www.thomascarroll.co.uk

From March 8th 2013, eligible employees will have the right to 18 weeks of parental leave, instead of 13.

Parents who have at least one year’s continuous employment with their employer, will be able to take up to 18 weeks of unpaid leave for each child which they have, within the first 5 years of their child’s life.

Parents may take parental leave in respect of an adopted child by the 5th anniversary of the date when they adopted the child (as long as the child is less than eighteen at the time of taking the parental leave).

Leave must be taken in blocks of at least one week at a time and at a maximum of 4 weeks per year with 21 days’ notice given.

In the case of a child who has been awarded disability living allowance, parents will be entitled to take parental leave up until the child’s 18th birthday and may take the leave one day at a time, if they prefer.

Employers can usually postpone the leave for up to 6 months if there is a good business reason, but leave beginning on the day the child is born or adopted cannot be postponed.

If postponement by the employer means that the statutory time limit will have passed, the employee must still be able to take the leave in full.

From April 7th 2013, the standard rate of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay increases from £135.45 to £136.78 per week.

Employees who have been continuously employed for 26 weeks or more by the end of the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth are entitled to 39 weeks’ statutory maternity pay.

The first six weeks is payable at 90% of the employee’s average weekly earnings and the next 33 weeks of payment at the rate set by the Government for the relevant tax year (£136.78 from April 7th 2013 or 90% of her average weekly earnings if this figure is less).

Subject to specified qualifying requirements, an employee can receive statutory paternity pay for either 1 week or 2 consecutive weeks of ordinary paternity leave, and additional statutory paternity pay for up to 19 weeks of additional paternity leave (although the employee’s total additional paternity leave can be 26 weeks).

Paternity pay is available to a person of either sex in an adoption situation, and to the spouse, civil partner or partner of either sex of the biological mother of a child.

Employees who adopt a child and who have been continuously employed for at least 26 weeks ending with the week in which he or she is notified of having been matched with the child are entitled to 39 weeks’ statutory adoption pay.

Risky Business at a Glance

Family-Friendly Rights Increase

HSE Fee for Intervention Figures Published

Changes to Criminal Records Bureau Checks

Gleision Manslaughter Charges Brought

Frequently Asked Questions

Health and Safety Training Courses

In Court

Family-Friendly Rights Increase

Wales’ First Health, Safety and Employment Law Consultancy to be awarded BS: OHSAS 18001*

01ISSUE

2013

On December 1st 2012 the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) merged with the Independent Safeguarding Authority and changed its name to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in preparation for the highly anticipated move to the checks being portable.

Under the old system employees would need to have a new CRB check for any new roles. This would often involve the individual having to pay for the check a number of times if, for example, they had more than one job that required it, or they were involved in voluntary work.

From March 2013 the new system will allow an employer to pay a fee to join and register with the DBS. This will allow them to apply for access to standard and enhanced criminal records checks of employees.

The new system will aim to make it easier to access information for roles that are exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as well as to access additional information about individuals who are on the barred list.

In addition, once an employee has provided their information and consent, it will allow an employer to simply check whether there have been any changes to their status, thus making it easier for employers to comply with their obligations to review all checks.

However, the whole system may be under scrutiny after a recent decision by the Court of Appeal. It was found that the exemptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 were in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case centred on an individual, referred to as ‘T’, a 21 year old man who received warnings from Manchester Police when he was 11 years old regarding two stolen bikes. ‘T’ was successful in his claim that it was a breach of his human rights as he had been “tarnished for life”.

Although the Home Office have indicated that they intend to appeal the decision, stating “the protection of children and vulnerable groups must not be compromised”, it will be interesting to see what the final decision is on this on-going legal battle and the consequences it will have on the future of DBS.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is prosecuting both the manager and the company who operated the Gleision Colliery, the scene of a tragic accident in September 2011, in which four miners lost their lives.

Charles Breslin, Philip Hill, Garry Jenkins and David Powell were all killed when the mine in which they were working was flooded by 500,000 gallons of water.

The incident was investigated by South Wales Police, who were supported by the Health and Safety Executive. The investigation aimed to identify the underlying causes of the failures. On completion, the investigation teams referred the incident to the CPS.

The CPS recently concluded that prosecution is in the public interest and there is a realistic prospect of conviction. The mine manager, Malcolm Fyfield, has been charged with four counts of gross negligence manslaughter.

In addition, MNS Mining Ltd have been summoned for four counts of corporate manslaughter. The CPS alleges that the way in which MNS managed or organised its activities led to the death of the four workers.

