Occupation Health and Safety

This article discusses the safety breach at Kenoss Contractors and how it could have been avoided. It also highlights the hazards present in the workplace and what could have been done differently. The article provides expert advice on occupation health and safety.

Running head: OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 1
OCCUPATON HEALTH AND SAFETY
Name
Institution

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 2
Occupation Health and Safety
Description of the Workplace
Kenoss Contractors is a construction company located in Canberra. Owing to the nature of its
work and close proximity to overhead power lines, the company should be at the forefront of
implementing work safety laws. However, on reading the article, one is justified to conclude that
the Kenoss Contractors Company was in breach of the national work and safety laws, hence, it
did not provide a safe working environment for the involved personnel. Foremost, the
management neglected the basic duty of ensuring employee health is guaranteed. This was
evident in the failure of the company to indicate possible hazards in the workplace such as not
posting warning signs of power lines or attaching flags to the said lines. Second, the competence
of the staff working in the company is questionable. This is because some of the personnel
holding various managerial positions are said to be inept as they do not possess the requisite skill
sets to manage their job positions. For instance, the son of the general manager was appointed as
the safety officer, yet, he was not qualified to hold the position. His appointment points to a poor
work ethic within the company leading one to question the eligibility of the remaining staff.
Third, the management at the workplace is lacking in integrity. In this regard, it was reported to
the courts that Kenoss attempted to hinder investigations into the death of Michael Booth. In
fact, one of the officers at the company was found guilty of altering the attendance records of
Mr. Booth in order to feign the image of an incompetent worker. Where many organizations
highly value their employees, Kenoss Contractors has proved that it has little regard for its
personnel. As stated in the article, the company showed no remorse for the death of Mr. Booth,
hence, its attempt to cover up the actual cause of his death. Overall, the above mentioned traits
depict Kenoss Contractors Company as an organization with a poor corporate culture.

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 3
The Hazards
Seemingly, there are several hazards identifiable at the workplace. On conducting a survey of the
workplace environment, ACT safety commissioner concluded that the location of Kenoss
Contractors was not conducive for operations. This is because the company is located directly
above power lines, which are a potential source of accidents and can be fatal as in the case of Mr.
Booth (McCann, Hunting, Murawsk, Chowdhury, & Welch, 2003). In addition, the power lines
were excessively low slung considering the nature of machinery involved in operations at the
company. While the company has little control on management of it location, it could have
implemented safety measures in regard to the power lines. Aside from the location of the
company, the management failed to post warning signs of the hazard posed by the low hanging
lines (Fleming, 2009). According to the occupation health and safety code of practice it is the
duty of an organization to guarantee safety of personnel. One way of achieving such is
identifying hazards in the premises of the company as well as warning staff of the same. Another
hazard would be the work equipment used by workers at the company including long trucks such
as the one used by Mr. Booth on the day of his demise. Equipment in this regard is considered
hazardous if when used in the workplace it can cause harm to employees operating them.
How this Safety Breach Could Have Been Avoided
Following the above information, the safety breach could have been avoided in several ways.
Foremost, the company should have conducted an assessment of the risk associated with
performing tasks in close proximity to low hanging overhead power lines. In the assessment,
several factors would have been considered including height, sway and sag of the lines, height,
nature and shape of the machinery and load involved, and safe limits of approach distances and
work zones (Schmuck, Seifert, Gutman, & Pigini, 2012). Even though this information is

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 4
contained in the Electricity Regulations 2012, the company would have to contact the electrical
utility liable for the area to assist in determining the operating voltage of the power lines. In
addition, the utility will confirm and approve of the approach distances (Gordon, & Cartelli,
2009). The data collected from the analysis would then be handed over to the personnel working
at the site to familiarize them with the nature of the environment. Personnel would also be aware
of the potential danger and equip themselves with the requisite gear to combat arising dangers
while operating in the area. Equally, the workers could have been trained on how to handle
machinery in such close proximity to low hanging power lines (Albert, & Hallowell, 2013). To
be considered eligible to work in such an environment, employees must demonstrate
understanding of the potential hazard and response in the event of the movement of power lines,
machinery, and operator error affected by factors such as wind effects (Zhao, Lucas, & Thabet,
2009). Second, the company should have posted warning signs of the potentially hazardous
power lines or attach flags that would warn workers of the danger involved. Physical warning
barriers are a key measure in ensuring safety within a work premise.
Third, the power lines should have been insulated with material that does not transmit
energy or electricity when it comes into contact with human body or equipment such as the
truck. In relation to this, the management should have considered the height of the truck used for
operations within the site considering the power lines were low hanging. To further ensure safety
of personnel operating the truck, the truck together with other machinery should be modified
with the addition of suitable physical insulators and restraints (Koustellis, Anagnostatos,
Halevidis, Karagrigoriou, Polykrati, & Bourkas, 2011). Further the firm should have consulted
the electrical utility to perform the insulation. Alternatively, the low hanging power lines should
have been re-routed away from ongoing work activity or de-energized during working hours

