Temporary Workers Directive 91/383/EEC. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 were introduced in order to implement provisions of the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers (92/85/EC); other parts of this latter Directive are covered in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Regulation 19 is in partial implementation of the Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC). It has been suggested that, since the Regulations are made under and are, therefore, subordinate to the 1974 Act, they may fall short of compliance with the Directive. In particular, it has been suggested that the qualification of the general duties in the 1974 Act by ‘reasonable practicability’ ill matches the EC requirement for absolute safety. While risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure compliance with the general duties and other statutory duties, it is true that the duties in ss 2–9 of the 1974 Act, though described by judges as absolute duties, are, in most cases, qualified by the defence of reasonable practicability. However, the duty in regulation 3 to assess risks is an absolute one and so also are certain other of the duties in these Regulations, for example, that in regulation 19, relating to the protection of young persons. Significantly, the 1999 Regulations introduce regulation 19, providing that an employer may not plead the act or omission of either an employee or a competent person appointed under these Regulations by way of defence where he is charged with a breach of any of the relevant statutory provisions. The significance of this new regulation cannot be overstated. It would appear to mean that the debate, noted in the previous chapter, about whether an employer can escape criminal liability by pleading that it was not reasonably practicable to prevent the casual negligence of a properly trained and appointed employee, cannot be pursued in future. WORKPLACE (HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE) REGULATIONS 1992 SI 1992/3004 Extracts from the Approved Code of Practice are printed in italics following the regulation to which the extract applies. The extracts given are only indicative of the nature of the Code; readers should not be confused into believing that the whole Code is produced here.

doi:10.4324/9781843140504-188

Chapter

Temporary Workers Directive 91/383/EEC. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 were introduced in order to implement provisions of the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers (92/85/EC); other parts of this latter Directive are covered in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Regulation 19 is in partial implementation of the Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC). It has been suggested that, since the Regulations are made under and are, therefore, subordinate to the 1974 Act, they may fall short of compliance with the Directive. In particular, it has been suggested that the qualification of the general duties in the 1974 Act by ‘reasonable practicability’ ill matches the EC requirement for absolute safety. While risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure compliance with the general duties and other statutory duties, it is true that the duties in ss 2–9 of the 1974 Act, though described by judges as absolute duties, are, in most cases, qualified by the defence of reasonable practicability. However, the duty in regulation 3 to assess risks is an absolute one and so also are certain other of the duties in these Regulations, for example, that in regulation 19, relating to the protection of young persons. Significantly, the 1999 Regulations introduce regulation 19, providing that an employer may not plead the act or omission of either an employee or a competent person appointed under these Regulations by way of defence where he is charged with a breach of any of the relevant statutory provisions. The significance of this new regulation cannot be overstated. It would appear to mean that the debate, noted in the previous chapter, about whether an employer can escape criminal liability by pleading that it was not reasonably practicable to prevent the casual negligence of a properly trained and appointed employee, cannot be pursued in future. WORKPLACE (HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE) REGULATIONS 1992 SI 1992/3004 Extracts from the Approved Code of Practice are printed in italics following the regulation to which the extract applies. The extracts given are only indicative of the nature of the Code; readers should not be confused into believing that the whole Code is produced here.

Chapter

Temporary Workers Directive 91/383/EEC. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 were introduced in order to implement provisions of the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers (92/85/EC); other parts of this latter Directive are covered in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Regulation 19 is in partial implementation of the Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC). It has been suggested that, since the Regulations are made under and are, therefore, subordinate to the 1974 Act, they may fall short of compliance with the Directive. In particular, it has been suggested that the qualification of the general duties in the 1974 Act by ‘reasonable practicability’ ill matches the EC requirement for absolute safety. While risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure compliance with the general duties and other statutory duties, it is true that the duties in ss 2–9 of the 1974 Act, though described by judges as absolute duties, are, in most cases, qualified by the defence of reasonable practicability. However, the duty in regulation 3 to assess risks is an absolute one and so also are certain other of the duties in these Regulations, for example, that in regulation 19, relating to the protection of young persons. Significantly, the 1999 Regulations introduce regulation 19, providing that an employer may not plead the act or omission of either an employee or a competent person appointed under these Regulations by way of defence where he is charged with a breach of any of the relevant statutory provisions. The significance of this new regulation cannot be overstated. It would appear to mean that the debate, noted in the previous chapter, about whether an employer can escape criminal liability by pleading that it was not reasonably practicable to prevent the casual negligence of a properly trained and appointed employee, cannot be pursued in future. WORKPLACE (HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE) REGULATIONS 1992 SI 1992/3004 Extracts from the Approved Code of Practice are printed in italics following the regulation to which the extract applies. The extracts given are only indicative of the nature of the Code; readers should not be confused into believing that the whole Code is produced here.

