Movimientos sociales y nuevas ciudadanías

In 1972, the British Committee on Safety and Health at Work, chaired by Alfred Lord Robens – (Robens Report) influenced the Voluntary Protection Program, which bridged itself out to other countries. It had an enormous impact on the English Occupational Health and Safety Legislation and the philosophy of employee participation and consultation between Employees and Employers. The two primary objectives that were introduced by the Robens Report were that:

 All parties, specifically Employers, Contractors and Employees have a duty of care for health and safety at work.

 A self-regulating system, which promotes employee participation, is adopted. It requires employers to consult with employees at the workplace about health and safety matters.

The tenet in the Robens’ Report is that occupational health and safety at the workplace can only be achieved with “full co-operation and commitment from employees.” These objectives have reshaped much Legislation globally.

Research by Kaufman (2011), Nichols et al. (2007) and Walter et al. (2005) found that in the UK worker representation and consultation produced better outcomes than management acting alone. Trade Unions improved OHS outcomes (Fairbrother, 1996). The role of trade unions is reinforced as the study by Fairbrother (1996) and Alverson (2011), who conclude that trade unions improve OHS outcomes as is the case in the United Kingdom in three ways:

 As the Government and its Agencies did not invest sufficient resources for inspection and regulation, Trade unions played a vital role in legal enforcement. In addition, resolution of OHS challenges requires negotiations and interpretations of specific workplace circumstances, rather than a simplistic “black and white” legal approach,

49

 Providing employees with a collective voice, that allows employees who are otherwise unable to express their needs to contribute to the OHS agenda and

 Establishing a counterbalancing stance that expresses the needs of employees relative to the competing concerns of management around profit, output and productivity (especially in the short term to focus on the levels of line and operation management rather than the strategic level). The provision of training and information form part of the changing power between employees and management.

Fairbrother (1996) further argues that the legislation based on the Robens’ model provides for managers and employees to jointly regulate OHS with the assumption that both managers and employees have a mutual interest concerning OHS. Spath (2004) points out that a system that relies on voluntary involvement by Worker and Manager requires a mature and socially responsible organisation.

In the opinion of Epstein (2012), the UK Health and Safety Legislation in the field of occupational health and safety is based on three pillars, the enforcement body, the employee involvement and self-regulation by employers.

The enforcement process empowers Inspectors to conduct and inspect work premises, to perform investigations, to seize documents and hazardous substances involved with a particular deviation from expected standards and to issue notices to employers in order to rectify a deviation or institute whatever appropriate action is necessary to reduce or eliminate the impending dangerous risk (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974). Edwards (2000) argues that the enforcement has been ineffective because of the lack of insufficient inspections. According to study undertaken by the Centre of Corporate Accountability, in 1999 the UK OHS inspectorate investigated only 11% of the serious injuries and only 10% of those investigated cases had resulted in prosecution.

50

In Britain Legislation has recommended certain steps in respect of the voluntary approach concerning participation between employee and employer (The Health and Safety Work Act of 1974). These recommendations include:

 To establish Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment Systems that involves employee participation.

 To be transparent with Occupational Health and Safety statistics,

 To enhance communication systems that encourage occupational health and safety issues,

 To institute a system that employees can use to report, make

recommendations and mitigate risks associated with fatalities, accidents, incidents, near misses and hazards.

The functioning and establishing a safety representative and safety committees are left entirely up to employer and employees. In Britain, Epstein (2012) and Waters et al. (2007), note that the trade unions have the exclusive right to appoint safety representatives at the workplace. Haynes, Boxall and Macky (2005) argue that this process is insufficient observing how those employees that are not members of the Trade Unions or similar organisations that do not have recognised agreements with any Trade Unions do not have any legal right to elect safety representatives at the workplace.

In study undertaken in Britain by the University of Wales Cardiff, employee participation varied as knowledge was the highest amongst the managerial and professional employees, while being the lowest for the unskilled and temporarily employed. Furthermore women showed a lower knowledge when compared to men and older men were seen to have shown greater knowledge when compared to younger men (Epstein, 2012; Frick, 2010).

It is apparent when analysing the work of Alverson (2011), Bedfort (2009), Cates (2010) and Epstein (2011), the voluntary process of the legislation pre-supposes that

51

all employers will perform risk assessments and implement mitigating actions to reduce or eliminate these risks. The process encourages employers to use employees as being the ears and eyes of the employer in the health and safety prevention programs. Epstein (2012) cites that this is instrumental in the management of health and safety as it is not practical to have an inspector at each work site. He cites a more effective method in the drive to reduce injuries is the greater participation of employees and the implementation of management programs.

Cates (2010), Gevers (1998) and Walters (2005) have observed that employee participation has been extended from the prevention of accidents and occupational disease to the protection of the health of workers and even promoting the workers’ wellbeing. This has incorporated the duties of employers to act reasonably and provide a safe and health work environment to all persons that are directly linked to the operations of the workplace.

Beirne (2008), Brewster et al. (2007), Dunlap (2012), Frick (2010), Geller (2000), Hohnen et al. (2011) and Walters et al. (2005) point out that even in countries such as Britain, Demark and Ireland, that attempt to promote a “voluntaristic” approach to industrial relations and OHS participation, it is always difficult to have a system that is totally voluntary. The voluntary participation approach as used in United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland aims to make all parties, namely Employers, Suppliers, Contractors and Employees responsible for health and safety at work and a self- regulating system, that requires employers to consult with employees at the workplace about health and safety matters. Gevers (1983) argues that although countries have predominantly a “voluntaristic” approach, statutory regulations enacting employee participation have been adopted. The definite disadvantage is that employees may suggest safety improvements; however they cannot insist on these improvements to be implemented. The process to assist employees in these matters is through the safety committees, which may access an Inspectorate who may act on their behalf. Furthermore the employers may appoint safety representatives that form

52

part of the safety committees. This could allow for the manipulation of the agenda by management to ensure that their objectives are driven at these forums.

2.3.3.2. Employee Participation in managing occupational health and safety in