Safety representative/committee does not have to be physically based at workplace for detriment and dismissal claims (Miles v DVSA)

Employees, who are not themselves a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or a member of a safety committee, have the right under sections 44(1)(c) and 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) not to be subjected to any detriment or dismissed by the employer on the ground that they brought to the employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with their work which they reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety. However, these rights only apply where the employee is an employee at a place where there is no such representative or safety committee, or it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise those matters with them. In applying that test, it is sufficient that there is a safety representative or committee for the place at which the claimant worked, even if they are based at some other location, provided they cover the place at which the employee works, according to the EAT.

Miles v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) [2023] EAT 62

• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
• Panel: His Honour Judge James Tayler, Charles Edward Lord OBE and Emma Lenehan
• Date: 28 April 2023

Pro Employment Law

Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.