In 1981 four supervisors at a chemical company in Great Britain were each fined 100 pounds under the country's 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act after a fifth supervisor was injured because of a faulty interlock guard. The supervisors were convicted because they had all known about but had done nothing to rectify the potential safety hazard. The incident underscores supervisors' legally mandated responsibilities for maintaining a safe system at work. When safety at work is viewed in terms of a unitary system it becomes clear that all managers, especially those having direct contact with employees, have safety responsibilities. Recent health and safety legislation in Britain seems to underline the need to give a wider meaning to the concept of a safe system at work. Besides being expected to ensure that all functional elements at their work site are safe, employers are expected to guarentee safe development of the work process in all stages and an efficient system of safety controls. The total safety system should consist of the following five stages: design and planning, construction, work operation, a monitoring system, and procedures for dealing with an emergency. The issue of the individual supervisor's legal responsibility for creating and maintaining a safe system of work is partly dependent on what the law affirms and partly upon the supervisor's contract of employment. Depending on the type of contract involved, there are two sections of the 1974 safety act that may divert some or all of the responsibility for safety from employers to their supervisors. The law also provides some protection for supervisors, but their getting justice depends on their vigilance and understanding of their rights and responsibilities. (MN)