In the dock
Organisations will soon be answerable for the actions or omissions of any senior manager if a death occurs. Kevin Elliott explains.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, which comes into force in April 2008, appears to address the weaknesses of the law as it presently stands.
Currently, a single individual, identifiable as the directing mind of the company, has to be personally guilty of gross negligence or manslaughter before an organisation can be convicted of corporate manslaughter.
The Act is Parliament's attempt to remove the barrier of having to identify the controlling mind of an organisation. It provides that an organisation will be guilty of corporate manslaughter if an organisational or gross management failing causes a person's death. This means that the actions of senior management below director level could still be deemed to be the actions of the organisation.
Significant roles
The Act defines a senior manager as a person who plays a significant role in an organisation in:
Two specific disciplines of management responsibility are covered - taking decisions about the organisation of activities and the actual management of those activities. This seems to extend the definition of 'senior manager' to encompass operational managers alongside strategic decision-makers.
An organisation is guilty of the new offence if the way its activities are managed or organised by its senior managers causes a person's death and amounts to a gross breach of a relevant duty of care owed by the organisation to the deceased.
Failures in duty of care
So the new offence comprises two elements. The first is that a management failure must have caused the death. Explanatory notes to the Act indicate that such failure must be more than a minimal contribution to the death and there must be no break in the chain of causation. However, the management failure does not need to be the sole cause of the death.
The second element relates to the 'relevant duty of care' that the organisation owed to the deceased. Such a duty can arise from an organisation's role as employer, occupier, supplier of goods or services, constructor or maintainer, or keeper of any plant, vehicle or 'other thing'.
Once the duty of care has been established, the prosecution must demonstrate gross breach of that duty. Such a failure is defined as conduct that "falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances".
To assess this, the proposed law will require a consideration of the organisation's compliance with health and safety legislation.
Rather than consider the knowledge and motives of senior managers, the risk of death from any failure to comply with legislation will need to be evaluated in the first instance. Attention will then be given to the attitudes, systems, policies and accepted practices within the organisation which may have encouraged or tolerated non-compliance with the legislation.
The whole ethos of the legislation is to emphasise the importance of compliance with existing health and safety law and guidance. Statements in policy documents need to be clearly evidenced in practice and not exceed legal thresholds.
If a statement of intent is unachievable and a fatality occurs, the organisation could be held accountable to its own declared standard rather than the legal minimum.
In this context, many organisations make laudable declarations as to their intent for their employees and stakeholders, but these very declarations, if not deliverable, should be re-evaluated.
Kevin Elliott is regulatory partner at Eversheds
What you should do
There are currently no comments for this article.
XpertHR - Online HR Intelligence