UK Application Of Health And Safety Law

Addressing Advice to the Different Persons Based on the Case Study

Describe about the UK Application of Health and Safety Law?

In Uk Application Of Law In The Health And Safety approaches for the Britons appears to be strategically governed by the statutory legislations. Application of the Health and Safety Act of 1974 is literally sophisticated in its application that ensures safety and care for the common people. Throughout the union territory of UK if somehow the law is violated by any organisation or working place, it is treated as a punishable offence. The accused offender may be convicted and put behind the bars. The court is really intrinsic, rigid and strict in this matter to handle this type of violation cases. This research work is going to analyze the approach of the application of this legislation based on a specific case study. The researcher will shed light over all the necessary areas of controlling such typical situation and how the application of law stands effective.

In this current scenario, it is witnessed that the school authority has violated the Health and Safety Law from all the ends and created nuisance to a lot of people. Therefore, the right of the common people is largely broken. It is sure that when their employer had appointed them, they must have been convinced of providing of best safety. But no proper arrangements have been done to let the teachers and students of the schools to keep safe and this has resulted to all these problems. So, the victims are having their right claim in their tort of negligence against the employer in the Local Education Authority. In this section the researcher is going to advise the current victims, Jane, Sam and Mr. James, what their movements right now should be.

Advice to Jane:

Accommodating more students in a class is not only a problem for the teacher to control but for the students who get destructed from their educational and mental development. But the Education Authority unethically has let 3 more students included in Jane’s class which was completely unethical. When Jane contacted with the senior authority of the schools they have turned their deaf ear to her under the pretext of financial laggings of the schools. This approach of the school authority is completely demotivating for a teacher and resulted in serious breakdown for Jane and pulling her out of the school for entire three months.

According to Health and Safety Act of 1974 it is the duty of the employer to provide a comfortable atmosphere for the employee where an employee can exercise its skills and serve the organisation convincingly. But from all the aspects Jane’s management of the school has violated this rule. Negligence in the work structure is considered to be the devastating human affection structure. Section 47 of Health and Safety Act of 1974 Jane can easily claim for the compensation for the mismanagement approach applied by the school authority. In the case of Hall v. Simons (2000) it is ordered that the person who is in the commanding position for the employers is needed to be active in the approaches. The employer has to sort out what are the problems of the employees and how can that be solved. No recklessness and no poignancy of the employer should be entertained. If such steps for the employees are not taken, and any untoward incident happens, the employer stand responsible of the accident. Against the employer the employee can take the legal action. To reduce the approach of the risk application of the proper law is literally necessary.

Explanation of the Available Laws Relating to the Injury of Dave

In Carroll v. Fearon (1999) case of negligence it is found that the fault of the employer is significantly battered. In this particular scenario, Jane seems to have passed through an intense mental trauma which led her to take three months of leave. Later she rejoined, by getting out this trauma, only to find that a pile of task pondered on her. The school management appears to stay incoherent and unattached in this case which finally let her to leave the school. In no way the school authority or management can put the burden on its employees and pressurize to manage the financial situation of the school. At the same time, by intruding 3 more students the school has also violated the right of students. The approach of Jane can be literally managed in the court. Intensification of this approach is literally sophisticated which may help Jane to attain success in her approach to file case. Jane, therefore, can expect of getting compensation from the employer under the law of tort.

Advice to Sam:

In this particular scenario, Sam was supposed to wear the gloves before conducting the experiment. But unfortunately he forgot to put the gloves on. It is sure that he had to be careful in this approach. However, Poppy was needed to be careful of wearing the gloves. When an explosion has already happened, there are chances for further explosions. Therefore, she was needed to be cautious. It was the duty of Sam to restrain Poppy. But as he was busy in taking after himself, he failed to perform his own duty.

But it is needed to be stated that the school authority should have been active. When such an explosion has happened they should not let Poppy approach to the experiment apparatus. This was not the first mischief of Poppy, she earlier had also been appointed of doing mischief. Therefore, she could have been properly handled before letting her in the class of Sam. If Sam can be let accused for the prior explosion, Poppy was responsible of the second one. What happened to Poppy, there was no fault of Sam. Therefore, he cannot be accused for this.

