Health and safety Archives

NHS Trust death: Inquest into St Albans woman’s empty oxygen cylinder

Posted on 21 January 202527 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

An inquest into the death of a woman under the care of West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust began on Monday 20 January.

Incident overview

Cecilia Harper (71) died in Watford General Hospital on 9 February 2022, while being transported from her ward to the radiology department. She had been admitted to the hospital five days earlier.

Circumstances leading to her Death

The mother-of-two had reported breathlessness while in hospital, after initially being provided with oxygen via nasal cannula, her oxygen dependency increased and Cecilia was provided with an non-rebreather oxygen mask for the journey and was accompanied by a porter and student nurse. She was conscious when she left the ward, yet by the time she arrived in the ultrasound room she had lost consciousness. A number of medical staff undertook CPR but Cecilia had sadly died.

Investigation findings

Upon investigation, it was discovered that Cecilia’s oxygen cylinder was empty, it was not clear when this occurred. During the first day of the inquest, it was heard that research carried out by a doctor at the Trust indicated that 10% of patients transferred to the A&E CT department have insufficient oxygen for a return journey, while 9% of patients made the journey with oxygen cylinders switched off.

However, a post-mortem report, which identified metastatic breast carcinoma as the cause of death, made no mention of the impact of the empty oxygen cylinder or oxygen dependency.

The inquest proceedings

An inquest took place at the Coroner’s Office for the Area of Hertfordshire to determine the cause of Cecilia’s death. There have been two previous inquest review hearings to ensure all appropriate evidence has been sought, which has delayed proceedings.

The inquest, which was expected to take place over three days, concluded on Tuesday (21 January). The inquest sought to confirm the exact circumstances surrounding Cecilia’s death.

The coroner determined that Mrs Harper died from natural causes, but it is unclear whether there was any problem with oxygen supply, and it is unclear if there was a problem with oxygen supply, if it contributed to her death.

There was not a determinative finding because of the contradictory evidence and lack of documentary evidence relating to the timings of when things occurred.

Concerns raised by Tees Law

Tees Law, acting for Cecilia’s family, has highlighted possible breaches in regulations by West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

Hospital staff have reported different times for the length of Cecilia’s journey from her ward to the ultrasound room, however it is understood to have taken at least six minutes. Moreover, it is believed to be contrary to best practice for a porter and a trainee nurse to accompany a patient in the way Cecilia was transported. Instead, she should have been accompanied by appropriately trained professionals.

Statement from Tees Law

Sophie Stuart of Tees, acting for the family, said: “These tragic events pose many questions about the use of oxygen cylinders for patients within West Hertfordshire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust.

Cecilia’s family is hoping that the inquest will help shine a light on what happened to Cecilia. By highlighting any failings in her care, the family hope that the Trust will address a wider problem in order to ensure this never happens to any other patient.

It is also worth noting that NHS England issued Patient Safety Alerts in relation to oxygen cylinders in 2018 and 2023. Our concern is that despite these alerts this issue still seems to be a problem and could be affecting other patients.”

Remembering Cecilia Harper

Living in St Albans at the time of her death in her early 70s, Cecilia had many jobs throughout her life. Notably, she worked in Hong Kong, managing American expatriates in South-East Asia for the global technology firm IBM. She returned to the UK in 1983, where she lived ever since with her husband John.

Health and Safety in the workplace

Posted on 13 November 202420 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Whilst it is never a pleasant thing to think about accidents at work, they do occur. In order to avoid enforcement action corporate entities, directors and individuals need to ensure they comply with all relevant health and safety legislation or run the risk of large penalties and sanctions, convictions and reputational harm.

As a result, regulatory compliance is forming a critical part of everyday life. Let’s look at the statistics.

Latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive for 2022/2023 show:

875,000 workers suffering work-related stress, depression or anxiety
473,000 workers suffering from a work-related musculoskeletal disorder
2,257 mesothelioma deaths due to past asbestos exposures
138 workers killed in work-related accidents
561,000 workers sustained a non-fatal injury
60,645 injuries to employees reported under RIDDOR
35.2 million working days lost due to work-related illness and workplace injury
£20.7 billion estimated cost of injuries and ill health from current working conditions

What are employers required to undertake?

