Making Companies Safe - what works? (CCA ... - Unite the Union

Chapter Three
Workforce Participation
This section reviews the available research on worker participation and considers the
question of whether, in light of this evidence, the law should have been changed to increase
and extend workers’ rights to participation and consultation, or whether the HSC/E was
correct to pursue a voluntary approach to this issue.
Research undertaken both in this country and overseas, 1 demonstrates that workforce
consultation and participation have measurable and positive impacts upon workplace health
and safety outcomes. 2 Moreover, the magnitude of the impact is greater than that recorded
for any other intervention. For instance, Reilly et al. reported that workplaces with trade union
safety representatives and joint health and safety committees have on average a 50% lower
injury rate per 1000 employees than workplaces with no consultation mechanism, 3 and Litwin
reports an even larger difference with the accident rate amongst workplaces with a union
presence that is 74% lower than workplaces where there is no union presence. 4 In addition,
researchers have attributed the reported success of new ‘partnership’ initiatives such as the
PABIAC initiative 5 and the ‘Recipe for Safety’ initiative in part to the central involvement of
unions and to worker representation and consultation. 6
Consistent with this evidence, Government Ministers initially appeared keen to extend and
promote greater employee involvement and consultation on health and safety, and in 1998
Michael Meacher, who was at that time Minister for the Environment and responsible
for the HSE, sought ideas from the HSC for enhancing the role of safety representatives.
Consequently, the HSC published a discussion document in November 1999, 7 which included
proposals to harmonise the Safety Representative and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996. The need for
harmonisation was confirmed by HSE-commissioned research that showed that the 1996
Regulations were flawed and failed to ensure that employees were consulted on risks to their
health and safety. 8 Part of the problem appeared to be the degree of discretion afforded to
employers. This was recognised by the HSE, who acknowledged that:
“There is evidence that the goal setting approach adopted in the [1996
Regulations] and specifically the right for employers to determine the method of
consultation had not resulted in a significant increase in employee involvement,
nor in the number of safety representatives.” 9
Another way of increasing the coverage of workforce representation and consultation, and a
measure that was advocated by the trade union movement, was through the introduction of
roving safety representatives. The HSC agreed to undertake pilot exercises to investigate the
role of ‘workers safety advisors’ (their name for ‘roving safety representatives’) in workplaces
where there was little or no employee representation and health and safety performance was
poor. 10 This was partly in response to the recommendation of a prior Select Committee inquiry
that HSE should initiate such pilots. 11
In addition to considering how to increase the coverage of workforce representation and
consultation, the HSE initially appeared to be interested in exploring ways of strengthening
and extending the rights of existing safety representatives. For instance, the HSE undertook a
‘fact-finding mission’ to investigate worker provisions – available to safety representatives in
Australia – designed to induce employer compliance with OHS legislation.
One such provision is the right of safety representatives to issue ‘provisional improvement
notices’ or “PINs” – a right that UK trade unions have argued for on the grounds that the 29