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 5
(Albert, & Hallowell, 2012). As such, operations around the power lines would have to be
performed during day light hours to ease visibility. Aside from the physical alterations that
should have been implemented, the management should also have utilized administrative control
tools. These include ensuring safe work procedures are observed by workers such as maintaining
a safe distance from low hanging overhead power lines as well as wearing protective gear
(Janicak, 2008). Additionally, a qualified safety observer should have been assigned to the site to
warn individuals before they approach distances that are potentially hazardous. In the case of Mr.
Booth, an observer would have aided him as he moved the truck around the power lines. In such
instances, communication between the observer and other employees is achieved with the use of
a radio.
What Actually Happened and How SAFEWORK Resolved the Issue
According to the article, Michael Booth was electrocuted when his truck come into contact with
a low hanging power line leading to his death. Kenoss Contractors was then held liable for his
death due its failure to comply with the work and safety laws. The act necessitates that it is a
company’s duty to guarantee the safety on personnel in the workplace by providing a safe and
conducive work environment (Zhao, Z., Zhao, X., Davidson, & Zuo, 2012). As is the case in
Kenoss they failed in doing so leading to the demise of Mr. Booth. On hearing the case, the
presiding magistrate then fined the company 1.1 million US dollars for the death of Mr. Booth.
Seemingly, safe work played a significant role in resolving the issue. Foremost, to authentic the
claim that Kenoss Contractors was in breach of work safety laws, the commissioner, Mark
McCabe visited the work site for inspection. His initial observation was the close proximity of
the company to the low slung power lines. This was an immediate indicator of the potential
danger posed to the entire workforce of the firm (Shapira, & Lyachin, 2009). Second, McCabe

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 6
conducted a survey of the premises, which led him to identify breaches by the company that lead
to the death of Mr. Booth. The survey further included an assessment of machinery,
administrative control measures, work ethics in relation to safety, and workers compensation.
According to the work safety act, the maximum fine for breach on safety by a company is 1.5
million US dollars. Therefore, the findings derived by the ACT work safe commissioner on
conducting the survey lead him to together with the courts to come up with the sum of 1.1
million US dollars as compensation by Kenoss Contractors for the breach of safety resulting in
the death of Michael Booth.
What Could Have Been Done Differently and How I Would Have Addressed the Issue if I
Worked in the Workplace
The management of the company should have addressed the issue differently leading to a lesser
fine as Mr. Booth’s accident was easily avoidable. Instead of attempting to pin the blame for the
accident on Mr. Booth, the management should have accepted responsibility. This is because the
probe by safety commissioner, Mr. McCabe proved that the company was in breach to a large
extent such that it would be considered an act of neglect on its part. This would not only depict
the virtue of integrity, but also show the company’s remorse over the demise of the Mr. Booth.
As a result, the presiding magistrate might have been swayed to offer a lenient fine as the penalty
charged to Kenoss Contractors was recorded among the highest for safety breach. Second, the
company erred when it hired the son of the general manager as the safety officer in the company
since he was considered unapt. As the safety officer, he was tasked with implementing
administrative control measures as well as physical barriers such as warning signs or flags to
denote the presence of hazardous low slung power lines, however, he failed in this count
resulting in the avoidable accident. Therefore, the firm should have been keen to high a qualified

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 7
officer based on merit. This individual would not only be equipped with educational knowledge
on ways of handling overhead power lines, but also he or she would have the work experience to
back up this knowledge (Zhao, Lucas, & Thabet, 2009). Notably, the firm could be accused of
neglect or failure to respond appropriately on the day of the incident. This was further evident
with the company attempting to hinder probe into the incident. Contrary to how the management
acted, they should have taken several measures to avoid suspicions of a cover up. This would
include contacting the electrical utility to report the incident as well as the medical aid to provide
immediate care to Mr. Booth. The immediate response by the utility would be to switch off
power before dispatching a response team to the site of the incident (Shapira, & Lyachin, 2009).
Depending on the proximity of the utility to the site, the medical aid’s fast response might have
saved the life of Mr. Booth. Also they should have reported the incident to the ACT work safe
commissioner who is tasked with handling such matters. In light of the information provided
above, it is evident that the case at Kenoss Contractors was avoidable, but the company showed
breach by failing to implement requisite measures as detailed in the work safety act to curb such
an incident.

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 8
References
Albert, A., & Hallowell, M. R. (2012). Factors that Influence the Decision to De-Energize
Transmission and Distribution Lines for Electrical Contractor Safety.
Albert, A., & Hallowell, M. R. (2013). Safety risk management for electrical transmission and
distribution line construction. Safety science, 51(1), 118-126.
Fleming, M. A. (2009). Hazard recognition. By Design, ASSE, 11, 15.
Gordon, L. B., & Cartelli, L. (2009, February). A complete electrical hazard classification
system and its application. In Electrical Safety Workshop, 2009. IEEE IAS (pp. 1-12).
IEEE.
Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2011). Introduction to health and safety at work: The handbook for the
NEBOSH national general certificate. Routledge.
Janicak, C. A. (2008). Occupational fatalities due to electrocutions in the construction industry.
Journal of Safety Research, 39(6), 617-621.
Koustellis, J. D., Anagnostatos, S. D., Halevidis, C. D., Karagrigoriou, F. S., Polykrati, A. D., &
Bourkas, P. D. (2011). Contact of heavy vehicles with overhead power lines. Safety
science, 49(6), 951-955.
McCann, M., Hunting, K. L., Murawski, J., Chowdhury, R., & Welch, L. (2003). Causes of
electrical deaths and injuries among construction workers. American journal of industrial
medicine, 43(4), 398-406.
Schmuck, F., Seifert, J., Gutman, I., & Pigini, A. (2012). Assessment of the condition of
overhead line composite insulators. In Cigre Session.

OCCUPATION HEALTH AND SAFETY 9
Shapira, A., & Lyachin, B. (2009). Identification and analysis of factors affecting safety on
construction sites with tower cranes. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 135(1), 24-33.
Zhao, D., Lucas, J., & Thabet, W. (2009, December). Using virtual environments to support
electrical safety awareness in construction. In Simulation Conference (WSC),
Proceedings of the 2009 Winter (pp. 2679-2690). IEEE.
Zhao, Z. Y., Zhao, X. J., Davidson, K., & Zuo, J. (2012). A corporate social responsibility
indicator system for construction enterprises. Journal of cleaner production, 29, 277-289.