Health and Safety law states that employers must:

assess the risk to employees, customers and partners. They are also required to assess the risk to any other people who could be affected by their activities;
arrange for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of preventive and protective measures;
have a written health and safety policy if they employ five or more people;
ensure they have access to competent health and safety advice;
consult employees about their risks at work and current preventive and protective measures.

What to consider if a workplace accident takes place?

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 [RIDDOR] places a duty upon employers, the self-employed and people in control of work premises, also known as the responsible person, to report certain serious workplace accidents, occupational diseases and specified dangerous occurrences.

A RIDDOR report is required when the incident is work related or if it results in an injury of a type which is considered to be “reportable”.

The purpose of reporting is to warn the relevant authorities that an incident has occurred so that the Health and Safety Executive may review the circumstance, prevent a similar incident occurring again and to ensure compliance with the regulations.

Work related injuries will vary from sector to sector but common areas where work related injuries occur are falls from height, being struck by a moving vehicle and slips, trips and falls.

What injuries are considered to be reportable?

Deaths

Regulation 6 of RIDDOR states all deaths of both workers and non-workers arising from a work-related incident must be reported. It is important to note that deaths are also deemed reportable if the injured person died within one year following the work related incident.

Non fatal Injuries

Regulation 4 of RIDDOR deals with non-fatal injuries that must be reported by the Responsible Person these are:
fractures, other than fingers, thumbs, and toes
amputation
any injury likely to lead to permanent loss of sight or reduction in sight
any crush injury to the head or torso causing damage to the brain or internal organs
serious burns (including scalding) which covers more than 10% of the body and/ or causes significant damage to the eyes, respiratory system, or other vital organs
any scalping which requires hospital treatment
any loss of consciousness caused by head injury or asphyxia
any other injury arising from working in an enclosed space which leads to hypothermia or heat induced illness and/ or requires resuscitation or admittance to hospital for more than 24 hours

Diseases which have been caused or made worse as a result of work must be reported. This included diagnosis of:

carpal tunnel syndrome;
severe cramp of the hand or forearm;
occupational dermatitis;
hand-arm vibration syndrome;
occupational asthma;
tendonitis or tenosynovitis of the hand or forearm;
any occupational cancer;
any disease attributed to an occupational exposure to a biological agent

What records need to be kept?

Regulation 12 of RIDDOR requires the responsible person to keep a record of any reportable injury, which includes any injury which results in the injured person being unable to carry out their normal work for more than 3 days.

The record must be kept for 3 years from the date in which it was made, this may be kept in the form of an accident book. The accident book must include the following information:

Date and time of accident/ diagnosis of disease;
the person’s full name;
injury / diagnosed disease;
their occupation;
where not at work their status;
The location of the accident;
A brief description of the circumstances/ nature of the disease;
The date the incident was first notified to the authorities;
The method used to report the incident;

Why is it important to review the accident book?

The Accident Book is an essential document for employers and employees, who are required by law to record and report details of specified work-related injuries and incidents.

There are a few reasons why an accident book is a workplace essential. The information in the book can help to identify risks and accident trends, which can help to prevent accidents in the future. The accident book can also help in cases where the injured person decides to pursue compensation, or when the company is being investigated for potentially breaching health and safety regulations.

It enables businesses to comply with legal requirements under health and safety legislation, including Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) requirements.

When and how to report?

The responsible person must notify the relevant authority of the reportable incident by the quickest means and without delay. The Regulations require the responsible person to send a report of the incident within 10 days.

If a worker is incapacitated for more than seven consecutive days, the accident must be reported. For incapacitation over three days, the accident must be recorded but not necessarily reported.

When submitting a RIDDOR you will be able to download a copy of the submission to keep for your records, it is advisable to do so.

