Workplace Safety Analysis and Breach Report
Added on 2020-03-16
13 Pages3439 Words59 Views
|
|
|
OHS Law 1OHS LAW: Case StudyNameCourseProfessorUniversityCity/stateDate
OHS Law 2Table of Contents1.Introduction.......................................................................................................................................32.Duty holders.......................................................................................................................................32.1.PCBU..........................................................................................................................................32.2.Officers........................................................................................................................................42.2.1.Managing Director – Harry Leaves.......................................................................................42.2.2.Occupational health and safety committee.........................................................................52.2.3.Safety Advisor – Fred Hope..................................................................................................52.2.4.Plant Engineer – Joseph Sparke............................................................................................62.2.5.Plant superintendent and assistant superintendent – R. Fiddell and J. Bradley...................72.2.6.Trade Unions........................................................................................................................72.3.Workers.......................................................................................................................................82.3.1.Slitting line operator – Craig Pollard....................................................................................82.3.2.Production foreman – Ima Necte.........................................................................................82.3.3.Mechanical Supervisor – Joe Rite.........................................................................................93.Codes of practices..............................................................................................................................94.Cause of accident and breaches......................................................................................................105.Conclusion........................................................................................................................................11References................................................................................................................................................12
OHS Law 31.IntroductionThe accident in this case occurred on the slitting line at Do More Steel Manufacturing Company, resulting to fatal injury of Rob Hansen, an employee of the company. According to Work Health and Safety (WHS) Act 2011, employers are responsible for providing their employees with healthy and safe work environments[ CITATION Que17 \l 1033 ]. The employers are required to analyze risks and execute and evaluate control measures to preclude avoid or reduce exposure to risks. For them to manage risk exposure properly, WHS Act requires employers to recognize workplace hazards; identify persons who are likely to be injured and howthey might be injured; determine appropriate control measures and/or practices; implement the controls; and reviews the effectiveness of the controls frequently. The accident that happened on the slitting line at Do More Manufacturing Company, resulting to fatal injury of Rob Hansen, an employee of the company, was as a result of breach of various provisions of the WHS Act of Queensland. Under this Act, a breach occurs when: a person is subjected to an injury risk; illnessor demise happens; measures are not put in place to prevent occurrence of risky situations; or there is failure for people to conform to the WHS regulatory requirements[ CITATION The174 \l 1033 ]. 2.Duty holdersThere are several duty holders who contributed (directly or indirectly) to the accident thatoccurred at Do More Steel Manufacturing Company. The duty holders included: PCBU (persons conducting a business or undertaking), officers and workers. 2.1.PCBUIn this case, Do More Steel Manufacturing Company was the PCBU. It was the responsibility of the company to put in place appropriate measures of ensuring that health and
OHS Law 4safety of its workers was guaranteed, as reasonably practicable. However, the company breachedthis provision by taking no serious action to rectify the problem of jamming clamp even though ithad been reported severally over the past few years. The problem was of great magnitude, which put workers at great risk of serious injury or death, yet the company handled it with a lot of recklessness. This was an offence and since the company did not have any reasonable excuse for failing to rectify the problem that existed for several years, its reckless conduct qualifies to be category 1 offence, according to WHS Act Queensland. The maximum penalty for this offence is$3 million because it is assumed that this was negligence of the PCBU as it failed to perform its health and safety duty. The company failed to ensure that work environment was properly maintained and has no health and safety risks, and plants and components were safe through proper maintenance. 2.2.OfficersThere are several officers of the Do More Steel Manufacturing Company who failed to dodue diligence so as to ensure that the company fulfilled all the required WHS laws. Based on the organizational structure of the company, officers who failed on their duty are discussed below2.2.1.Managing Director – Harry LeavesAs the managing director of the company, Leaves had the responsibility of ensuring that the company’s operations were in strict compliance with the relevant Queensland laws and regulations. As stated by Joseph Sparker (plant engineer) when giving his statement about the accident, the problem of the splitting line threader table and clamp had been reported severally inthe past few years but nothing serious had been done to rectify the problem. Allowing the plant to continue operating with such serious safety risks was total negligence and Leaves should take
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents