legitimate actions, irrespective of mentioning the senior manager and board of director's reputation, who might be found accountable personally.

The major objective regarding the legislation of safety and health is for ensuring the employees as well as employers to not put themselves in in any kind of danger during work. The further secure any public member from the danger in case they are supposed to arrive at the given processor further governs the safety of the workforce in context to the working period of an employee after and before taking break. The fundamental policy regarding safety and health which is implemented to various businesses irrespective of their size are given as below (Leso et al., 2018) -

• Regulation of health and safety for employees of the year 1989 which ensure that the information of safety and health are to be provided to all of the employees within an organisation.
• The regulation regarding safety representative and safety committee of 1977 stating a well - established committee as well as representatives regarding safety and health concern.
• Regulation of health and safety of 1996 which states that in case the trade union is not at their position, employees should be consulted.
• Regulation of management of health and safety e at work of the year 1999 which states that the employers are required to assess the risk regarding safety and health towards employees influenced by the activities regarding their work.
• Regulatory reform order of the year 2005 which states that the occupiers or employers of any building should make appropriate management risk for the safety measures from fire (Leso et al., 2018).
• Regulation of electricity at work of the 1989 for ensuring safe for maintenance as well as installation of various electrical appliances within the workplace.
• The regulation regarding health and safety or first aid of the year 1981 which place the duty on employer for making appropriate arrangements of first aid at the workplace according to the nature of their work.

The major legislative pieces which deals with various aspects regarding safety and health is the health and safety e at work, etc. Act of 1974 as well as the regulation regarding management of health and safety at work of 1999, which set a standard for various safety and health measures in the work place of United Kingdom (Oswald et al., 2019).

Traditionally there exist some secondary pieces regarding the legislation of safety and health that are quite specific along with covering a variety of subjects like DSE, fire and manual handling. All of these all together forms the legislative framework regarding safety and health measures in workplace.

The regulation of manual handling operations of the year 1992 which was further amended in the year 2002 is applicable to a broad range of activities involved in in manual handling performances consisting of carrying, polling, pushing, lowering or lifting.

The major responsibility is with the employers

The regulations of manual handling operations need the employees for (Olagunju et al., 2021).

• Providing training and information on appropriate techniques of manual handling
• Insuring a suitable provision of equipment in respect to their intended objectives
• Inappropriately maintained equipment of manual handling (Oswald et al., 2019)

The employees are also given some of the employees' possibilities in this respect which are given as follows –

• Following safer working system
• Using equipment safely and correctly
• Cooperating with the employers on matter of safety and health
• Letting the employer aware of the risk associated with manual handling
• Ensuring that no one is under risk.

According to the law, there could be a fair dismissal of employee in case the employer has valid or genuine cause and he follows appropriate procedure. Usually it consists of mis conduction on the basis of any unauthorised work absence for severe insubordination (Alves de Castro et al., 2020).

According to the section 1(a), it is noted to provide special security towards employees as well as workers with effect from 31^st of May 2021 that are found to be dismissed to draw the attention of employer towards the safety and health issues associated with the place of work. The authority regarding unfair dismissal in context to the safety and health reasons initiates from the section hundred under the act of employment right or ERA of 1996.

The section 1(a) also states in the act of employment right of 1996 give security from the detriment in safety and health relating cases and have amendments order in 2021 for extending the legitimate security of section 44 (1)(d) +(e) for including the workers. The instruments of statute implement to the detriments from 31^st of May 2021 and after that.

The section 100 employment right act explain that the dismissal would be categorised as automatically an appropriate in which the principle cause of dismissal is regarding the following (Alves de Castro et al., 2020) –

To designate safety and health related activities in which the employers designate for performing activities in association with reduction or prevention of risk regarding safety and health at the workplace, employees being performing or propose to perform any of these activities – s.1(a).

To become a designated safety and health representative for the workers or members of the committee of safety in the workplace in which the employees carry out or propose to carry out any of the function as a member or representative of such committee – s.1(b)

To become the employee where any representative or a committee of safety is absent foreign places where reasonable practicability of such committee is not present for raising such issues what to bring the attention of employees by appropriate means regarding the situation associated with the working of employees in a reasonably harmful or potentially in appropriate regarding safety or health reasons – s.1(c) (Mayuran et al., 2020)

To leave or propose to leave or refusal of return towards the harmful place of work or any kind of dangerous section of the workplace in which the employee have reasonable belief of being in imminent and serious danger along with not having reasonable expectations of averting it – s.1(d)

Analysis

The fundamentals regarding safety and health legislation associated with the workplace includes the act of health and safety at work, etc. 1974 which is also termed as the HSW or HASAWA and consists of most of the legislation regarding safety and health (Mayuran et al., 2020).

The basis of HASAW is the safer practice and Common senses in context to the duty of employers for taking responsibility regarding the safety and health measures of the employees at the workplace up to the extent of reasonably practical possibility.