As with all health and safety issues in the workplace, employers, the self-employed and the Responsible Person should ensure they are fully up to date with the reporting requirements for RIDDOR. They should also make sure that the accident book is kept up to date. Accurate records are essential to protect employers, employees and, where appropriate, members of the public.

Accidents to members of the public or others who are not at work must be reported if they result in an injury and the person is taken directly from the scene of the accident to hospital for treatment to that injury. Examinations and diagnostic tests do not constitute ‘treatment’ in such circumstances. There is also no need to report incidents where people are taken to hospital purely as a precaution when no injury is apparent.

Where to report a workplace incident?

Any workplace incident can be reported online via the Health and Safety Executive website or via telephone. Please visit the Health and Safety Executive website for the relevant contact details.

Failing to report a reportable incident is a criminal offence. Not knowing the proper procedure for RIDDOR is not a defence, therefore it is critical that you understand and comply with the regulations to prevent investigation and prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive.

Stansted Airport expansion: Balancing growth with employment law compliance

Posted on 22 October 202421 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Stansted Airport’s reported £1.1 billion expansion is poised to create over 5,000 jobs, promising a major economic boost. However, behind the headlines lies a complex employment law landscape that should be considered.

Employment law challenges

While new jobs and growth are to be welcomed, large projects like this can present human and employment law challenges that must be carefully managed.

Sector-specific regulations

The aviation and construction sectors are governed by stringent regulations—health and safety standards, collective bargaining with unions (where applicable), and recruitment and onboarding compliance that are just a few areas that will need to be considered alongside the usual and considerable employment law obligations.

Opportunities and risks

Managed well, this will prove an opportunity for employers to showcase best practices in recruitment, worker safety, and union engagement to promote growth with an engaged and productive workforce. Managed badly and employers will face claims and complaints and recruitment and retention issues.

Striking the right balance

With careful planning, Stansted could set a benchmark for balancing rapid growth with strong legal compliance, fostering not just jobs but quality employment. The key challenge? Balancing rapid recruitment with safeguarding worker rights. As temporary and agency workers inevitably make up part of the workforce, employers must avoid the pitfalls of misclassification and unequal treatment. Temporary work may suit the short-term nature of construction, but employees in aviation roles will expect job security and fair conditions under the collective agreements often in place at airports.

Union engagement and industrial relations

Moreover, union involvement will likely intensify, with employees and unions demanding assurances on pay, working hours, and conditions. Industrial relations could become a sticking point if employers don’t engage early and often, as past experiences with the aviation sector have shown.

The path forward

For many, this expansion represents hope: an optimistic vision of the future where economic progress is intertwined with social responsibility. Thoughtful attention to employment law could transform this development into a model for how infrastructure projects should unfold, creating not only work but also a fair, inclusive workforce.

Best practices for employers

By emphasising training, fair pay and treatment, and, where applicable, collaboration with unions, Stansted’s growth can prove that scaling up responsibly is not only possible but profitable. This could be a blueprint for the aviation industry and beyond as more projects emerge, requiring rapid, responsible hiring.

In short, Stansted’s expansion represents more than physical growth; it’s a chance to align progress with ethical employment practices, offering a win-win for workers and the economy. Employers who navigate these waters well will benefit from a successful and compliant recruitment drive. Those who don’t may find themselves tangled in costly disputes that could derail the project.

Lessons for UK employers from Amazon’s return-to-office mandate

Posted on 16 October 202421 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Navigating the new norm

Amazon’s bold decision to compel all employees back to the office five days a week starting next year has stirred considerable debate. While the move signals a return to pre-pandemic norms, it also represents a broader philosophical and operational shift for companies worldwide. For UK businesses, this development prompts contemplation on balancing operational efficiency, legal obligations, and employee well-being.

