(tic IIWI

shall take such steps as may he tweessaly to scenic the safety of the

mine and ot*Itel sons emploNed there' in

T h e l i e Al t h : id S af e l y at Nvork etc., Ae t 197 4

[his act does not specificall y refer to noise, but it is aimed at the
)1. 1

1 " "tion of

ePl Vees

and Imposes responsibilities on employers, employees

and manufacture's and introduced two new methods of enforcement.

An improvement notice may be issued when there is a breach of the

statue law and requires that the breach be remedial within a specified period. An

appeal may be taken to the Industrial Tribunal, which may quash, alter or
confirm the notice. Subject to that, it must be obeyed and failure to obey is itself
a crime; the validity of the notice cannot be questioned at that point.
improvement notices have been issued for noise problems.

A prohibition notice is more serious and is issued against activities

"Involving a risk of serious personal injury". The notice simply requires the
activities to cease. These notices may, theoretically be used against noise risks.

11 is clear that the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc.,
Act 1974 apply to noise. What is not clear from the act is the standard which is

applicable. What is safe? What action is considered reasonably practical? Duties

cast in such general terms are not easy to apply. In the case of noise, guidance is
at hand in the form of the "Code of practice for reducing the exposure for

employed persons to noise". This code establishes what is considered safe and
what is not, but it must be pointed out that there are a number of bodies that
suggest that a level of 90 dB(A) is too high. Although the code is not legislation,
any breach of its provisions is presumptive evidence of failure to take
1
2

"Reasonable steps".