Corporate manslaughter

woodford2barbican

Has anyone come up against this argument against cyclescheme being implemented?

My HR department has raised it - they are not being obstructive but are honestly concerned.

I suggested that some form of cycle training be organised....

Has anyone had experience of satisfying an employer's concerns about this?

will3

How is it any different to company cars?

OTOH if your company discouraged cycling on these grounds and you died from lard infestation.................

passout

I have never heard of this. My place of work is hot on H.S.S. and it was not seen as a relevant issue when they implemented the scheme. The cyclist is resposible for the upkeep of the bike I seem to remember and the bike is still sold by a shop & produced by a manufacturer, both of whom take some responsibility for the machine.

ellieb

I don't see how on earth corporate manslaughter would apply. They are supplying you with a bike. That is, I believe a perfectly legal thing to do. How could they be liable if you then misuse it or have an accident using it. For manslaughter to stick the company have to have done something wrong. Doesn't add up
In any case when you see how hard it is to get the charge to stick when a company has clearly been genuinely negligent in some way I can't think why an HR departmant would lose any sleep about it.

halfwheeler

Under the current corporate manslaughter rules the company is liable for the employees travel to and from the workplace. This means that if they identify a risk (you riding your bike to work) and don't provide training (you undertaking training then signing a form to transfer liability) and you injure someone else on the way to or from work then the company will be liable as well as yourself. This is why most companies are now requiring their employees complete a driver improvement scheme before being allocated a company vehicle.
Those that don't are leaving themselves open to corporate manslaughter and injury charges.
This is the first company i have heard of using the cycle to work scheme though!
Hope this helps.

woodford2barbican

Thanks that does help. The HR dept are willing to solve what they see as a problem - maybe this will help them think of a way round it.....

spen666

halfwheeler wrote:

Under the current corporate manslaughter rules the company is liable for the employees travel to and from the workplace. ...

Company are NOT responsible for how you choose to travel to / from your place of work

That is up to you- not your employer.

YOU are mistaking the position I suspect with travel as part of your work ie from your permqnent place of work to another site .

Thus your employer MAY be liable in limited circumstances if you are injured travelling from your office to a client's site, but is not liable if you are travelling to/from your home to permanent place of work

Anonymous

Corporate manslaughter only applies in very certain circumstances, for example if the company actually enforce practices that were the cause of the death. Again, for example a transport manager who orders his drivers to drive over regulation hours and doctors the records may then be culpable if one of the drivers then kills someone through tiredness.

Providing someone with a bike to get to work who then goes under a lorry would not come under this. Remotely.

halfwheeler

The cycle to work scheme involves company participation which passes liability onto the company. As previously stated if the company does not then provide training in the use of the cycle (or any machinery or vehicle) then any accidents will come under the legislation. The easy way round this is to provide training in the use of the cycle and get the employee to sign the training material stating they have completed and understood the training.This legislation is not to be taken lightly by companies as it has resulted in MD s receiving a custodial sentence as well as the employee.

chuckcork

halfwheeler wrote:

The cycle to work scheme involves company participation which passes liability onto the company. As previously stated if the company does not then provide training in the use of the cycle (or any machinery or vehicle) then any accidents will come under the legislation. The easy way round this is to provide training in the use of the cycle and get the employee to sign the training material stating they have completed and understood the training.This legislation is not to be taken lightly by companies as it has resulted in MD s receiving a custodial sentence as well as the employee.

An equivalent: company car, wheels fall off/brakes fail, driver killed. Company has failed to maintain the car properly so corporate manslaghter kicks in?

Yes, but if on the cyclescheme the responsibility for maintence is passed to the employee, I don't see how the use of the bike and any defects would be their fault, and any charge would require not only a injury/death to come about but would also require evidence that they were negligent in some way.

halfwheeler

Chuckcork, you are missing the point is was trying to make.
The bike is a piece of machinery just like a pallet truck or a cordless drill. If the company does not provide training on HOW TO USE the machinery and the operator causes or sustains injury they could well be held liable. The legislation is far reaching and has companies ( and their insurers) very worried, which is why most companies are playing safe and not taking the chance. Providing training and getting the employee to sign that they have undertaken and understand the training should ensure the company is not liable.

chuckcork

A bike is not a machine, its a item of sports equipment. It isn't used in the workplace, and the things you describe would be more properly considered under health and safety legislation. So I'd ask again, how could the directors of a firm be found guilty of manslaughter in the event of an accident involving someone using a piece of sports equipment, when they are absolved of responsibility in the first place?

Leaving aside bizarre possibilities that are always brought up in the H&S area to prevent anyone from getting out of bed in the morning, because a failure to tie shoelaces properly could lead to death (training therefore required?) I don't see how it would be the case, particularly given the glaring examples of failure in the railways (Railtrack) that have resulted in multiples deaths but with a failure to prosecute in every case I think.

