Employers Responsibilities for Employees Working Abroad

1. Employers Responsibilities for Employees Working Abroad A Gentle Reminder

2. RESPONSIBILITIES • Questions • Who is responsible for the personnel e.g. Students and Experimenters sent abroad or allowed to go abroad by your respective institute or university? • Does the person responsible know they are working safely or in a safe environment or have they assumed this to be the case? • What are they working with? High Voltage or High Current, Flammable Gases etc.

3. The Legal Position 1 • UK Common Law Duties of the Employer • To take reasonable care to protect his employees from foreseeable injury • To do what is reasonable in the circumstances • This may mean to provide:- • Safe Systems of Work and Safe Place of Work • Safe equipment and tools • Safe and competent fellow employees • Instruction on necessary precautions • Indicating the risks if precautions are not followed

4. The Legal Position 2 • Vicarious Liability • The employer can be held liable for the actions of his employees causing death, injury or damage to others, providing these actions were committed in the course of his employment • Employees • have a general duty of care towards themselves and to others

5. The Legal Position • Judicial Precedent • A decided case (Cook v. Square D Ltd) has stated that ; - • Where a number of employees were working abroad or one or two were working abroad for a considerable time, that the employer might want to inspect the site and satisfy himself that his employees were working in safe conditions and working safely.

6. The Legal Position • Employee Abroad - Application of British Law • A more recent case ( Johnson V. Coventry Churchill International where injury was suffered whilst working abroad), decided that as his employers were responsible for salary and income tax matters and that employment had not been transferred to the overseas place of work. • The employers were bound by British Common Law “duty of care” and had breached this duty. • It was decide that Britain had the most significant relationship with the accident and British law applied

7. The Legal Position • Criminal Law • UK criminal law e.g. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Safety Regulations have no jurisdiction outside the UK. • Local Criminal Law applies, this may differ from Country to Country and in the USA even from State to State

8. Criminal Law • Failure to heed the guidance set out in Guidance Notes and Approved Codes of Practice can be looked on as very bad practice and may be used in evidence in any proceedings • This guidance may be in the form of European,US or International Standards or protocols

9. The Legal Position • Employers should satisfy themselves that they have considered • The safety of the workplace itself • The safety of the buildings • The level of employee experience • The type of work to be done and level of risk of injury • The amount of control an employer can reasonably exercise • The employers knowledge of the condition of the place of work

10. Measures for UK Personnel • Annual visits to CERN, DESY, Fermilab, SLAC, Soudan and sometimes to SNO by a member of RAL Health and Safety Group with a member of RAL PPD Safety Panel. • A report on the findings of the visit is written and submitted to the RAL PPD Safety Panel • Any shortcomings are highlighted and a request for remedy of the situation is sent to the relevantperson(s)

11. Concerns • Concerns • RAL has virtually no contact with any university Safety Officer or responsible person • University Safety Officers rarely visit overseas sites • Are universities aware of what their employees students etc are involved in day to day? • Some experimenters have never even been to the universities that they are employed by • Some students have no supervisor at that site or even in that country

12. Options for UK • Make available toa specified person in each university/facility Safety Office a copy of the visit report highlighting areas where some improvements are needed. • A meeting with all university/facility safety officers at RAL to set out the measures in place at the moment and any suggestions for future developments • Ensure UK Liaison Officers draw attention to safety requirements of the host laboratory of facility including safety training and documentation • Carry out host facility safety training at RAL or home site

13. Concerns • Time when not at work, not really concern of host institute but possibly concern of home institute if there is a problem • Where they live when at host institute. Young people want to live where “it is all happening”

14. Concerns • Medical cover for illness and injury. • Not really a problem in Europe as most countries have reciprocal medical treatment scheme via the form E111, soon to be the European Medical Card • Can be a problem in USA especially in California in general and in the area of SLAC

15. Liaison with Host Institute • UK personnel have a liaison person at the host institute, who they must contact before they go to the host institute and as soon as they arrive. • This person looks after all their reasonable needs, somewhere to live , office space, etc. etc. • They are not a substitute parent or nanny, even though some people attempt to treat them as such

16. Requirements for Institutes being visited • Ensure that each visitorhas a comprehensive induction course at the first opportunity, not too many weeks after the person arrives • Short term visitors must also be catered for e.g. visits one day every two weeks • Radiation Dose records sent to the correct person at the relevant institute

17. What happens if it all goes wrong? • A visitor from another institute:- • Dies or causes someone else to get killed • Causes a fire which destroys a large part of an experiment • Causes a large environmental incident

18. Whois in Trouble? • In differing degrees:- • The person at the TOP • The Head of the host facility • The Head of the visitor’s home institute • The visitor’s supervisors at the host institute and at their home institute