According to the CPS, the company failed to ensure the system of work adopted was safe and that failure amounted to a gross breach of the duty of care the company owed to its employees.

It is alleged that the mine manager caused the deaths of the four miners by mining into old, previously flooded mine workings, contrary to health and safety regulations.

For further information on our Safety for Directors training course, that explains the roles and responsibilities of directors have in relation to health and safety, please contact Victoria Thomas on 029 2085 3752 or e-mail victoria.thomas@thomas-carroll.co.uk

Changes to Criminal Records Bureau Checks

Gleision Manslaughter Charges Brought

Recent figures released by the HSE reveal bills totalling over £700,000 were issued to businesses following investigations at over 903 premises during the first two months of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) Fee for Intervention (FFI) cost recovery scheme.

Since October last year, the HSE has been able to charge £124.00 per hour for time spent identifying and investigating a material safety breach and assisting the duty holder to put things right.

Of the inspections undertaken, there was a major focus on the construction sector, which reflects the HSE’s focus on this industry as a ‘high risk-high priority’ sector.

“The relatively high numbers in construction reflect its high priority for HSE as a high risk sector, which is why construction is a division in field operations division (FOD), whereas the other high risk sectors are covered by our geographically based divisions.”

Anyone receiving an FFI invoice has 21 days from receipt in which to query it, should they believe they were not in material breach of the law or the time the fee is charged for is incorrect. If they remain unhappy after the HSE’s response, they have 10 days in which to lodge a dispute.

For further information visit www.hse.gov.uk/fee-for-intervention

HSE Fee for Intervention Figures Published

There was a major

focus on the

construction sector

Thomas Carroll

Risky Business

2

Can legal action be taken against first-aiders?

It is very unlikely that any action would be taken against a first-aider who was using the first-aid training they have received. However, it is recommended that you seek advice from your insurers on whether your insurance policies cover first-aiders’ liability.

How many first-aiders do I need?

The findings of your first-aid needs assessment will help you decide how many first-aiders are required. The table below provides general guidance on how many first-aiders or appointed persons might be needed.

Why apply for a NEBOSH Certificate?

Frequently Asked Questions Health and Safety Training Courses

Accident Reporting and InvestigationAsbestos AwarenessCDM AwarenessConfined Space EntryConflict ManagementCOSHH AwarenessDeveloping Method Statements Display Screen Equipment Risk Assessment Directing SafelyEmployee Safety AwarenessEvent ManagementFire WardenFire Safety AwarenessHealth and Safety Awareness for Line ManagersHealth and Safety Awareness for Trade ApprenticesIOSH Managing SafelyIOSH Working SafelyManaging ContractorsManual Handling AwarenessManual Handling Train-The-TrainerNEBOSH National General CertificateNeedlestick and Sharps AwarenessOffice SafetyManaging Permits to WorkPrinciples of Risk AssessmentRepresentatives of Employee SafetySafe Use of LaddersSafe Use of Work EquipmentStress ManagementStress Management for ManagersWorking at HeightWorking Alone Safely

Employment Training Courses

Employment Law EssentialsAbsence ManagementUnfair DismissalEmployment Law Awareness for ManagersRecruitment and SelectionManaging Disciplinaries and GrievancesAge DiscriminationCompensation and Settlement in the Industrial TribunalDisability DiscriminationRace Discrimination

For further information, please contact Victoria Thomas on 029 2085 3752 or email victoria.thomas@thomas-carroll.co.uk

1. From your risk assessment, what

degree of hazard is associated

with your work activities?

2. How many employees

do you have?

3. What first-aid personnel

do you need?

Low hazard e.g. offices, shops, libraries

Less than 25 At least one appointed person

25 - 50 At least one first-aider trained in EFAW

More than 50

At least one first-aider

trained in FAW for every 100

employed (or part thereof)

Higher hazard

e.g. light engineering and assembly

work, food processing, warehousing,

extensive work with dangerous

machinery or sharp instruments,

construction, chemical manufacture

Less than 5 At least one appointed person

5 - 50

At least one first-aider trained in

EFAW or FAW depending on the

type of injuries that might occur

More than 50At least one first-aider trained in FAW

for every 50 employed (or part thereof)

NEBOSH Certificate Special Offer

Only £950.00 per delegate excluding VAT for all course booked before April 1st 2013 Contact Victoria Thomas on 029 2085 3752 or email victoria.thomas@thomas-carroll.co.uk

Latest statistics published by the HSE show that in 2011 26.4 million working days were lost due to work related illness and workplace injury costing an estimated £14 Billion.