• The employer has the following responsibilities –
• Maintaining and providing safe working system
• Providing appropriate safety and health related trainings and induction
• Maintenance of safe working equipment
• ensuring safe working of the tools or equipment
• Ensuring appropriate provision regarding welfare of all
• Providing safe workplace consisting of safer accessibility as well as egress
• Ensuring safe use, transportation, handling and storage of materials
• Communicating the safety authority and representatives
• Providing PPE or other tools that are required for the safety and health relating interest (Basaga et al., 2018).

The employees also have some responsibilities which are to be followed as given below –

• Taking care of the safety and health of others as well as of their own.
• No interference with any of the health safety tools
• Cooperating with the employers.

The regulation of workplace consisting safety health and welfare of 1992 is applicable to two most of the workplace. It needs the employers for ensuring the safety of their work surrounding to make it free e of the risks that are probable along with ensuring the provision of suitable equipment according to their necessity.

The regulation of health and safety or the display screen equipment of 1990 to secure the uses of DSE. The users of DSE are those workers that have habit of using the equipment of DSE or workstations for a considerable time period usually larger than 1 hour per day for completing their task (Basaga et al., 2018).

These regulations are further applicable to the users of DSE who are engaged within the home or outside with the temporary employees and contractors. As per the given regulation the employers are required to –

• Perform the assessment of risk regarding each of the user of DSE at the work stations to identify the hazards as well as evaluating the risk elements. Clarified record regarding assessment and their findings are required to be e kept and properly reviewed.
• Taking measures for reduction of risk
• Making provisions for the test of eye with optician
• Ensuring the taking of periodic breaks
• Provision of appropriate information and training to various staff members that are identified to be a user of DSE (lestari et al., 2020)

With reference to the case law of Secretary of Labor v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc, the Angelica Textile Services, the commission for reviewing the health and safety of occupation reaffirmed as well as clarified standards of proving for the recurring violations which the employer might rebut the case of OSHA or occupational safety and health administration regarding the considerable similarity by exhibiting – (1) the hazards and conditions related with disparate of violations or the (2) active sought out as well as elimination of similar risk by the employers after the initial violation. Earlier, only exhibiting a second time citation of employer within the similar standard are supposed to meet their burden regarding proof, as per the case of OSHA. In other words, the OSHA is found to water the measures associated with substantial or considerable similarity (lestari et al., 2020).

With reference to the case law of the United States v. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEYXIS 28400 (11^th Cir. Oct. 9, 2018), the district court was appropriate to conclude a squares of inspecting warrant regarding the lack of appropriate showing irrespective of the prejudice to the establishment of appropriate stand by the OSHA. The logs of the given case as suggested by their title, records the tasks associated with illness and injuries and not the violation of OSHA. As per the provision of regulations the reporting or [r]ecording of any fatality, or injury associated with the task do not indicate that the employee or employer have any fault, but the rule of OSHA being violated or the eligibility of employee in respect to the compensation for or any other form of benefit to the worker (Devadas et al., 2021).

With reference to the case law of Acosta v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co., The conclusion can be drawn that labour secretary have authority within the section 5(a)(2) of the act of occupational safety and health, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(2), for issuing citations for controlling the employers at the work sites of multi - employer to violate these standard of the given act. There is a grant regarding the reviewed petition, ultimate order regarding the occupational safety as well as reverse review Commission for health. The given cause is supposed to be remanded towards the commission for successive proceedings which are consistent with the given opinion (Devadas et al., 2021).

The employers consist of responsibilities regarding the safety as well as health of the employees and any of the outsider arriving at the premises including the common public, suppliers and customers. Along with their duties, exist some regulations for dealing with specific has a as well as for the industries in which there is a higher potential of the occurrence of hazards.

There remains a legitimate application for reporting certain kind of incident in the place of work to appropriate authorities.

The self - employed individual employers along with people who are within the control of the premises have legitimate responsibility of reporting following -

• Death associated with work
• Major injury or injuries extending more than 3 days
• Diseases associated with work
• Dangerous happening or miss – accidents (Aziz et al., 2021)

Conclusion

After analysing the given case study, it can be concluded that the performance of Adam was below standard because of his repetitive strain injury and discomfort at workplace due to the equipment there. The case is associated with the poor health condition of the employee which should be considered by the employer as their responsibility instead of further pressurizing him to enhance his performance in spite of suffering from the injury. The employee is fulfilling his duty of informing the employer regarding his injury associated with the work but the employer is not found to fulfil his duty of taking care of health and safety condition of his employee in the given case. Further Adam is noted to be dismissed from his employment. Hence it can be concluded that Adam is capable of seeking redressal from the legislative authority on the basis of the regulation of health and safety of employees and can claim compensation in this respect from the employer (Aziz et al., 2021).

The employees for their have duties regarding their own safety and health during work. The employee give refusal regarding anything which is not supposed to be save irrespective of having fear regarding the actions of disciplinary. In case he or she thinks that their employee is not fulfilling their duties, they have the ability of talking to them. The representative of safety or the officials of trade union are supposed to be capable of helping the employee in this context.

Being the last resort, the executive of safety and health regarding the north Ireland or health department for the environment of local region could be reported regarding the employer.

If the employee is dismissed because of their refusal of performing any on safe task, they have the right it of claiming this inappropriate dismissal at the tribunal of employment (Olagunju et al., 2021).