And from a guidance publication by the HSC and the Institute of Directors: "Under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 an offence will be committed where failings by an organisation’s senior management are a substantial element in any gross
breach of the duty of care owed to the organisation’s employees or members of the public, which results in death"

Personally while a worry may exist that something could happen and a firm could be found liable, the likelihood of a case gettingt the courts would be slim. Riding a bicycle is a normal activity, the risk is not excessive, and unless the company has really been seriously negligent in some way (describe how please, with bringing up rubbish about power tool usage) I can't see they would be liable in the event of anything happening to their employee.

chuckcork

I'd say additionally, the company could simply offer cycle training to staff looking to take up the cycle to work thing, and ask them to agree the they're happy not to have it, with appropriate 10 page small print legal document absolving the company of any and all responsibility up to and including alien invasion or comet strike, to be signed by the staff concerned.

Should do the trick

halfwheeler

The original question was from someone asking why their company had brought up corporate manslaughter regarding cycle to work. I have given a valid answer to the question and also suggested a solution, which is the one taken by most companies to protect against liability. The legislation is here to stay so companies have to make decisions on how to best protect themselves.
You have answered your own question with the quote from the HSE. (care owed to organisations employees or members of the public)
I don't really understand your comments on a bike not being a machine (which it obviously is) or the use of power tools as an example as both are valid points. The fact that companies and individuals have to worry so much about liability is a sad fact of modern society and the "where there is a blame culture"

Simon Notley

The bike is not the same as a piece of machinery that you use at work because you are not using the bike for your work. The bike is simply a part of your remuneration package. Similarly, your work is not responsible for how you spend your salary or if you cut yourself on a banknote that they paid you.

Even if you did use the bike for work travel, I don't think the employer actually supply the bike, they just gave you a voucher with which to purchase a private vehicle. As long as your employer doesn't make you use your private vehicle when it is unsafe to do so, then I think they're on safe ground.

guilliano

All the company is actually doing is loaning you the money to buy the bike and reclaiming it over a period of time interest free. They are in no way liable for the usage of the bike or its upkeep and as such would have no liability if an employee were to die riding it (unless they insisted it was bought from my local Halfords, in which case the buyer takes their lives into their own hands)

chuckcork

halfwheeler wrote:

The original question was from someone asking why their company had brought up corporate manslaughter regarding cycle to work. I have given a valid answer to the question and also suggested a solution, which is the one taken by most companies to protect against liability. The legislation is here to stay so companies have to make decisions on how to best protect themselves.
You have answered your own question with the quote from the HSE. (care owed to organisations employees or members of the public)
I don't really understand your comments on a bike not being a machine (which it obviously is) or the use of power tools as an example as both are valid points. The fact that companies and individuals have to worry so much about liability is a sad fact of modern society and the "where there is a blame culture"

You've actually pretty much failed to understand that the requirements is a gross breach of duty of care I'd say....that there may be a risk is one thing, but the mere existence of risk is irrelevant.

E.g., having done assessments of risk for construction as a designer, there are plenty of obvious risks that would need to be taken into account by a contractor, unless however the risk is more than the obvious it can be safely ignored. I don't for example have to worry about a chippy hitting his thumb with a hammer. I would have to worry about working at height, the question of how to replace glazing at height etc, but even then they can be dealt with obviously enough. As a result we can still construct buildings more than one storey high that have windows.

If a companies directors believe the "risk" to them of being taken to court because the staff have taken advantage of a government sponsored tax reduction scheme is too high, then perhaps they ought to look at closing down the company and moving into something safer, like not getting out of bed.

ALL activities carry a risk, the question is whether the risk is excessive. Given that cycling is an established legal activity safely enjoyed by a significant %-age of the population and encouraged by the government for health and traffic minimisation reasons, any prosecution would not only have to meet the requirements of a criminal case (with the legislation in mind) to succeed; if it did it would be immediately appealed and overturned for reasons of policy.

You might as well say in your argument that a firm that doesn't encourage staff to exercise is liable because obesity increases risk of diabetes etc; or alternatively that a firm that encourages staff to exercise more and "use the stairs and not the lift" as we are now being rather patronisingly told to lose weight is at risk because stairs are more dangerous. Have they done a risk assessment of the use of stairs for moving between floors before allowing them to be used? Ridiculous, isn't it?

If a firm is taking that line I can only finish by saying they are reaching for excuses not to implement the cycle scheme, and a pretty lame one at that.

Anonymous

Anyone fancy a pint?

chuckcork

NapoleonD wrote:

Anyone fancy a pint?

Only one. If I get drunk and stagger out into the road I might get hit by a car and then need to sue someone.....

pneumatic

I'm self-employed. If I fall off one of my bikes (paid for from the proceeds of my business), could I be done for suicide?

