The last statement is italicized because it will be the crucial point of debate. According to the Act, this duty extends without prejudice to the generality of an employer's duty and includes the following:
the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health; arrangements for ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as is necessary to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety at work of his employees;
so far as is reasonably practicable as regards any place of work under the employer's control, the maintenance of it in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of means of access to and egress from it that are safe and without such risks;
The provision and maintenance of a working environment for his employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, safe, without risks to health, and adequate as re...
f his general policy with respect to the health and safety at work of his employees and the organization and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision of it to the notice of all of his employees.
The company had the initiative to institute ways to ensure that the employees are protected from the hazardous materials that the company is using for its manufacturing process by providing the necessary mechanism to punish those who will fail to comply. However, due to the complaints received from the employees, they relaxed the mechanism in the belief that the safety measures were a hindrance to productivity. Under the law, employers must ensure that the working environment is safe in so far as is reasonably practicable. We therefore ask what constitutes practicability. Was it impracticable because it lowered productivity and generated complaints The point is that the measures were practicable primarily because it was relatively easy to employ and make use of and such complaints as rashes and blurring of vision are temporary and psychological at the least. It is quite illogical to say that the use of goggles was impracticable when in fact most employees of companies who handle corrosive chemicals are wearing one. Under this circumstance, we find that the company has fallen short of its duties because they failed to enforce the measures which were practicable by not employing the dismissal of any defaulters. Also, the company is at fault because it did not provide enough information on where the equipment was to be located.
B. The Law and the Employees
In the observance of health and safety measure, it is not the employer alone who is given the responsibility but also the employee. Under the 1974 Act,