DOI link for Temporary Workers Directive 91/383/EEC. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 were introduced in order to implement provisions of the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers (92/85/EC); other parts of this latter Directive are covered in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Regulation 19 is in partial implementation of the Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC). It has been suggested that, since the Regulations are made under and are, therefore, subordinate to the 1974 Act, they may fall short of compliance with the Directive. In particular, it has been suggested that the qualification of the general duties in the 1974 Act by ‘reasonable practicability’ ill matches the EC requirement for absolute safety. While risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure compliance with the general duties and other statutory duties, it is true that the duties in ss 2–9 of the 1974 Act, though described by judges as absolute duties, are, in most cases, qualified by the defence of reasonable practicability. However, the duty in regulation 3 to assess risks is an absolute one and so also are certain other of the duties in these Regulations, for example, that in regulation 19, relating to the protection of young persons. Significantly, the 1999 Regulations introduce regulation 19, providing that an employer may not plead the act or omission of either an employee or a competent person appointed under these Regulations by way of defence where he is charged with a breach of any of the relevant statutory provisions. The significance of this new regulation cannot be overstated. It would appear to mean that the debate, noted in the previous chapter, about whether an employer can escape criminal liability by pleading that it was not reasonably practicable to prevent the casual negligence of a properly trained and appointed employee, cannot be pursued in future. WORKPLACE (HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE) REGULATIONS 1992 SI 1992/3004 Extracts from the Approved Code of Practice are printed in italics following the regulation to which the extract applies. The extracts given are only indicative of the nature of the Code; readers should not be confused into believing that the whole Code is produced here.

Temporary Workers Directive 91/383/EEC. Regulations 17, 18 and 19 were introduced in order to implement provisions of the EC Directive on Pregnant Workers (92/85/EC); other parts of this latter Directive are covered in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Regulation 19 is in partial implementation of the Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC). It has been suggested that, since the Regulations are made under and are, therefore, subordinate to the 1974 Act, they may fall short of compliance with the Directive. In particular, it has been suggested that the qualification of the general duties in the 1974 Act by ‘reasonable practicability’ ill matches the EC requirement for absolute safety. While risk assessment has to be carried out to ensure compliance with the general duties and other statutory duties, it is true that the duties in ss 2–9 of the 1974 Act, though described by judges as absolute duties, are, in most cases, qualified by the defence of reasonable practicability. However, the duty in regulation 3 to assess risks is an absolute one and so also are certain other of the duties in these Regulations, for example, that in regulation 19, relating to the protection of young persons. Significantly, the 1999 Regulations introduce regulation 19, providing that an employer may not plead the act or omission of either an employee or a competent person appointed under these Regulations by way of defence where he is charged with a breach of any of the relevant statutory provisions. The significance of this new regulation cannot be overstated. It would appear to mean that the debate, noted in the previous chapter, about whether an employer can escape criminal liability by pleading that it was not reasonably practicable to prevent the casual negligence of a properly trained and appointed employee, cannot be pursued in future. WORKPLACE (HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE) REGULATIONS 1992 SI 1992/3004 Extracts from the Approved Code of Practice are printed in italics following the regulation to which the extract applies. The extracts given are only indicative of the nature of the Code; readers should not be confused into believing that the whole Code is produced here.

ABSTRACT

The workplace, and the equipment and devices mentioned in these Regulations, should be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair. ‘Efficient’ in this context means efficient from the view of health, safety and welfare (not productivity or economy). If a potentially dangerous defect is discovered, the defect should be rectified immediately or steps should be taken to protect anyone who might be put at risk, for example by preventing access until the work can be carried out or the equipment replaced. Where the defect does not pose a danger but makes the equipment unsuitable for use, for example a sanitary convenience with a defective flushing mechanism, it may be taken out of service until it is repaired or replaced but, if this would result in the number of facilities being less than that required by the Regulations, the defect should be rectified without delay.