The conundrum of contractual clarity

At the heart of Amazon’s mandate lies a fundamental question: How do employers transition away from the flexibility granted during the pandemic? Looking at the employment contracts are important in this context. Many employees were granted flexible working arrangements either informally or via alterations to their contracts during this time. Additionally, it isn’t just about what was written, but also about the implicit understandings that may have developed during a time of global crisis. Employers must tread cautiously, ensuring any shift respects both legal and moral bindings. It invites a nuanced approach—one that balances legal compliance with the expectations of a workforce that has tasted flexibility and may feel aggrieved or even discriminated against if they are asked to do something that has not been the norm for a period.

The necessity of dialogue: Listening as an operational strategy

Open communication with employees is something to be encouraged—a critical yet sometimes overlooked cornerstone of organisational change. Consulting employees about such substantial shifts isn’t just a legal formality; it’s an opportunity to forge a deeper connection.

Meaningful dialogue can unearth insights, prompt innovation, and even identify potential pitfalls early. It shifts the narrative from mere compliance to collaboration, transforming the potential friction of policy changes into a symbiotic evolution.

Health and safety redefined

Amazon’s move triggers fresh assessments of the workplace environment. The pandemic has indelibly altered the benchmarks for what constitutes a ‘safe’ workplace. Health and Safety, now more than ever, must encompass mental as well as physical well-being. This necessitates not just risk assessments but also a rededicated focus on mental health resources and a culture that fosters psychological safety. As employers, the challenge lies in evolving health and safety policies from checklists to cultural cornerstones.

The flexible working paradigm

Amazon’s announcement also brings into sharp focus the delicate dance around flexible working requests. The law permits employees from the first day in their roles the statutory right to request flexible working, yet this needs thoughtful navigation.

The discourse should lean towards the art of the possible—how can flexible working be shaped to benefit both the employee and the organisation? This isn’t just about managing refusals; it’s about genuine engagement and innovative problem-solving to harmonise operational needs with employee aspirations. The fact is that a return to a static, office-bound work model introduces significant practical challenges, from commuting logistics to work-life balance disruptions.

Employers might consider hybrid models or phased returns. Rather than this being perceived as a sign of indecision, an alternative view would be to judge this as a compromise of flexibility and a strategic virtue. By giving employees time to adjust, employers can ease potential frictions and cultivate a more resilient workforce for a sustainable future.

Regulatory reflection

Finally, any return to office mandates must align with evolving regulatory landscapes. The dynamic nature of Government guidelines necessitates ongoing vigilance and adaptability. In the event of future public health crises, businesses should be prepared to rapidly adapt its working policies to align with legal requirements and public health recommendations.

Knowledge is power. Employers need to stay abreast of changes, adapting policies proactively rather than reactively. This proactive stance isn’t just about avoiding legal pitfalls but about embodying a forward-thinking, employee-centric ethos.

Beyond the mandate

Amazon’s decision serves as a significant impetus for reflection. It challenges UK employers to look beyond mere mandates and towards a broader re-imagining of work. How can organisations blend operational exigencies with the evolved expectations and needs of their workforce? From contractual modifications and health and safety obligations to handling flexible working requests, businesses will need to navigate a range of legal and practical considerations. Successfully managing this transition requires careful planning, robust consultation, and a commitment to employee welfare.

By advocating for a thoughtful, compassionate, and strategic approach, employers can transform potential unrest into a unifying journey towards a reinvigorated workplace. The goal is not to return to the old normal but to craft a new one—a workplace that respects the lessons of the pandemic, embraces flexibility as strength, and champions a culture where both business and employees thrive in tandem.

Employment law: Labour bring in the ‘right to disconnect and surveillance’

Posted on 9 July 202422 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Labour’s proposed manifesto introduces two significant employment policies to address hybrid working challenges: the right to disconnect and protection from employee surveillance. These measures aim to ensure employees have a clear separation between work and personal life and are safeguarded from intrusive monitoring.

Right to disconnect: A solution to blur between work and life

With the widespread adoption of hybrid working, the line between professional and personal life has become increasingly blurred. Many employees feel pressured to respond to emails and attend to tasks outside their regular hours. Labour’s proposed right to disconnect policy seeks to combat this issue by restricting after-hours work communication.

