Introduction

In the landmark case of WM Morrisons Plc v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 627), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addressed critical issues pertaining to employer responsibilities under health and safety legislation, especially concerning employees with disabilities. The case revolves around the tragic death of Matthew Gunn, an employee with epilepsy, and whether WM Morrisons Supermarkets fulfilled their legal obligations to ensure his safety at the workplace.

The key issues in this case include the extent of an employer's duty to accommodate employees with disabilities, the necessity and execution of risk assessments under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and the interplay between health and safety regulations and anti-discrimination laws. The parties involved are WM Morrisons Plc as the appellant and the Crown as the respondent.

Summary of the Judgment

WM Morrisons Supermarkets was convicted in the Crown Court at Gloucester on three counts related to health and safety breaches:

• Count 1: Failing to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare at work of employees, contrary to section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
• Count 2: Failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees, contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
• Count 3: Failing to review any assessment of the risks to the health and safety of employees, also contrary to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The company was fined £3.5 million for Count 1, with no separate penalties for Counts 2 and 3. Upon appealing, WM Morrisons argued that the risks associated with Matthew Gunn's epilepsy were inherent to life and not directly related to work activities, thus contesting the applicability of the health and safety duties under the cited legislation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the original convictions, emphasizing that the employer had a duty to ensure Matthew's safety by implementing reasonable measures, such as relocating his locker to the ground floor to eliminate the need to use the stairs—a move that could have prevented his fatal fall.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The appellant cited R v Porter [2008] EWCA Crim 1271 as a key precedent, arguing that the duty to ensure safety should not extend to risks considered routine and unrelated to work activities. In Porter, a child died after falling stairs at a private school, and the court emphasized the distinction between general risks and those materially related to the employer's activities.

However, the Court of Appeal distinguished this case from Porter, noting that the circumstances at Morrisons involved an identifiable and actionable risk directly associated with the company's operational decisions—namely, the enforced use of stairs for accessing lockers, which was not a mere day-to-day activity but a requirement imposed by company policies.

Additionally, R v Chargot [2009] 1 WLR 1 was referenced, where the court outlined factors to determine the existence of a real risk, such as previous incidents or assessments. The Court of Appeal in Morrisons v R reiterated that the absence of a previous incident does not negate the presence of a real and actionable risk, especially when specific vulnerabilities of employees are known.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of "relevant risk" and the employer's duty under section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The court held that even if a risk is generally associated with routine activities, it becomes a "relevant risk" when specific circumstances—such as the known disability of an employee—elevate its potential harm.

The employer's failure to relocate Matthew Gunn's locker, despite knowing his susceptibility to seizures and the associated hazards of using the stairs, constituted a breach of their duty to ensure his safety. The court emphasized that "all reasonably practicable" steps must be taken to mitigate identified risks, and in this case, such measures were clearly feasible and sensibly implementable.

The defense's arguments regarding the overlapping provisions of the Equality Act 2010 were also addressed. The court clarified that health and safety duties under the 1974 Act are distinct from anti-discrimination provisions and must be interpreted within their respective legislative frameworks. Therefore, considerations under the Equality Act did not preclude the employer's obligations under the Health and Safety Act.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent for employers, particularly emphasizing the heightened duty of care towards employees with disabilities. It underscores that employers must proactively assess and mitigate risks specific to individual employees' health conditions, even if the general use of workplace facilities is deemed safe for the majority.

Future cases will likely reference this decision when evaluating the extent of employers' responsibilities in accommodating vulnerable employees. It reinforces the necessity for comprehensive, person-specific risk assessments and the implementation of reasonable adjustments to ensure workplace safety for all employees, regardless of their individual needs.

Additionally, the ruling clarifies the relationship between health and safety duties and anti-discrimination laws, providing clearer guidance on how these legal frameworks interact and reinforcing that compliance with one does not negate obligations under the other.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Risk

A relevant risk in the context of health and safety law refers to any potential danger that is significantly connected to the nature of the employer's activities. It's not just any risk but one that arises from how the workplace is organized or operated. In this case, the use of stairs for accessing lockers was deemed a relevant risk because it was a direct result of the company's policies and environment, especially considering Matthew Gunn's epilepsy.

Reasonably Practicable Steps

Reasonably practicable steps are measures that an employer must take to minimize risks, balanced against factors like the severity of the risk and the feasibility of implementing the measures. These steps do not have to eliminate all risks but must significantly reduce them where possible. Relocating the locker to the ground floor was considered a reasonably practicable step to prevent the foreseeable danger posed by the stairs to an employee with epilepsy.

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is a key piece of legislation that outlines the general duties of employers to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of their employees. It mandates employers to assess risks, implement appropriate measures to control them, and continually review these measures to maintain a safe working environment.

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

These regulations provide detailed requirements for assessing and managing workplace risks. They require employers to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessments, implement preventive and protective measures, and regularly review these assessments to adapt to any changes in the workplace or to the health conditions of employees.

Conclusion

The Morrisons Plc v R judgment reinforces the paramount importance of employer responsibility in safeguarding the health and safety of all employees, including those with disabilities. It delineates the boundaries of "relevant risk" and underscores that known vulnerabilities require tailored safety measures beyond general workplace safety protocols.

This case serves as a crucial reminder that employers must actively engage in identifying specific risks associated with their employees' health conditions and take all feasible steps to mitigate these risks. Failure to do so not only results in legal repercussions but also compromises the well-being of employees.

The decision broadens the interpretation of health and safety duties, setting a clear precedent that the duty to ensure safety extends to accommodating individual health needs within the workplace framework. It emphasizes the necessity for ongoing risk assessments and proactive adjustments, thereby fostering a more inclusive and safer working environment for all.