In Paris v Stepney (1956) case court has stated that the employers are needed to be more intrinsic in their approaches to avoid any kind of serious accidents that may let the staff suffer. Proper monitoring on the employees is essential which leads to perform the organizational ethics successfully. In a situation of this current case of Sam, if he files for the compensation, it may get denied in the court. This is because it was the casual approach of Sam that leads to such a huge blunder and trouble. Therefore, it is better if Sam does not apply for the compensation.

Advice to James:

Despite Poppy was warned for her mischievousness earlier, no firm steps have been taken by the school authority to put her into the track. This is again the casual approach of the school authority which made Mr. James to become the mere chaff. This incident gifted James with a broken arm. But the school authority as usual had not taken any firm step save sounding the final warning to Poppy. This is completely unfair.

In case of Simonds v Isle of Wight Council (2003) the court has stated that a school is needed to be affluent in managing the students. Keeping the students controlled is the most necessary approach which a school authority needs to apply. With care, the school is to be strict in their approaches to manage the mischief students. The approach of risk is intrinsically needed to be managed by the school authority.

In case of Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart Primary School (1997) court has stated that school authority is needed to keep a proper surveillance on the naughty students. Proper counseling of these students is needed to be attained. At the same time, if needed school has to render the special care to these students. These approaches are intrinsic for a school authority is needed to follow. Standard care is to be provided to these students. If any untoward incident happens, the school authority has to stand responsible and have to compensate the victim. In this approach all these factors are to be intrinsically managed.

In this current scenario, if school authority could have been stricter on Poppy, she may not have so violent on James. Therefore, James can appear to be more intuitive in this approach. It is needed to be pointed out that proper stipulation is needed to be managed. In the competent jurisdiction, the sufferer is to be quite intrinsic in this approach to seek for the compensation. The school authority seems to be bound to give the compensation to James. Therefore, it can be stated if James applies for this compensation, he can easily gain it. Mr. James is liable of attaining justice in this case and the approaches of the school.

The injuries suffered by Dave in both the cases are due to the negligence of the school authority to assess the intense risk that may seem to be waiting to take place. The school authority sealed all the vents of the laboratory to make the students concentrated on the study and thereby calls the problems. On the other hand, Sam was needed to be cautious in handling the laboratory as Dave had to take up risk to place the bottles of the chemicals. This may have been the reason of other untoward incident. Moreover, to carry the books of 18 students instead of 15, Dave had to suffer from back pain. Therefore, it was the carelessness and reckless attitude of the school authority which let become to be victim of their faults.  

Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 states it is the duty of the concerning organisation to care of its employees and ensure their safety. The law mentions that as the risks cannot be avoided, the troubles that may occur from the risk can be avoided and necessary precautions are needed to be taken up. At the same time, proper management ethics are needed to be taken up which lets to take up better orientation in this approach. The law typically mentions employers are to be ready to handle any kind of untoward incident instantly and proper insolvency is needed to be kept available by the management. Section 3 (1) of this particular law states that the employer is needed to be intimate the employee about the possible risks at the time of recruitment

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 again repeats that it is the profoundness of the employer to ensure the safety of the employee within the working premises. The law also states the management initially has to assess the risk. If needed the organisation has to keep record of the assessed risks and the finding for the future. The health and safety measures are to be kept availed so that they can be readily availed to cop a situation up. The organisation at the same time stands responsible to make the employees learn how to handle the different factors.

School management had kept Dave completely unaware of the possible dangers that may occur at the time of recruitment. This may have made Dave reconsider before his joining to the school. At the same time, it may cause him to be precautious about the necessary measures to be taken up. But, the school authority never has stated anything like this. This is nothing but the violation of Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. At the same time, against the problems notified by the other employees earlier, the school authority cared a little. No proper prevention measure has been taken up by the school. At the same time, by closing the ventilation system more devastation has been called. This blunder of the school authority can be treated under Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 which has been complexly violated. Dave can file for the tort and lodge case against the school management. At the same time, the law reveals Dave is liable of claiming for the compensation as well.

