Principles of Health & Safety: Causes of Workplace Accidents and Legal Obligations

Principles of Health & Safety
Student name
Professor’s name
Affiliation
Date

The immediate and underlying causes of the accident
 The major cause of this unfortunate incident is the negligence of the company
management. The company should have conducted a wholesome safety assessment that
must have included all probable risks. Had this been the case, the manager would not
have allowed Brian to deal with the pump who had no expertise in it. Had the health and
safety policy of the company considered all risks, this incident would not have happened.
 Furthermore, the manager of the office in which Richard died, had not received health
and safety training, which makes her unfit to handle logistics to deal with health and
safety. This could be an indication that other managers are also not trained, which is a
serious concern for the company. Concerning the safety of the employees of the
company, the office manager is directly responsible for the incident. The office manager
has shown her negligence in failing to manage properly the employees in the office. The
company management should take all the blame for this unfortunate incident.
 The health and safety policy of the company is very weak, in that it does not capture all
the legal requirements of the law, according to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
The act provides that employees be not required to be assigned tasks for which they do
not have appropriate skills and competencies to handle.1 In this case, Brian was assigned
the duty of operating a pump despite the fact that he did not have the required skills. His
failure to read the instructions on the pump before using it is the result of him being not
trained in operating it. Furthermore, the general principles of prevention, which are
provided in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, were not followed in developing the
company’s health and safety policies. Therefore, the root cause of the problem is the
negligence of the company management, in that it failed to initiate a complete and
wholesome health and safety policy. The management failed to follow all the provisions
of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The act provides that no employee shall be
given a task beyond her or his competencies or physical ability.2
1De Sadeleer, N. (2012). The Precautionary Principle in European Community Health and
Environment Law: Sword or Shield for the Nordic Countries? In Implementing the Precautionary
Principle (pp. 46-94). Routledge.
2Dollard, M. & Bakker, A. (2010). Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work
environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 579-599.

 Another cause of this unfortunate incident is the failure of the company to train its
employees on health and safety information inscribed in the Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974. The case would have been different had the employees been thus trained. Brian
would not have started the pump without checking on the instructions to see what was
required of him. The same case is with the manager of the office where Richard died. In
her case, she had no health and safety training and hence, she should not have taken it
upon herself to manage the clearing of the water without health and safety considerations.
She should have consulted from her senior, even though he was on holiday. From the
witnesses account, the regional manager had undertaken some training in health and
safety, and he could have advised appropriately if he was consulted.
However, according to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999,
Brian could easily escape any charges because the act provides that an employer should
make provisions and arrangements that are appropriate to the employee’s skills and
competencies.3The employer is required to ensure that there is effective planning in
organization, monitoring and controlling of all the review and preventive actions to
ensure the health and safety of his employees.4
However, notwithstanding all the negligence that marred the case, the individual with the
instruction on how the pump should be operated, was held. Owing to this, the manager
and the employee, who were assigned to operate the pump, could easily be charged with
gross negligence resulting in manslaughter. Brian could be charged with manslaughter
because both murder and manslaughter have the same foundations; recklessness or
negligence that leads to death in both cases.5
Recommendations to Prevent a Recurrence
3Makin, A. M., and C. Winder. "A new conceptual framework to improve the application of
occupational health and safety management systems." Safety Science 46.6 (2008): 935-948.
4Truth, A. (2013). No Health without a workforce. World Health Organisation (WHO) Report.
5Dingsdag et al (2008). Understanding and defining OH&S competency for construction site
positions: Worker perceptions. Safety Science, 46(4), 619-633.