394 Chapter 14Employment (2): Discrimination and health and safety
As we have studied the requirements of the tort of negligence already, we need say only
a little about the three particular duties owed to employees.Safe plant and equipment
An example of an employer being liable for breach of this duty can be seen in the following
case.Safe system of work
An employer has a duty to provide a safe system of work. This duty embraces all matters
relating to the way the work is done, including the provision of training and safety
equipment.Duty to provide reasonably competent fellow employees
If an employer knows that the incompetence of one employee is endangering another, then
he must take reasonable precautions to prevent this. If necessary, the incompetent employee
should be dismissed.
Both contributory negligence and consent can provide a defence to the employer. These
matters were considered in Chapter 8 at pp. 236 –7. An example of the defence of consent
can be seen in ICI Ltdv Shatwell (1965), where experienced shot-firers ignored safety pro-
cedures when testing detonators. One of the shot-firers was badly injured as a consequence.
However, the House of Lords held that the employer had a complete defence because the
employee was deemed to have consented to the risk.Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002
Regulation 4 prohibits the importation or supply for use at work of certain substances.
These substances include benzene, sand containing free silica, ground flint or quartz, white
phosphorus and certain types of oil.
Regulation 6 requires employers to carry out an assessment of the risk to health created
by work involving any substances hazardous to health. Such a risk assessment requires
consideration of:
(i) the hazardous nature of the substance;
(ii) how long the employees are exposed to it;
(iii) the effect of preventative measures; and
(iv) the results of health surveillance.Bradford vRobinson Rentals (1967)A 57-year-old radio service engineer generally had to travel only short distances between
customers’ houses. In January 1963, during an exceptionally cold spell of weather, he was
asked to drive for 20 hours on a 500-mile journey to change a colleague’s van. The vans
were unheated and the employee said he thought he should not go on the journey as it
would be hazardous. He was ordered to go, and suffered frostbite.
HeldThe employer was liable in the tort of negligence.