There has never been a better time to ensure that your business does not become a statistic, by ensuring that employees are appropriately trained to deal with every eventuality.

Failure to manage health and safety effectively can have a damaging effect on three key aspects of your organisation:

Business - Employees - Reputation

The NEBOSH Certificate is the most widely held health and safety qualification in the UK and is the minimum qualification required by most companies when appointing a health and safety manager.

When you or a member of your staff holds this qualification what affect can you expect it to have on your organisation?

A Safer Workplace - Effective health and safety management has never been more important. It protects people from injury and loss of life.

Staff Morale - If your staff are NEBOSH qualified it indicates to staff and customers that you are committed to health and safety and can help you meet recognised standards and codes of practice

Cost Effective - A small investment in training can help avoid the risk for potential heavy fines by not having effective procedures in place.

www.thomascarroll.co.uk

Risky Business

3

Risky Business

Thomas Carroll Group plc, Pendragon House, Crescent Road, Caerphilly CF83 1XX

029 2088 7733 www.thomascarroll.co.uk info@thomas-carroll.co.uk

Feedback Please The feedback you give us about our services is vital to us. We send out service questionnaires and are grateful to our clients who complete them.

But why wait until then? Kevin Price is always available to hear your views, call him on 029 2085 3732

Disclaimer:

This newsletter is designed to keep readers abreast of current developments.

It is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of law and specialist

legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular

circumstance. Therefore, Thomas Carroll Management Services is unable to

accept liability for any errors or facts or opinion contained within.

* Awarded by the British Standards Institution.

Worker Found Brother

Lying Dead in Machine

Two companies have been ordered to pay more than £450,000 in fines and costs after a worker was crushed inside a machine used to manufacture bridges for the military.

Brian Miller was working as a machine operator at WFEL Ltd’s plant in Stockport, when the incident took place. He was operating a large CNC machine when he noticed a fault with one of the switches.

The 38-year-old was able to enter a setting on the machine, which allowed him to open the cab door and access the area where the fault was located. As he was leaning over a tool-head, a large hydraulic ram descended on him and crushed his head. His brother, who was working on adjacent equipment, found him dead on the bed of the machine.

The HSE investigated the incident and found the machine, which was designed by Netherlands-based firm Unisign Produktie Automatisering BV, did not comply with European safety standards, as access should not have been possible when the machine was running at full speed.

The investigation identified that WFEL Ltd had failed to undertake adequate risk assessments on the machine, or ensure safe operating procedures. There was also insufficient monitoring and supervision of workers operating the machines.

HSE inspector Philip Strickland said: “Unisign should not have supplied a machine that fell below accepted standards and did not have suitable guards and safety systems installed to protect workers. WFEL should have made sure its employees only fixed faults when the machine was in a safe state.

Unisign Produktie Automatisering BV was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £28,313 in costs.

WFEL Ltd was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £28,074 in costs.

£326k Penalty After Runaway

Lorry Crushed Driver

A driver was crushed to death when a runaway lorry pushed him against another freight vehicle, a court has heard.

Russell Homer died at Nightfreight Distribution in Northamptonshire when the lorry he had been driving rolled forward while he was attaching a tractor unit to its trailer.

Northampton Crown Court was told Homer may not have applied the handbrake or turned off the engine — a recurring practice that the company was aware was happening. The 44-year-old suffered serious chest injuries when the vehicle — which can weigh 28 tonnes when fully loaded — rolled down a slope and crushed him against a stationary heavy goods vehicle before travelling a further 27 metres and hitting a wall. Had it not been stopped by the wall, it may have rolled directly out onto a public highway.

The international logistics firm had issued new safety guidelines to all of its staff, including Homer, after a previous incident occurred when a vehicle rolled away from another driver in 2008.

An HSE investigation found Nightfreight had failed to monitor its employees effectively and ensure they followed the correct, safe working procedure; in addition there were no appropriate measures in place to prevent vehicles parked on the slope from rolling away, such as flattening it out, installing road bumps in front of the vehicle wheels, or using chocks.

The company was fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £26,000.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Judith McNulty-Green described the case as “disappointing”, as there had been previous similar incidents at this company and at the same site.

“Lessons should have been learned from these but weren’t” she added.

t

w

e

WFEL Ltd had failed

to undertake adequate

risk assessments

on the machine

In Court