Legality Around H&S

Thread revival:

In the terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, who is the responsible officer in the terms of s2 and s3. As CFAVs are volunteers and been told they are not employee’s or a member of the RAF as HQAC keep telling people, are the WingExo’s or RCs or someone at HQAC even the Commandant legally the responsible officer in law? What training in the legislation is provided bythe ACO and is it mandatory as it is in places such as the NHS.

Everyone on a squadron is responsible for their own health and safety but not being ‘employed’ does that mean that under the terms of the '74 Act you cannot be legally as a responsible officer be responsible for others under the legislation.

Under the Act usually the person at the top of an organisation is the legally responsible officer unless in certain cases that is legally passed to others. For instance the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police was prosecuted for health and safety breeches when one of his officers shot another and tragically killed them during a firearms exercise (not uncommon in GMP, with officers shooting themselves accidentally) and found guilty and fined.

Would the Commandant find herself in the same position in court? Rememebr the HSE investigated the accidental firing of an ejection seat at Scampton which tragically killed a Red Arrows pilot.

1 Like

Under Total Safety ™, Isn’t this the purpose of the various Duty Holders associated with the organisation?
Have you read ACP5 to say what it has to say on the matter?

What the ACP’s say, and what is law are not always the same thing…

It’s a good question - Activities wise eg AT (as I understand), if the activity is approved and you abide by the rules, if something goes wrong, then it is the Duty Holder who has to defend their position.

Day to day stuff on the sqn is a bit less clear.

If the roof falls in on my unit, and injures a cadet. Who is legally responsible? Is it me, as I sign to say that I’ve done monthly H&S inspection, and I’m apparently the building manager? Is it legally my place to carry out inspections, or just my moral duty?

1 Like

I know - just look at ACP50 and its idea of Crown Copyright.

However, ACP5 does refer to legislation and roles in some depth, rather than simply starting off by stating a position and is a good starting point.

1 Like

For the example, have you had training in being able to inspect a building for safety purposes?

About as much as the next Squadron Commander!

But every month we do sign to say the building is safe. If it isn’t, and someone is injured, will we end up in court as defendants or witnesses?

The RAF/RFCA/MOD who own the buildings are employers and so owe a duty to all employees (s3 HSWA) and non employees (s.4 HSWA).

Section 4 extends a duty to any one who controls access to and egress from work premises. That duty is to persons who are not their employees. But the premises have to be a ‘place of work’. Work means work as an employee or self-employed person (s52).

S7 extends a duty to all employees whilst at work to take reasonable care for the H&S of anyone affected by his acts or omissions.

As CFAV are not ‘employees’ they are not likely to be liable under ss. 2, 3 or 7.

CFAV might be liable under s4 if they have control of Sqn hut. But this would only be so if the hut was used by non-employees as a ‘place of work or as a place where they may use plant or substances provided for their use there’.

I doubt Sqn buildings would be regarded as a place of work under the definitions of ‘work’ in HSWA as CFAV are not employees.

That is criminal proceedings under HSWA, there is however, nothing to stop you being sued in a civil claim for negligence or prosecuted for manslaughter as an individual with a duty of care.

That’s as maybe, but in the event of an incident that injures an individual who requires hospital treatment or is off work, who submits the RIDDOR report to the HSE, the Squadron OC or someone else up the CoC. On submition of a RIDDOR report the HSE would get involved and may investigate.

A criminal case the evidence of guilt has to be beyond reasonable dout where as the civil court it’s a balance of probability which is a much lower threshold.

im not sure a RIDDOR would be required as it would not be a work related injury but I am happy to be corrected.

You maybe treading a fine line with the payments uniformed CFAVs receive and how the HSE interprets it?

RIDDOR is definitely required
The definitions people throw about are for work places injuries, where it is a member of the public (CFAV/ cadets etc) then it is an immediate requirement.

With the recent stories, I would expect the MOD is currently keeping its head down when it comes to H&S, as they haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory.

I don’t see how we can be liable under the act, as we aren’t employees. We do what we do H&S wise to cover sphincters really. The irony is we write RAs etc and I cannot see anything we do that has changed in my 40+ plus years man and boy. In fact we do less now as I don’t know many who do climbing etc just using outdoor activity centres, which moves the H&S stuff to the centres.

i have only half those number of years, but share your view.

the Av Med Form1s haven’t changed the number of Cadets eligible for flying in my experience, except that one male Cadets who indicated “yes” to pregnant…!!

Likewise the various changes to Shooting haven’t made it slicker or easier for CFAVs/Cadets to go shooting - I haven’t ever heard of injuries on a range which were actually shooting related to offer any comparison (it wasn’t broke in the first place).

i can accept the RA system, but for many the control measure is “apply common sense” give or take
going walking with Cadets? control measures will include, suitable footwear and prepared for the weather conditions - fairly basic stuff really.

all part of the world we live in where an investigation wants to see evidence that X or Y or both have been done