ABSTRACT
The following comments can be made in respect of British occupational health and safety legislation: (a) consultation with workers: this area is the one in which there has been the
biggest question about UK compliance. As a result of the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, it is no longer the position that only unionised workplaces have the opportunity to legal right to safety representatives. However, the culture of employment in the UK, now that the power of the trade unions is so much reduced, does not encourage the appointment of safety representatives. In the alternative, the supposed commitment of British management to personal rather than collective relationships between employer and the workforce does not easily accommodate meaningful consultation on intended changes in the workplace safety arrangements. It therefore remains doubtful whether, in practice, there is compliance with Article 11 of the Framework Directive’s requirement for consultation and participation of workers. National practice may well fall short of the ‘balanced participation’ referred to in that Article. The British regulatory system appears to make adequate provision for the provision of information and training to individual workers. The British system of commitment to personal rather than collective relationships between employer and the workforce does not easily accommodate meaningful consultation on intended changes in the workplace safety arrangements;
(b) reasonable practicability: the particular nature of the British regulatory tradition with its emphasis on tightly drawn duties, does not entirely fit happily with the broader European approach. The official UK position is that in practice is it not possible to ‘ensure’ safety at the workplace and therefore the British statutory formula is a sensible pragmatic response to the wording of the Directives which place an apparently stricter duty.
