Page 5 - Best Practice in Travel Risk Management 2019 - Forum Findings

Best practice in travel risk management 2019
Health and safety developments
Travel risk is regulated by the Health and Safety at Work Act that puts a general duty on every employer to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees. The employer may also be responsible for people that he does not employ if they are put at risk.
Employers need to be aware of hazards, which are the danger or peril such as tripping or falling, that employees may face and the risk, which is the likelihood of that danger or peril occurring.
The employer’s statutory defence is to prove that he took reasonable steps to avoid the risk. The employer needs to be able to demonstrate
that he took action so that the employee had the appropriate level of skill or training to avoid the hazard. Safe systems of work and adequate supervision are also important.
Case law has established that the foreseeability of the hazard has to be material and the employer only has to prove on the balance of probability that he took all reasonable steps.
Parry notes that Health and Safety cases
are enforced in the criminal law system and managers can be prosecuted if they neglected their duties. For big organisations fines can be as much as £20 million.
In the travel context, when a traveller abroad is at work and not at work is a matter for debate.
Discrimination Rights
Conor Mullan, a barrister, gave a
brief overview about the effects of discrimination and the application of the Equality Act 2010 and competing interests under the European Convention of Human Rights.. He took the recent Supreme Court judgement in Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland).
Gareth Lee had requested a cake be made by Ashers bakery; he asked for a message to be added to the cake in support of
gay marriage which was declined on the grounds that the message was contrary to religious beliefs. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to ice the cake with the offending message was not discrimination against an individual, but a simple message which could be dissociated from the individual’s sexual orientation and therefore not discriminatory. The bakers were entitled to their religious beliefs.
The case together with another similar case in the USA, was to illustrate the
point that discrimination can be an elusive concept. The bakery had not refused to bake the cake, which was the contract, but to adorn it with the offending message. Had the bakers refused to bake the cake on grounds of the customers sexual orientation the result would have
been different.
In relation to TRM, risk managers may
be cautious of offering specific advice about travel to countries or territories
if the advice may appear discriminatory when set beside the usual inclusive corporate policies. However, different staff members may face hugely varied risks at a destination due to local laws, attitudes and culture treating people differently.
In these instances, the primary purpose of the advice should be to keep employees safe which should take precedence over concerns that the advice may appear discriminatory. It is always worthwhile
to seek the advice and guidance of your DNI networks, who can assist careful phrasing and promotion of advice for their members.
3