Chapter 16Employing labourUsers are also entitled to eye and eyesight tests and to
special spectacles where normal ones cannot be used.
Provision and Use of Work Equipment
Regulations 1998 (SI 1998/2306)
These regulations tidy up and bring together the law
relating to equipment used at work. Instead of legisla-
tion relating to particular types of equipment in different
industries, such as the Factories Act 1961 fencing provi-
sions, the regulations place general duties on employers
and list minimum requirements for work equipment
to deal with selected hazards, regardless of the type of
industry.
‘Work equipment’ is broadly defined to include every-
thing from a hand tool, through all kinds of machines to
a complete plant such as a refinery.
Safety in ‘use’ includes safety in starting, stopping,
installing, dismantling, programming, setting, transport-
ing, maintaining, servicing and cleaning. Specific re-
quirements include the guarding of dangerous parts of
machinery and replace previous provisions on this.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992
(SI 1992/2793)
These apply to any manual handling operation which
may cause injury at work. They cover not only the lifting
of loads but also lowering, pushing, pulling, carrying or
moving them, whether by hand or other bodily force.
An amendment made in 2002 specifies factors to be
taken into account in determining whether operations
involve risk, particularly of back injury, to workers.
Personal Protective Equipment at Work (PPE)
Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/2966)
These regulations set out the principles to be followed in
selecting, providing, maintaining and using PPE. They
include protective clothing such as eye, foot and head
protection, safety harnesses, life jackets and high-visibility
clothing. The regulations cover maintenance, cleaning and
replacement, storage, proper use and training informa-
tion, and instructions on use given to employees.
Directors’ reports
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory
Reform may make regulations under which the annual
reports of company directors must contain information
regarding arrangements in force during the year relating
to the health, safety and welfare of employees. At the
time of writing, no such regulations have been made.Duties of employers and the self-
employed to persons who are not
their employees – generally
It is the duty of every employer to carry on his business
in such a way as to make sure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, that persons who are nothis employees but
who might be affected by the conduct of the business are
not exposed to risks to their health or safety. This duty
is placed also on self-employed persons.
A wide variety of people is covered, including cus-
tomers in a shop, people who occupy the premises next
door, and even members of the public who pass the
workplace. It is a criminal offence for which the person
at fault can be prosecuted, whether anyone is injured or
not, to run a business negligently or to create a nuisance.
Thus, if a customer in a shop trips over a trailing wire
left by a maintenance man, there is the possibility of
an action by the customer for damages for negligence,
and the possibility, also, of a criminal prosecution. In
a similar way, excess noise or vibration from premises
on which the business is conducted may result in an
action by a person who occupies premises next door for
nuisance and there is also the possibility of a criminal
prosecution.505
Rv Mara(1986)This provides an illustration of the above provisions. In
that case it was alleged that the director of a company
was in breach of his duty, where machinery belonging to
his cleaning and maintenance company was left at a
store which his company was under contract to clean,
and the cleaning company agreed that employees of the
store could use the machinery for part of the cleaning,
and one of the employees of the store was electrocuted
because of a fault in the cable of one of the machines.
The Court of Appeal held that the director concerned
was in breach of his duty and dismissed his appeal from
Warwick Crown Court where he had been fined £200.
The legal point was one of construction of the relevant
provisions of the 1974 Act. Mr Mara claimed that when
the electrocution took place his company was not con-
ducting its undertaking at all; the only undertaking being
conducted was that of the store whose employees were
using the machine to clean their own premises.