Health and safety issues are not only significant to be care after by the organisation, it also acclaims the favorable and cordiality of the employer towards the employees. Health and safety attributes are intrinsic to manage the responsibilities of the organisation. Both the employer and the employees are responsible of showing their cordiality for each other. The uniqueness and unity of the work place can be retained in this approach which ensures ethicality and business adequacy.

But in this particular case, there is no proper and cordial relationship seems to be maintained between Dave and the school authority. What is more, the school authority paving all the ways blocked for Dave to manage the work structure. Dave in no way has been made pre aware of these approaches which may even put his life at stake. Dave was needed to be given proper training and was needed to be made aware of using the safety measures before entering into the laboratory. At the same time, Dave was not supposed to shoulder too much pressure upon which has created physical disability. The school authority from the beginning was in need of taking care of these situations which they failed to perform. With work pressure, the school authority may appoint another person to share the load with Dave. But they never thought of this. Therefore, the approach of the school authority was not only typical but poignant as well.

After analyzing the situation that Dave has faced, it is clear that the Local Education Authority from all the ends has violated the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Against this purported breach, the school authority is liable for conviction.

Regulation 3 (1) of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states pre- assessment of the risks by the concerned organisation is mandatory to avoid the risk factors. Regulation 3 (4) states that the organisation can no way appoint any person who does not have any attachment and knowledge to handle these risks. Regulation 3 (5) again says that if such employees are put into employment the organisation stand responsible to make them train with the necessary precautionary measures. Regulation 5 and 6 are dealing with arrangements of the safety measures and health surveillance approaches respectively. But in no way the school management has taken up any succinct approach to manage this situation. The Local Education Authority was needed to be more intrinsic in this approach. Therefore, it can be stated that a profound breach in the management system has taken place. With the Dave’s case it has become a sophisticated approach which targets at attaining more integration in this approach. If the organisation has followed all the necessary attributes, the situation may not have been so much severe with Dave.

According to Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 if the necessary workplace safety measures are not taken up, the enforcement authority is having the authority to take action against the concerned authority. In this current situation, the school authority is completely responsible of all mishap and odds happened with Dave. So there is no prohibition for enforcement authority to take up the action. Health and Safety Executives (HSE) are empowered by the law to take significant to attain more prevalence in this action. HSE for this reason, if feels needed, can appoint other persons to investigate the matter. Based on the report of the investigation produced by the HSE, proper approach of punishment or penalties for the particular organisation is needed to be taken up. The HSE according to Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 the enforcement authority is having the power to create a guideline for the concerned organisation.

Magistrate Court Penalty Structure:

If it is proved in the court that the school authority was responsible for all of these indecency, the court may inflict punishment or charges penalties on the accused person or the organisation. The penalty can be extended to £1900 or imprisonment for 5 years. The Magistrate Court is liable to take the decision by judging the severity of the guilt.

Crown Court Penalty Structure:

If the person or the organisation is proved to be accused in the Crown Court, the range of penalty can be unlimited and the accused may have to serve minimum for 8 years. At the same time, the approach of the court is decided on the severity of the approach.

In order to prove the judicial rigidness, for Crown court inflicts the strategic punishment approach having targeted of an exemplary punishment so that such incident may not get repeated ever. The Crown court is having the power to inflict more intensity on the verdict of the Magistrate court. Henceforth, it can be proved from this action in no way law and order is ready to spear the accused person or organisation. At the same time, supremacy of the constitution is proved.

Conclusion:

Throughout this research study the researcher has analyzed the scenario proficiently and what kind of situation and steps are needed to be taken up by the different characters of the scenario is also significantly narrated. After the above discussion it can be summarized that the judicial system of United Kingdom is very much concern about the laws relating to the aspects of health and safety at work places. The health and safety laws are the impound form of the union laws and the union laws are the supreme legal authority throughout the territory of the United Kingdom. The statute that is mainly deals with the health and safety aspects in the course of employment is the Health and Safety at Work etc. 1974. Due to the uniformity of the Act it is applicable upon all acts relating to health and safety during employment. Though the provisions of the health and safety laws are quite distinct as to its nature but the application of the laws are same and the breach of any of the provision is an offence punishable in accordance with the Act.