If so, my family might lose out on the life insurance and the church might pray for my exclusion from Heaven. :evil:

These would be bad outcomes for all of us, so today, instead of finishing my latest client assignment, I am setting up a training programme for myself on how to ride my bike. I shall go out onto the public roads and ride for a few hours in the sunshine, concentrating on avoiding cars and potholes and obeying traffic regulations.

beverick

Most companies operate a leasing arrangement for the bikes so they are at 'arms length' from ownership anyway so that's not an issue.

Providing the scheme only offers bikes that are fit for puropose (ie you shouldn't be able to buy things such as a child's bike or a unicycle), it allows the bike to be maintained in line with good practice/manufacturers requirements, advises that training should be taken if necessary and makes provision for safety equipment then it's difficult to see how the employer or leasing company which owns the bike can be held responsible in any way.

Bob

spen666

halfwheeler wrote:

The cycle to work scheme involves company participation which passes liability onto the company. As previously stated if the company does not then provide training in the use of the cycle (or any machinery or vehicle) then any accidents will come under the legislation. The easy way round this is to provide training in the use of the cycle and get the employee to sign the training material stating they have completed and understood the training.This legislation is not to be taken lightly by companies as it has resulted in MD s receiving a custodial sentence as well as the employee.

Halfwheeler-



I hate to say it, but you are simply wrong.

The company are merely enabling someone to get a bike as opposed to making you use a bike.

the Bike to work scheme does not impose liability on the company in respect of a poorly maintained bike or in relation to accidents by untrained riders.

beverick

guilliano wrote:

All the company is actually doing is loaning you the money to buy the bike and reclaiming it over a period of time interest free. They are in no way liable for the usage of the bike or its upkeep and as such would have no liability if an employee were to die riding it (unless they insisted it was bought from my local Halfords, in which case the buyer takes their lives into their own hands)

That's not how the scheme works and the rules of the scheme are quite sepcific. . The company does not LOAN anything, the bike has to be HIRED from its owner by the employee.

The employer either buys the bike and then hires it to the employee or, more commonly, the employer engages a third party leasing company to buy the bikes on their behalf and then hire the equipment to the employee.

There is an onus on the employee to ensuire that the bike (and other equipment bought through the scheme) is 'fit for purpose'. This is usually enforced by T&Cs with the leasing company to ensure that only appropriate bikes can be bought (ie no kids bikes, unicycles or the like!).

There is an onus on the owner of the bike to ensure that the hire agreement with the employee includes provision for basic maintenance and safety. In many cases this is a statement in the T&Cs saying that the bike must be used in accordance with legislation and best practice (the Highway Code), that this is the responsibility of the rider and that the bike's owner has the right to demand return of the bike if the above clauses are materially ignored.

It is difficult to see any circumstances where an employer would be liable under H&S legislation.

Bob

Special K

chuckcork wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Anyone fancy a pint?

Only one. If I get drunk and stagger out into the road I might get hit by a car and then need to sue someone.....

eternal_headwind

has anyone asked the company involved what training they offer for bus and train journeys to work?

El Gordo

I find it so depressing that anyone actaully worries about this sort of thing.

I understand why companies are anxious to avoid risking the legal action which the system possibly allows but how pathetic would a person need to be to try to sue their company when they fall off a bike that the company has helped them purchase tax free?

It's a retorical question by the way - I know plenty of people who are that pathetic.

guilliano

I've never been trained on how to do my fly up safely on my work trousers..... if I catch something in the zip whilst using the company toilet can I sue?

beverick

guilliano wrote:

I've never been trained on how to do my fly up safely on my work trousers..... if I catch something in the zip whilst using the company toilet can I sue?

You joke, and I don't know if it is still the case, but this is the reason why fire service trousers have button flies.

Bob

Shezzer

If there was any serious liability on the part of the employer then I doubt the cycle to work scheme would be as widespread as it is. I suspect it's more a case of your employer trying to find an excuse not to have to spend time setting up the arrangements for the scheme.

My employer forces us to use Halfords and when I challenged their reasoning I was initially met with "that's who the government have appointed to run the scheme". Now where did I save Reddragon's picture of Jean-Luc Picard with his head in his hands?

chuckcork

beverick wrote:

guilliano wrote:

I've never been trained on how to do my fly up safely on my work trousers..... if I catch something in the zip whilst using the company toilet can I sue?

You joke, and I don't know if it is still the case, but this is the reason why fire service trousers have button flies.

Bob

I would think (seriously) that clothing worn by firefighters would preferably not be prone to heat up to several hundred degrees Celcius as metal components likes zips would be.

The Chingford Skinhead

My company argue H&S is an issue and that they would be liable for encouraging cycling "which is clearly dangerous". I've asked if giving child care vouchers means they encourage child care and are therefore liable for any accident to the child when in care and if intertest free season ticket loans encourage use of public transport, making them liable for any accidents to/from work. I was chipping away at their case when I had an accident cycling to work :oops: :evil: :evil: I've therefore confirmed their prejudices and doubt we'll be getting C2W in my lifetime