Safety Health and Environment: Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 - Assignment Example

Safety, Health & Environment Name Course Lecturer Date The aspects of criminal law breached In accordance HSWA 1974 The various Regulations of Occupational Health and Safety Act and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 are breached: (2)The employer’s duty highlighted under preceding subsection, the duty extends to include (a) Provision and maintenance of a workplace and activities which are reasonably practicable, safe and free from risks to health; repair activity failed the safety requirement. (b) Arrangements that ensure a reasonably practicable safety and risk absence to health through the usage, handling, transport and storage of substances and articles; handling of the oven was did not ensure safety. (c) Provide such information, training instruction and supervision that is necessary in ensuring reasonably practicable workplace health and safety of the employees; workers were unaware of extent of danger. (d) Reasonably practicable regards place of work by the employer’s control, maintenance of safe condition and without risks to employee health and provide and maintain means of access to and way out from safety and without risks; the conveyer belt was not in condition to reverse in case of danger. (e) Provide and maintain a working environment for employees reasonably practicable, safe and without health risks which adequately regards arrangements and facilities for welfare at work. The oven thermal temperature through 12 hours cooling time was undermined. HSWA S37 set offences by bodies corporate whereby an offense committed through consent, neglect or connivance of manager, director, secretary or similar officer of the corporate body, he as and the body corporate are guilty of the offence guaranteeing proceeding against. The Manager and Directors decided on repair works. According to OHS Act Regulation 3 of OHS dictate for an employer, constructor or owner to vary the required procedure by Regulation or its composition, size, design or arrangement of material, device, object or thing as by this Regulation, (a) If varied effort affords health and safety protection for workers at least equal to protection that otherwise would be given; removal of trays was not in procedure to ensure safety. 5.  (1) Before work is begun employer engaged completes approved registration form. Given to the worker and another left with employer, however, Chief Engineer failed to come up with the permit of work. 10 (1) an employer keep employer’s permanent records an accident or fire involving an employee causing injury. The record include particulars (2) Nature and circumstances of occurrence, the injury sustained; time and place where it occurred; the name of injured worker; steps taken for preventing recurrence. (3)  An employer under subsection (1) shall make record available to inspector upon request. 13.  (1) a worker shall post in conspicuous place and keep posted when work is done on a project and set out notices, they were sent deep in the oven for repair. 22.  (1) Every worker wears protective headwear all times on a project, the protective cap was not adequate. (2)  Protective headwear as a safety hat, (a) With a shell and suspension for adequate protection of head against the impact However Fresha backery obsession with production reduced the articulation and performance of this Act. Since the precautionary measures were not taken into account, the risk occurred very fast and without remedy. First, the workers right to refuse to work in dangerous condition was undermined. Knowingly, the managers and directors ordered the repair of the oven at dangerous thermal conditions. The person in charge is required to stop operation until risk is eliminated, solution improved and common decisions are reached. The options for the relatives to pursue civil action According to Tort of Negligence, negligence as an important tort covers wide range situations involving person’s negligence that cause harm to the others. For the family to succeed in the action involving negligence, they will necessarily as claimant establishes some of the following elements (Dobbs, 2001): • The defendant, the Fresha Bakery owed the victims a duty of care. The OHS forbid and prevent the conducts which inexcusably and unjustifiably threatens or inflicts substantial harm to public interests or individual. The safety system should connect with equipment and immensely entails training, use and at times repair. • The company breached the duty of care. Risk was foreseeable case and there was no effective way to reverse the belt. In such cases, risk management measures were supposed to be fast and effective to respond to such outcomes. However with little intervention measures, the two workers were trapped on the journey in the oven. The technical requirements were knowingly omitted as the manufacturer’s requirement caution that the oven machine should be allowed to cool for more than 12 hours which in this case was left only for 2 hours. • There was reasonably foreseeable damage which was caused by breach of that duty. Despite the fact that the engineer was fully aware of the risk, no measures were taken to participate in deciding the best way to approach the repair works. It is also the company responsibility to consult the third party such as safety officer over safety advice. There is complete negligence of monitoring the conditions at workplace under the manager’s and director control and management. Supervisors at any capacity are held responsible by accepting the responsibility to lead workers. The degree and the nature of offender's culpability for death to those killed employees has the element of recklessness, omission or negligent act .The intervention measures were defective and were not meant to assure safety. As seen in the case, five minutes after repair started, the workers relayed terrifying messages through the portable radios, complaining that the oven was too hot. Prove for a successful action There are some factors which the court can follow for a successful action. These factors interlink where cases are decided by taking balanced view. The claimant has to prove, on probabilities balance, that defendant’s negligence caused or materially contributed the death. First, the possibility of harm caused to claimant’s victims. As established the workers suffered death. This is directly related to company responsibility and liability to the outcome. It is confirmable that employer was direct factor to the death of workers. The probable harmful consequences of repair and the subsequent loss of life were elaborately in their awareness • The potential seriousness the harm is likely to cause. The was no need for precaution taken by the defendant for repair than to close down company production for 12 hours, given the risk size which was justified. This was foreseen following the inadequate welfare facilities provided; thin suit, gloves, hat and pads would to compensate for protection against the thermal temperatures in the oven. For this case, the workers died immediately after the injuries. The precaution which was taken is insufficient for the workers. The presence of high temperatures was foreseeable. Combined with company ease in taking precautions against that risk, the potential severity to workers who died in the oven meant that the company/defendant breached their duty of care. • The reasonableness/practicalities for taking precautions for prevention of the harm occurring. The work permit was not designed, nor was the conveyor belt effective to reverse workers and avoid safety risks in repair process. The company has questionable preventive measures and there are disjuncture between the measures taken and subsequent accident. Examination of relationship between actions, expected roles and authority did not stop the accident. The corporate team was liable since some harm in a way was foreseeable, even though the precise manner the harm occurred was not foreseen. • The value for society/usefulness in what defendant attempted to achieve. In this case, it is ridiculous as the fatalities followed through Bakery’s profit priorities. The company members; Managing Director, Production Director and Chief Engineer for Fresha Bakery participated in risky decision for the repair. It is highlighted that the company put production first than the safety of its employee and this pertains to less concerns in terms of adopting a work permit system for Engineer’s department. The respondent defense The defendant was not liable as they took reasonable precautions by maintaining removal of outer trays, ensured conveyor belt and portable radios for communicating. The oven out temperature was at 400 that the company was entitled for ignoring it. The defendant reasonably anticipated that workers would actually rely on precaution statement. However, the victims, Mayes and Erickson worked very fast from their prior conversation of the need to go home early and this may have reduced the engineer’s capability of estimation and response to risk. The workers were also alerted of feedback in case of threat and to some degree; they failed to take the necessary precaution. On probabilities balance, the duty of care was not breached as steps had been taken at reasonable time to prevent death. They acted out of reasonable standard of assumption, care, safety and intervention. Although the fire directly resulted to death, it was remote since no one knew death could happen such quickly, it was not thus reasonably foreseeable. Furthermore, the Chief Engineer did not own the duty of care to the workers as the victims felt that they were actually not at risk themselves. There did not feel exposed to either fear or danger before doing the repair. References Dobbs, D. B. (2001). The law of torts (Vol. 2). West Group. Estlund, C. (2005). Rebuilding the Law of the Workplace in an Era of Self-Regulation. Columbia Law Review, 319-404. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Lawrence, B. (2012). Workplace Safety and Health. Environmental Law Practice Guide, 4. Occupational Health and Safety Act Read More