Legal liability

sangie595

Whether you take on the responsibility is your decision and quite irrelevant to the thrust of your argument.

We have literally thousands of H&S reps. Many thousands more operate in workplaces. Not one of them would require a meeting with the legal department because it isn't necessary. And given my experience of legal departments, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find them refusing to talk to you. I suspect that statement is the truth.

If you are doing this work on behalf of the employer, then they retain all liability unless you are deliberately neglectful or negligent. You carry out the function within the bounds of what you are trained to perform, and where you do not feel confident or qualified to advise them that is what your report should say - a specialist or more qualified person is required to do the work.

This is how health and safety works pretty much everywhere. There is a hierarchy and you have a place in it. You might, for example, take responsibility generally for DSE, which are easy to do. But you would refer to a more experienced colleague or OH or Access to Work for a DSE specific to a disability which requires adjustments. You might advise people on trailing wires and what to do about them, but not conduct PAT testing because that's something you can't do.

So really, the issue is simple. Assuming it is a choice in reality, then do you wish to do this role or not? If not, then refuse to do it. If so, then do it to the best of your ability and ensure that you understand that hierarchy of referral. Don't keep demanding a meeting with legal. They won't meet with you, it's a red herring, and you aren't doing yourself any favours by demanding what you can't have and don't need.

takman

Here is what you are required to do when creating/signing a risk assessment:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/managing/delivering/do/profiling/the-law.htm

You do not need any specialist training or qualifications. The idea behind a risk assessment is that the people actually doing the job get involved as they are the ones most likely to know exactly what all the risks are.

If you use a common sense approach and make sure all the risks are detailed and the people doing the job are involved you won't have any problems. There will not be any legal implications for you unless your purposely negligent and omit things intentionally.

You will not get in any legal trouble for missing a risk that a competent person with minimal training would not be expected to know.

steampowered

I don't think many legal departments are too clued up on the ins-and-outs of the role of a RA.

sangie595

steampowered wrote: »

I don't think many legal departments are too clued up on the ins-and-outs of the role of a RA.

I'll let you know if I come across one!