Chapters: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
The 'work' context of these two purposes locates them in the context of the legal and regulatory framework governing health and safety at work.
The principal source of that framework, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, was largely based upon the report of the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1972 Cmnd 5034). Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 aims to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work; to protect persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work; controlling the keeping and use of explosive or highly flammable or otherwise dangerous substances, and generally preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of such substances.
These aims are achieved by the progressive replacement of existing statutory provisions with a system of regulations and approved codes of practice operating in conjunction with other provisions found in Part I of the 1974 Act.
The provisions of Part I of the 1974 Act apply to employment and employers generally, including the government departments and the police (save that sections 21-25 and 33-42 do not bind the Crown). The duties of an employer (and the self-employed) towards employees and others are set down in general terms in sections 2-4 of the 1974 Act. The 1974 Act establishes the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE").
The 1974 Act empowers HSE and other enforcing authorities (local authorities) to appoint inspectors (s.19) who have wide powers (ss. 20-25). Inspectors have powers to issue improvement and prohibition notices (ss21-23), requiring that breaches of health and safety law be corrected, or directing the cessation of activities giving rise to a risk of serious personal injury. There is also power to enter premises to deal with the cause of imminent danger (s.25). Inspectors have power to prosecute (s.38).
The differences between these two "purposes" should be carefully noted.
In other words, the first case looks at the protection of workers, the second at the protection of others from workers. There is an area of overlap: the activities of one group of workers may pose risks to others (for example during building work on office premises).
The key terms in relation to these "purposes" - health, safety and welfare are not defined in the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, nor, definitively, in caselaw - although they have from time to time been considered by the courts.
In relation to health - this is apt to cover both physical and mental health, and these purposes comprehend not only the protection of good health but also protecting the sick from becoming worse. In the particular context of the 1974 legislation, it was intended to refer principally to employees' health (whether physical or mental) as affected by work activities; it was not in that context considered apt to refer to the health generally of persons who happened to be employees, nor to curative treatment (which were thought to be the concern of the NHS).
Safety may be given its natural meaning. It relates principally to physical integrity. A suggestion has been made in the case law that "safe" should too casually be equated with "not dangerous", because a concern with safety extends to the prevention of risk of injury arising from the state or condition of the work place and not just to the prevention of risks that are reasonably foreseeable.
Conceptually, and historically in terms of pre-1974 factories legislation, welfare is distinct from - and goes beyond - health and safety. Welfare in the work context covers what might be described as the "long term" end of the health spectrum - for example amenities such as seating facilities, washing arrangements, heating and lighting and so on. Lack of provision may not be directly damaging to health, but may in the long term have cumulative ill-effects upon health - e.g. bad backs, strained eyesight etc.
In one case decided at common law rather than under the 1974 Act, the court decided that a secretary who worked in a smoky atmosphere was entitled to claim constructive dismissal. While smoke could not be proved to amount to a risk to her health, it was held that it certainly affected her welfare.
The clear public interest in securing the health, safety and welfare of employees and others who may be affected by the activities of those at work is attested to by the legislative and regulatory framework which governs it. Clearly, these purposes are capable of being both advanced and impeded by the disclosure of information.
The regulatory and prosecutorial functions of the HSE and other enforcement authorities indicate several connections with other parts of section 31. Section 38 (health and safety) may also be relevant.