International precedents

France: Introduced a right to disconnect in 2017, following a 2004 court ruling that protected an employee from dismissal for ignoring after-hours calls. Employers in France may face additional remuneration obligations if employees are required to work outside regular hours.
Ireland: Implemented a non-legally binding Code of Practice outlining best practices for employers, with non-compliance serving as evidence in relevant legal claims.

Unclear implementation plans

Labour has not yet specified whether the UK’s version of the right to disconnect would involve statutory restrictions or follow a code of practice. Regardless, businesses can proactively address the issue through clear hybrid working policies, ensuring mutual understanding between employers and employees.

Practical steps for employers

Establish clear communication expectations for hybrid and remote workers.
Respect employee preferences for traditional or flexible working hours.
Use scheduling tools to send emails during designated working hours.
Allow exceptions for critical business needs while maintaining transparency.

Protection from surveillance: Balancing security and privacy

Some employers have responded to hybrid working by increasing employee monitoring. While employers may have legitimate reasons for this, such as protecting sensitive information and ensuring productivity, surveillance raises privacy concerns.

Legal considerations for employee monitoring

Human Rights Act 1998 & Article 8 of the ECHR: Employees have a right to privacy, even in a professional setting. The ruling in Bărbelescu v Romania emphasised that courts must carefully assess employer monitoring.
Data Protection Laws: Monitoring involves the processing of personal data, making compliance with UK GDPR essential. Employers must ensure transparency, necessity, and proportionality when conducting surveillance.

Employer responsibilities

Justify monitoring: Employers should ensure any monitoring is reasonable and necessary.
Inform employees: Clear, transparent policies must explain what is monitored and why.
Data security: Access to monitoring data should be restricted and securely maintained.
DPIAs: Conduct Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) to evaluate privacy risks before implementing monitoring measures.

Labour’s approach to employee surveillance protections

Labour has committed to introducing protections against excessive employee surveillance. While specific details are lacking, the party has indicated that employers would be required to consult and negotiate surveillance policies with trade unions through collective agreements.

Best practices for employers

Engage employees and representatives in transparent discussions on monitoring policies.
Ensure data protection and privacy policies are comprehensive and up-to-date.
Regularly review monitoring practices to ensure legal compliance.

Preparing for policy changes

Labour’s proposed policies signal a growing emphasis on employee well-being and privacy in hybrid work environments. Employers can stay ahead by fostering transparent communication, implementing fair monitoring practices, and promoting work-life balance.

By proactively reviewing and adjusting their policies, businesses can ensure compliance with potential new laws while maintaining a positive and productive work culture. For tailored advice on adapting to these potential changes, consider consulting legal professionals specializing in employment law.

Advice for employers on home working

Posted on 9 December 202222 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

The expectation for flexible working is becoming more and more in demand. According to the office for national statistics, more than 8 in 10 workers who had to work from home during the coronavirus pandemic said they planned to do hybrid work.

Government proposals around changing the rules around flexible working requests include reducing the formal content required for a request, day one rights, as opposed to eligibility currently subject to 26 weeks’ service and allowing up to 2 requests a year. The debate continues around finding arrangements that work for employees and employers and with employers often having to approach how they deal with requests and principles of flexible working, carefully, to reduce the risks of claims and attract and retain good calibre candidates to jobs.

In the current economic climate, businesses may be reassessing their requirements with consideration being given to reducing office space and rental costs, which may result in more companies considering a home-based workforce for the long term.

As we continue to debate what the ‘new normal’ looks like, it is evident that this is something of a moving target with expectations, trends and business requirements seemingly changing quickly. Against this background, it is worthwhile considering what the legal implications are for employers on some of the key considerations around home working.

Contracts of employment

Many employees will be working under contracts of employment with no specific provision to work from home, and the place of work will most likely be stipulated as the employer’s premises.

