Regulation 4A was inserted through the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to give safety representatives the right to be consulted when safety related changes to working conditions are proposed. This addition was made to the Regulations to comply with EC law. The implementation of these Regulations gave to trade union appointed safety representatives much more status than had been officially accorded to shop stewards. In the late 1970s the TUC and individual unions were heavily engaged in training safety representatives and for a time it appeared that there was more expertise in the safety representatives than in first line management. The number of safety representatives at a workplace is for the trade union to decide: the employer’s only protection is to put an upper limit on the time and salary allowances available for safety representatives’ activities. Thus while appointed safety representatives are entitled to paid time off for training and performance of their duties the employer could indicate displeasure at the number of representatives appointed by giving very small allowances to individual representatives, or by making it difficult for them to attend training courses. The representative has legal protection against an unfair exercise of such power in that he/she can complain to an Employment Tribunal. This occurred in the following case: WHITE v PRESSED STEEL FISHER [1980] IRLR 176 The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Slynn J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal:

DOI link for Regulation 4A was inserted through the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to give safety representatives the right to be consulted when safety related changes to working conditions are proposed. This addition was made to the Regulations to comply with EC law. The implementation of these Regulations gave to trade union appointed safety representatives much more status than had been officially accorded to shop stewards. In the late 1970s the TUC and individual unions were heavily engaged in training safety representatives and for a time it appeared that there was more expertise in the safety representatives than in first line management. The number of safety representatives at a workplace is for the trade union to decide: the employer’s only protection is to put an upper limit on the time and salary allowances available for safety representatives’ activities. Thus while appointed safety representatives are entitled to paid time off for training and performance of their duties the employer could indicate displeasure at the number of representatives appointed by giving very small allowances to individual representatives, or by making it difficult for them to attend training courses. The representative has legal protection against an unfair exercise of such power in that he/she can complain to an Employment Tribunal. This occurred in the following case: WHITE v PRESSED STEEL FISHER [1980] IRLR 176 The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Slynn J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal:

Regulation 4A was inserted through the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to give safety representatives the right to be consulted when safety related changes to working conditions are proposed. This addition was made to the Regulations to comply with EC law. The implementation of these Regulations gave to trade union appointed safety representatives much more status than had been officially accorded to shop stewards. In the late 1970s the TUC and individual unions were heavily engaged in training safety representatives and for a time it appeared that there was more expertise in the safety representatives than in first line management. The number of safety representatives at a workplace is for the trade union to decide: the employer’s only protection is to put an upper limit on the time and salary allowances available for safety representatives’ activities. Thus while appointed safety representatives are entitled to paid time off for training and performance of their duties the employer could indicate displeasure at the number of representatives appointed by giving very small allowances to individual representatives, or by making it difficult for them to attend training courses. The representative has legal protection against an unfair exercise of such power in that he/she can complain to an Employment Tribunal. This occurred in the following case: WHITE v PRESSED STEEL FISHER [1980] IRLR 176 The following extracts are taken from the judgment of Slynn J in the Employment Appeal Tribunal: