Case Study Assessment of Highworth Recreation Centre
The purpose of this essay is to assess the legal and regulatory issues which arise with regards to the provided case study example of Highworth Recreation Centre. In recent years, leisure management practice has increasingly been based around legal provisions which impact at both the national and European level. Moreover, given that a culture of blame has arisen with regards to accidents it is vitally important that leisure managers are aware of legally related issues. As a consequence of the development of blame culture, the number of litigation procedures relating to leisure facilities has risen sharply over recent decades (Peterson, 2002; p. 15). In addition, leisure managers need to be aware of legal provisions relating to employment. Indeed, the impact of European legislation in this regard has been quite protracted and therefore particular attention should be paid to such issues.
The case of Highworth Recreation Centre raises a number of issues pertaining to both health and safety concerns, and also employment related legislation. The centre itself has a long history of development over many decades. Until 1989 the centre was run by a committee of volunteers which aimed to provide increasingly effective public service provision to the wider public. However, the extension of facilities since the 1980s has meant that the centre has had to adopt more a more professional approach. As such, with the extension of facilities have come a number of issues and concerns which previously did not figure prominently. Therefore, the centre provides a succinct example of the legal and regulatory concerns which arise in the study and practical application of leisure management. It will therefore be shown that a number of legal issues are pivotal to ensuring the continued effectiveness of the centre. Moreover, such issues will be placed within the wider legal context with reference to other examples of where legal matters have come to affect leisure facilities.
The first issue of concern with regards the centre is employment. As suggested above, prior to 1989 the centre did not have a legally binding employment structure as the staffing was carried out by a committee. Committee structures such as in leisure facilities or social clubs are not accountable with regards to employment law as such process invariably take place on a voluntary basis. However, as the centre now employs a number of full time, part time and casual staff it is subject to the same employment law provisions as any other business or public organisation. As such, a whole plethora of legal concerns and provisions arise in relation to the employment practices of the centre. Moreover, given the position of the leisure manager, he or she is ultimately responsible for ensuring that such provisions are fully recognised and comprehensively adopted. Foremost among these is the Employment Act 2008. This act built on various, previous legislation and clearly outlines the duties and responsibilities of employers with regards to the employment basis of their workers. For example, although previous legislation addressed the issue of part time workers, the Employment Act 2008 clearly reasserted in definitive terms the degree to which part time staff cannot be treated any differently to those who work on a full time basis (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 63). Therefore, contracts of employment must be undertaken for both full and part time staff. Such contracts must clearly specify the requirements of the job in question along with a variety of other concerns. Moreover, if a staff member is employed on a permanent basis then a contract must be immediately provided. Failure to ensure the provision of a contract would place the employer in a very precarious legal position. An example of such danger can be seen in a contract case involving a cashier at a leisure centre in London in 1991. Although the cashier had been steeling, the fact that incorrect disciplinary procedures were followed and no contract issued, the girl successfully won a civil prosecution for wrongful dismissal (Buswell, 1993; p. 103). Furthermore, it is a legal requirement under the Employment Act 2008 that causal staff are provided with short term contracts specifying the length of their employment tenure. Numerous examples exist where companies and businesses have been found to be acting in contravention of employment law because of failures to provide clear and defined contracts of employment (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 104-106). As such, should a staff member choose to take industrial action against the Highworth Recreation Centre, then the centre could be at an immediate disadvantage if a contract of employment had not been issued. Moreover, if the leisure manager of the centre wished to carry out punitive action against an employee for poor work related activities, the failure to have proper and effective contracts in place may well result in unfair or wrongful dismissal being judged at an employment tribunal. Furthermore, as the above case shows, even when contracts are in existence, a clear and defined disciplinary procedure must be undertaken. Thus, not only does the 2008 act contain clear guidance relating to verbal and written warnings, it also decrees that staff should be fully aware of the company’s disciplinary procedure (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 69).
Furthermore, beyond the issue of contracts, a number of other concerns relating to employment law must be fully understood and enacted if the centre is to be in full compliance with legal provision and thus avoid the possibility of punitive legal action being taken against them. For example, the Health and Safety Act 1974 clearly outlines the legal responsibilities of employers with regards the health and safety concerns of their employees. Not only do employers have a legal obligation to ensure that effective health and safety measures are put in place, but also that every staff member is aware of the procedures and understands their role in the health and safety process (Scott, 1993; p. 83). Once again, failure to carry out such provisions would place the centre in a dangerous legal provision if an accident were to occur involving an employee and further legal action undertaken.
In addition, the issues of contracts and health and safety, leisure managers must effectively understand and account for a variety of other nationally based legalisation relating to employment. For example, discrimination in the work place is overtly and deliberately legislated against via a variety of statutes. With regards to sexism and gender, these include the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Gender Equality Duty Act 2007 (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 124). Discrimination on the basis of racial identity is also expressly prohibited by the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 139). In addition, although the physical nature of the work in the leisure industry may result in certain exemptions, the leisure manager at the centre must also take account of anti discrimination provisions such as that contained in the Age Discrimination Act 1975, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 and the Disability Discrimination Act 2003 (Cabrelli, 2008; p. 142).
Other important national legislation that the leisure manager at the centre must be aware of is the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Employers Liability Act 1969. However, in addition to nationally based legalisation and regulations, a number of European laws and directives are applicable in Britain under the provisions of the European Communities Act, 1972 & 1986. Such measures include the European Working Time Directive which stipulates the number of hours per week (currently 48) an employee can be expected to work (Goulding, 2001; p. 112).
Therefore, it is possible to see how the leisure management team at the Highworth Recreation Centre are subject to a whole variety of legal concerns emanating from both the national and European level in relation to employment law and regulation. In addition, not only is it important that current legislation and regulation is effectively carried out, but the leisure manager should also keep up to date with any changes in the law. Indeed, employment law is something which is continuously subject to revision and alteration at both the national and European level. Thus vigilance is paramount in this regard.
In addition to the legal requirements based on employment law, the Highworth Recreation Centre is also subject to a variety of legal issues and concerns resulting from its use by the public. Although sporting activities sometimes involve a measure of psychical risk on the part of participants, if physical harm is found to be the result of management failings then legal action can be undertaken and considerable potential cost to the centre (Watt, 2003; p. 149). Firstly, in addition to the sport based facilities, the centre also includes a bar and social area. As such, the leisure management team at the centre must ensure that the activities of this area of the centre take place in full compliance with the Licensing Act 1990 and 2003, and the Supply of Good and Services Act 1982. Moreover, if the bar area contains any gaming machines then they will be subject to the provisions of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Moreover, given that alcohol is available on the site extra vigilance must be taken in relation to issues such as health and safety.
However, although the centre assumes numerous features beyond sport and exercise, its essential purpose remains leisure activities. Therefore, this is the primary area of focus which the leisure manager must dedicate significant time and effort. The centre will be subject to the provisions of the Consumer Safety Act 1978, the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Public Health Acts 1875, 1890, 1907, 1925, 1936, 1961, the Fire Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 and the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Watt, 2003; p. 149-150). In addition, the concept of duty of care must be actively applied in the centre. Above all, the centre’s management has a duty of care to any visitors which attend the centre in ensuring that the environment is safe and secure as far as is possible. Any failure to provide a duty of care to visitors at the centre could result in legal action being undertaken. Various duty of care cases have been undertaken against sports facilities including famous examples at Hillsborough (Buswell, 1993; p. 90). In the case of our present example, such action could occur on the basis of either criminal or civil law depending on the nature of the incident it relates to.
Moreover, an issue of particular concern with regards the centre occurs with regards to children. Above all, the centre acts as a central source of leisure activity for children in the local area and in particular the local school. Naturally, the above issues pertaining to duty of care must be undertaken with regards to children. However, legislative provisions specifically designed for child protection must also be taken into account by the centre’s leisure management. Foremost among such legalisation is the Children’s Act 1989 and 2004. In particular, the 2004 act specifies the need for public centres to ensure that effective measures are in place to ensure the protection of children (Fuller, 2000; p. 8). As such, issues pertaining to child security and supervision will be paramount at the Highworth Recreation Centre. Risk assessment practices could be a useful method in ensuring that effective practice is taken with regards to the safety of children at the centre, along with comprehensive staff training in the same regard (Grainger-Jones, 1999; p. 175-177).
However, although the Highworth Recreation Centre has a number of issues and concerns relating to effective practice and legal requirements, the most pressing issue of concern at the centre remains the outdoor swimming pool and the diving board which accompanies it. Although these features of the centre are relatively unique in the surrounding geographical region, they pose a number of health and safety concerns. Above all, many other such facilities have been closed in recent years due to accidents and consequent legal action. Problematic concerns relating to effective lifeguarding at such pools have been raised along with the question of cleanliness. As suggested above, the centre has a legal obligation to ensure that a duty of care is undertaken with regards to visitors. However, in addition the centre’s leisure management must take due account for Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Suicide Act 2007 (Cabrelli, 2008). This act fundamentally altered the nature of legal provision for when management failure results in the death of a member of the public. As such, if a failure in the management structure, particularly when a corporate or public entity is viewed as being responsible for the death of a person, then the corporate or public entity itself can be prosecuted for damages. Previously, manslaughter charges such as this could only be levied if a specific person was found to be at fault, such as in the case of the Lyme Bay Canoe Tragedy in 1993 (Buswell, 1993; p. 102). However, in response to a number of high profiled public accidents the 2007 act makes the management structure itself culpable when death occurs as a result of inherent failings. This does not mean that the Highworth Recreation Centre necessarily needs to close the outdoor pool facilities. However, it does mean that greater vigilance must be paid by staff members to issues such as health and safety of the public. Once again, ensuring effective practice in this regard is heavily reliant on carrying out comprehensive risk assessments and making sure that staff members are fully trained in the required areas (Grainger-Jones, 1999; p. 179).
Ensuring that effective practice such as that outlined above is reliant on the effectiveness of the actual leisure centre manager. Above all, the management structure should ensure that all members of the team work in collaboration and partnership towards predetermined goals. Thus, team building is an essential element to ensuring that effective practice is undertaken (Watt, 2003; p. 107). Only when individuals work as a collective unit is it possible for overall systems of management to be effective and legal requirements to be met. In particular, the management at Highworth Recreation Centre must endeavour to make sure that ongoing assessment of such processes is undertaken given that staff members often work on a short term or seasonal basis. Moreover, the leisure manager must be able to effectively judge when delegation of tasks and responsibilities is preferential (Watt, 2003; p.104). Furthermore, ensuring that effective team work takes place between the various team members at the centre requires comprehensive methods of communication. Such communication must occur on a two way basis between management and staff (Watt, 2003; p. 105). Thus, once again assessment of staff performance and feedback of staff sentiments is pivotal to ensuring that effective practice is undertaken at the centre.
In conclusion, the various discussions which took place above have outlined the various legal and regulatory issues which are relevant in relation to the case study of Highworth Recreation Centre. Above all, given the diverse staffing structures involved in the centre’s processes, it is clear that management functions need to be acutely aware of current legislation at both the national and European level. Moreover, given that legislation is consistently updated (particular in relation to employment) it is essential that continued vigilance of such changes is adopted by the centre’s management. In addition, the centre would be subject to a variety of legal and regulatory issues pertaining to public health and safety. As such, concerns such as duty of care and corporate responsibility would figure prominently. Above all, ensuring that effective processes are put in place in relation to the various legal provisions outlined above is heavily reliant upon comprehensive systems of assessment and man management. The diverse staff structure of the centre requires that the management ensure effective communication and team building, whilst simultaneously allowing for staff interaction and feedback on issues of concern. It is through such processes that effective undertaking of overall strategies can be adopted, along with ensuring that staff practice takes place in accordance with legal and regulatory provisions.
Bibliography
Buswell, J (1993) Case Studies in Leisure Management Practice London: Pitman.
Cabrelli, D (2008) Employment Law: UK Edition London: Longman.
Fuller, C.W (2000) Safety in Sport: guidance of UK national governing bodies London: UK Sport.
Goulding, P (2001) European Employment Law and the UK London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Grainger-Jones, B (1999) Managing Leisure London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Peterson, J.A (2002) Risk Management: park, recreation and leisure services London: Sagamore Publishing.
Scott, M (1993) Law and Leisure Services Management London: Longman.
Watt, D.C (2003) Sports Management and Administration London: Routledge.