|
FL Memo Ltd © 2007 |
|
Employment Memo 2007 Newsletter Issue 2 |
|
PDF printer friendly version |
|
RECENT CASES |
|
3. Contractual relationship with end-user ¶¶2050, 2710Although there is usually no employer-employee relationship between an end-user and an agency worker, there may be a sufficient legal relationship to protect the agency worker in particular situations. If, for example, an agency worker is injured at work, the end-user may be liable for the accident (¶2050). Here, an engineering consultant sought protection under the whistleblowing legislation, which specifically lists agency workers as a protected category (¶2710). The consultant was employed by a limited company, which provided services to an agency, which in turn was engaged by an end-user. The EAT held that although the consultant was not an employee of the end-user there was a sufficiently close relationship between the consultant and the end-user for the consultant to be qualify for protection. Croke v Hydro Aluminium Worcester Ltd [2007] EAT case 0238/05
Directors Personal liability Gross negligence manslaughter ¶2161 A company can be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter, where there is sufficient evidence to show that there has been gross negligence on its part. The company’s directors can only be personally liable where they are individually guilty. This was such a case. Here, the defendant was the managing director of a stone cutting factory and closely supervised activities on the shop floor. A cutting machine was installed in the factory, but its safety features were disabled and an employee was fatally injured. The defendant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court, but was not given a custodial sentence, on the grounds that if he were to be imprisoned the company would fail and its employees would lose their jobs. The Attorney General appealed the sentence, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the question of whether or not the company would have been forced to close without its managing director was an inappropriate consideration and was not relevant to sentencing. Were considerations of this sort to be allowed, there would be no incentive for small employers to comply with health and safety legislation. A sentence of 15 months was imposed. Attorney General’s Reference (No 86 of 2006) [2007] ICR 1047, CA |