Unless there is a written term in the contract of employment permitting home working, employers would need the agreement of the employee in order to insist on home working. Imposing a unilateral change without the agreement of those affected employees could constitute a breach of the employment contract. What happens in practice, though, may also be relevant, whether that is around the employer and/or an employee wanting to revisit the ‘normal’ place of work and how work is delivered post Covid-19.

It is recommended that employers check the wording of the ‘place of work’ clause in their employment contracts as the wording may include a degree of flexibility in the favour of the employer, which can allow for a change in place of work on a temporary or perhaps even permanent basis.

If the contract contains wording allowing for flexibility and changes then the employer may not be in breach of the terms by enforcing a permanent switch to home working. Employers should note that it is still important for employers to act reasonably when implementing such a clause, otherwise, they risk breaching mutual trust and confidence – This is a term implied by law in all employment contracts and breach of it is commonly used in constructive unfair dismissal claims. It is also worth keeping in mind that terms can become part of the contract by “custom and practice”. If in doubt, employers should seek legal advice on their particular documentation and issues arising.

In any event, employers are well advised to ensure they communicate with staff in advance and where appropriate, consult as well as set aside reasonable time before implementing changes to the place of work to allow employees time to prepare and adjust.

Where consultation is needed on employment contract changes

Where there is no flexibility to the place of work clause the employer will need to adopt a different approach. Employers will need to discuss the possibility of working from home with employees and consult with them in order to get their agreement to home working along with the necessary change to the terms of their contract. Again, communication is key and a lack of communication is often a key part of disputes arising.

Call our specialist solicitors on 0808 231 1320

Dealing with a refusal to agree to contract changes

If however, employees in this situation maintain a refusal and the employer can demonstrate that:

there are good business reasons for switching to a home-working model,
it has undertaken appropriate consultation and
it has followed a fair procedure;

then it may be possible for an employer to dismiss.

In appropriate circumstances, such dismissals can be considered fair with the employer relying on “Some Other Substantial Reason” as the potentially fair reason to dismiss, provided the employer can demonstrate that the dismissal was reasonable in all the circumstances.

This should be a last resort if there is a failure to agree and the alternatives have been considered. Such dismissals are subject to due process and bring with them the risk of, amongst other things, unfair dismissal claims for eligible employees. Employers who approach such matters without due care will be exposed to claims and again, seeking professional advice early is prudent.

Employers who are faced with this scenario and are looking to dismiss should look to offer those refusing employees re-engagement on the new amended terms, including the homeworking provisions. Consideration should also be given to the numbers of employees affected: if this is 20 or more then collective consultation may need to be undertaken with potentially severe penalties if the right steps are not followed.

Duties towards employees when working from home

Where employees are working from home, employers should ensure that they are treated in the same manner as all other employees. Home-based employees are entitled to the same rights and benefits as any employee working at the employer’s premises.

An employer has both statutory and common law duties towards its employees and is responsible for an employee’s health and safety, “so far as is reasonably practicable”. In practice, this means that employers should conduct a suitable risk assessment of all work activities carried out by homeworkers to identify any possible hazards. Employers will then need to consider these obligations to decide what measures need to be put in place.

Confidentiality and data protection issues when working remotely

In addition to the health and safety aspects of home working, employers will need to consider how to safeguard business confidentiality and data protection requirements with increased chances of breaches taking place when outside of the employer’s premises.

Careful consideration is needed given the potential damage and loss that could be caused through unauthorised breaches, including significant fines that can be imposed by the Information Commissioners Office for breaches of data protection legislation – which has been strengthened since 2018.

It is also key for employers to ensure that they have suitable arrangements in place to help maintain contact with other staff, including office-based and home-workers, in order to limit issues that could arise through increased isolation of working remotely.

Where reasonable adjustments may be necessary

Where an employee has a disability, then consideration should be given to whether the provision of some equipment is required in order for the employer to comply with their duties under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments.

Right to requests for flexible working

It is still the case that employers are not required to agree home working requests from staff. There is no right to work from home and instead, presently, employees with 26 week’s service have the right to request flexible working arrangements.