The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations - Report Example

Assessment 2 Case Study Abbie’s obligations to use the new equipment Softy Furnishing Ltd (SF) is a company that makes decorative products that include curtains, cushions and bed linen for homes. Because it needed to modernise its brand, it hired Roz who had just graduated from University and had ideas on how to recreate the brand and modernise it. Her ideas also included a change to the existing working practices at the firm. However, when Roz tried to implement her ideas, she met resistance and discouraging issues. The first issue that comes up regards the fact that Abbie has refused to use the new machines that speed up production. Roz has offered to train her on how to use the new machines, but Abbie is rigid. She says that because she was trained in using more manual machines, she would prefer to continue using them. This issue brings up an important question. Is Abbie obligated to use the new equipment? The issue presented above is covered under the employment law in Britain that is governed by common law of contract and other statute laws that are enacted to protect the employee as well as govern the behaviour of the employer towards the employee. For Abbie, the issue is covered under the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations of 1998 (PUWER)1. This law places duties and responsibilities on companies and persons, who own, operate or have control over work equipment2. This law requires that equipment provided for use at work is safe for use, suitable for the intended purpose, put in a safe condition and inspected to ensure that it is correctly installed, used only by persons who have adequate information, training and instruction on it and is accompanied by suitable safety and health measures. Under this law, Abbie will only be obligated to use the equipment if it has been ascertained that the above issues have been met. As it stands, Abbie has refused to use the equipment without consulting Roz on whether the above issues have been met. As it stands, Roz promised her that she would be offered training on how to use the new equipment for work but she refused basing her argument on the fact that she was comfortable with using old manual equipment. The current information on the equipment is that it is suitable for the purpose it is intended for and takes into account the working conditions, health and safety needs of the employees because Roz has promised to offer training for use of the equipment. Currently, Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment because she has not proven that the introduction of the equipment has not met the provisions of Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), thereby contravening it3. Abbie’s obligation to use the equipment is also covered under the Employment Rights Act of 1996 (ERA) that was enacted by the Conservative government codifying the law on individual rights in UK labour law4. Section 1(2) of the ERA 1996 requires that the terms of a contract be in writing and given to the employee within the first 8 weeks of their employment. Both Roz and Abbie are covered by this law. This law does not require all issues in the contract to be put in writing. It only requires that the major aspects of the contract be included in the written contract5. Therefore, Abbie is obligated to use the equipment because this is covered either in writing or not in her contract obligations. In the issue regarding whether Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment, her work environment and current evidence show that she is obligated to use it. In reference to the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations of 1998 (PUWER), it appears that the company has met the provisions stated in the law because when introducing the equipment, she informed Abbie that she would receive training which addresses the necessary support and safety issues attached to the use of the new equipment6. Roz has not broken any law in introducing the new equipment and Abbie’s argument is an issue regarding preference and not an issue of breaking the law. Therefore, Abbie is obligated to use the new equipment unless she can prove that it is harmful to her health or fails to fulfil the contract obligations on the part of the employer. Abbie’s obligation to use the equipment can also be referred from Cresswell v Inland Revenue7 where the high court ruled in favour of Inland Revenue as the employer after Cresswell (employee) had sued stating that the requirement to use computerized record systems to calculate taxes and send letters breached terms of contract8. The courts ruled that an employer could introduce new methods and technology to a workplace and require an employee to use them legitimately as long as the purpose is justified and training is provided. Abbie’s issue is similar to Cresswell’s issue and the same concept is applicable9. The requirement that Abbie should use the new equipment after training is not illegal or contrary to contract obligations. It reflects an aspect of duty to obey reasonable instructions from the employer that was established in Morrish v Henleys (Folklore) Ltd10 where it was ruled that an employer could not sanction an employee to engage in unlawful activities in the name of duty to obey. Employees have an obligation to fulfill in their work environment as long as it is reasonable and legal as in Royle v Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council [1984] IRLR 18411 where a teacher was deducted salary for refusing to take up extra classes and children into his classes12. In Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] IRLR 19313, miles was fined for failing to perform marriage ceremonies on Saturday mornings, yet 3 hours out of his 37 weekly hours were supposed to be worked on a Saturday. These cases show that Abbie cannot refuse to use the new equipment because she prefers the old one. She should undertake this obligation. In conclusion, for Abbie, it is likely that a court will find that she has an obligation to use the new equipment because in introducing it to the workplace, the employer acted within reasonable terms and made a promise to provide Abbie with training for her to use the equipment. Unless Abbie can prove beyond doubt that this contravenes a contract between her and the employer, she is likely to lose in a court of law. Advise Roz as to any action she can take in relation to the comments made by Dennis The second issue comes from the fact that Roz feels intimidated by the people working in the warehouse where she wanted to bring changes. Instead of Dennis, her line manager supporting her, he told her that all changes must pass through him first and