Developing Consultation: Some Managerial Implications of the Health and Safety at Work Act
| Pages | 21-26 |
| Date | 01 March 1982 |
| Published date | 01 March 1982 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054996 |
| Author | Martin Gibson,Jim Kidd |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Developing Consultation:
Some Managerial Implications of the
Health and Safety at Work Act
by Martin Gibson and Jim Kidd
Senior Lecturers, School of Management Studies, Preston Polytechnic
Whilst there
are
potential benefits to be gained from the
consultative approach to the management of health and
safety at work
required
by
recent
legislation,
the
actual
im-
plementation of
such
consultation is not without its pro-
blems. In particular the process of developing effective
consultation may actually lead to conflict between par-
ticipants. The process of implementation
calls
for careful
management if the advantages of consultation are to be
achieved.
One of the central features of recent legislation on health
and safety at work has been the creation of a legal
framework which encourages greater management-
employee consultation on health and safety matters. This
stems from the approach to the management of health and
safety advocated by the Robens' Committee which sug-
gested that:
"There is a greater natural identity of interest between
the two sides in relation to safety and health problems
than in most other matters. There is no legitimate scope
for bargaining on safety and health issues, but much
scope for constructive discussion, joint inspection and
participation in working out solutions."[1]
The Robens' Report argued that those most responsible
for creating and perpetuating hazards at work and those
most in danger from them should exercise a greater control
over the health and safety of their places of work. Similar-
ly the Report sought to encourage employers and
employees to accept health and safety both as a personal
responsibility and an important organisational objective
and to work co-operatively towards improving health and
safety practices and standards.
In implementing this philosophy the Health and Safety
at Work Act provides recognised trade unions with the
right to appoint safety representatives from amongst their
members. Such representatives in turn have the right to in-
vestigate potential hazards and dangerous occurrences, in-
vestigate the complaints of employees concerning health
and safety and carry out routine inspections of the
workplace. They are entitled to make representations to
their employers on health and safety matters; the Code of
Practice (which accompanies the Regulations) stresses the
need for informal open dialogue between management and
and representatives in order for participation to be effec-
tive.
That the representative's role is anticipated as one of
consultation rather than negotiation is indicated by the
Code which argues that representatives should:
"encourage
co-operation
between the employer and his
employees in promoting and developing essential
measures to ensure the health and safety of employees
and in checking the effectiveness of these measures."[2]
Safety representatives may also require their employers to
establish safety committees, the general functions of which
include keeping under review the measures taken to ensure
health and safety at work, and promoting co-operation
between employers and employees in instigating, develop-
ing and carrying out measures to ensure employees' health
and safety.
However, whilst a consultative approach by manage-
ment can often make a contribution towards reducing con-
frontation and avoiding the more negative expressions of
conflict and can make a joint problem solving approach to
differences between management and employees more
feasible[3],
the limitations and demands of such an ap-
proach must also be recognised[4]. Extending employee
consultation is no panacea in
itself,
nor is legislation any
guarantee that meaningful consultation will result. Indeed
the Guidance Notes to the Code of Practice imply the same
when describing some of the conditions for successful safe-
ty committees:
"An essential condition to the effective working of a
safety committee is good communications between
management and the committee and between the com-
mittee and the employees. In addition there must be a
genuine desire on the part of management to tap the
knowledge and experience of its employees and an
equally genuine desire on the part of the employees to
improve the standards of health and safety at the
workplace. The effectiveness of
a
joint safety committee
will depend on the pressure and influence it is able to
maintain on all concerned."[5]
Whilst undertaking a broad survey of the impact of the
HASAWA on industry we became increasingly aware that
this very process of working towards a consultative, joint
problem solving approach to health and safety can in itself
create the circumstances for conflict and dispute. As with
any other organisational change which involves redefining
rights and responsibilities and revising working ar-
rangements, the process of managing the response to the
legislation can be a complex one calling for considerable
managerial skills and resources. Even those organisations
where there was prior commitment to the consultative
philosophy of the HASAWA were not immune from some
of these implementational problems.
However, as with other forms of consultation or par-
ticipation, most academic interest has focused upon the at-
titudes and response of employees[6], and whilst there has
been some consideration of the role for employee safety
representatives and their relationships with the employees
and trade unions[7] there has been relatively little discus-
sion of other parties to the system. Thus in this paper we
have concentrated upon the managerial problems of im-
plementing the legislation. More specifically we have con-
Employee Relations 4,3 1982 | 21
To continue reading
Request your trial