that he would deal with the men in the warehouse. This suggested that Roz was not fit to handle men because she was a woman. Dennis emphasized that his decision was final and was meant to protect her. This issue brings up an important question. Are there actions that Roz can take in relation to the comments made by Dennis towards her? The issue presented above is also covered under the employment law in Britain that is governed by common law of contract and other statute laws that are enacted to protect the employee and govern the behaviour of the employer towards the employee. The law covering the actions that Roz can take with regard to the comments made by Dennis towards her is the Equality Act of 2010 that is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom14. This law protects employees from discrimination and unfair treatment at the workplace. It protects against direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization in places of work. The comments that Dennis made towards Roz implied that she was unable to handle men at the warehouse because she was a woman and that the changes she wanted to bring would be forwarded to him not as the line manager but as a man who would be able to handle such changes. Therefore, the Equality Act of 2010 protects her from such harassment. She also felt intimidated by those who worked in the warehouse, and this issue is addressed by the Equality Act of 201015. The Equal Treatment Direction 2006/54/EC an Act of the European Union also covers Roz on the actions she can take against Dennis for the comments he made towards her because it addressed the issues of equal treatment between men and women in the workplace under the European Union labour law16. The Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005, which amended the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975, also covers this issue. It states that a person harasses a woman if “(a) on the ground of her sex, he engages in unwanted conduct that has the purpose or effect – (i) of violating her dignity, or (ii) of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her”17. These issues can be considered to have been implied in the comments that Dennis made towards Roz with respect to the changes that she desired to bring to the firm to modernize the brand18. Therefore, all these laws can be applied to the issue that originate from the Softy furnishing Ltd (SF) case study. It also forms the basis of the judgements that can be made with regard to the actions that Roz can take because of the comments that Dennis made towards her when she tried to bring changes to the warehouse at Softy furnishing Ltd (SF). With regard to the actions that Roz take in relation to the comments made by Dennis, it is clear that Dennis implied weakness on the part of Roz to effect the changes because of being a woman rather than because she was unqualified for the role. It is true that Roz had to make the changes through him because he was the line manager. Generally, a junior employee must consult his or her manager before implementing a change process in the workplace because this is required for the supervisory role and to keep the manager up to date. However, this must happen within the legal confines rather than through intimidation and harassment. Roz could report Dennis to the management of the firm for sexual harassment and intimidation. It can clearly be seen that Dennis made the comments because Roz was a woman and to him she could not handle men in the warehouse. In Health Board v B C and the Labour Court (1994) ELR, EE10/9219; it was argued that a female employee had been subjected to lewd and harsh comments from two male colleagues. She had asked them severally to stop. This incident represented sexual harassment and intimidation. In this case, the court stated that employers have a duty to protect employees from sexual harassment. Therefore, the management of the firm should be the first place where she can report this issue, and if it is not resolved she should sue. In Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman (1999) IRLR 29920, Mr Reed and his employers posted an appeal to an industrial court decision that was held in favour of Ms Stedman from the complains she made under the Sex Discrimination act of 197521. She stated that working with Mr Reed was not proper because he made remarks, comments and expressed behaviours with sexual connotations towards her22. However, in worker v Mid Western Health Board (1996) ELR 123, and according to the labour court, she should show that less favourable treatment and that the treatment arose from her being a woman. In conclusion, for Roz, a court of law is likely to find Dennis liable for sexually harassing her unless Dennis proves that the comments he made towards her were specifically meant to help her effect the change by ensuring that she is not intimidated in the warehouse. However, the burden of proof will be on Dennis. In addition, the court is likely to investigate whether the firm has policies protecting employees from sexual harassment and intimidation and whether Roz reported it and the steps that the company took to handle the case. Therefore, Roz it is likely that Roz has the upper hand in a court. Bibliography Primary sources UK Cases Health Board v B C and the Labour Court [1994] ELR, EE10/92 Cresswell v Inland Revenue [1984] ICR 508 Miles v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [1987] IRLR 193 Morrish v Henleys (Folklore) Ltd [1973] ICR 482 Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v Stedman [1999] IRLR 299 Royle v Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council [1984] IRLR 184 Worker v Mid Western Health Board [1996] ELR 1 UK Legislations Employment Rights Act of 1996 (ERA) Equality Act of 2010 Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations of 1998 (PUWER) European Union Legislation The Equal Treatment Direction 2006/54/EC Secondary Sources Books Burrows, Andrew S. English Private Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Channing, John. Safety at Work. (London: Butterworths, 1986). Davies, Alex. Workplace Law Handbook 2012: Health and Safety, Premises and Environment. (London: KoganPage, 2011). Feldman, David. English Public Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Marson, James. Beginning Employment Law. Oxon: Routledge, Taylor and Francis, 2014. Moffatt, Jane. Employment Law. New York. Oxford University Press, 2006. Journals Leighton, Patricia. Contract of employment. Industrial Law Journal, 14 (1) (1985): 51-53. doi: 10.1093/ilj/14.1.51 Monti, Giorgio. "Understanding Sexual Harassment a Little Better Reed and Bull Information Systems Ltd v. Stedman." Feminist Legal Studies 8, no. 3 (2000): 367-377. Read More