Organizational Healthcare | Assessment 1

Running Head: ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 0
Legal Analysis of Workplace Incident

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 1
Introduction
In the present time, the safety of employees at the workplace is very important as the number
of manufacturing industries has been increases very rapidly. There are so many cases related
to accidents of employees, happened at the workplace in the present time (Reason, 2016). To
reduce the extent of such mishaps, it is recommended that companies should hire well-trained
employees. Also, when operating at places that are at high risk of accidents, other co-workers
should always stay active while performing tasks (Conway, et al., 2017). Still, in case an
accident occurs, it is the responsibility of co-workers to immediately rescue and help the
person who is in trouble. Moreover, in case of accidents, an organisation must take
responsibility for the accidents and take care of employees (Panagiotakopoulos, 2019).
In this essay, a real incident of a company and its consequences are highlighted related to the
workplace accident. ‘Do More’ is the trading name of this company and it buys steel coils. It
paints, slits and packs these coils to sale them according to the need of the customers. This
company has fabrication, mechanical and electrical service departments for its slitting line,
paint line and a shear line. It has 400 employees who are working seven days in the week
including night duty with rotating shifts. It has some professional engineers for designing and
maintaining the product. The company is very serious towards the safety of the employees,
for this, it has an occupational safety adviser too. Recently an accident occurred in the
company on slitting line. An employee in the company named Rob Hansen got critically
injured in that accident and died after two days in the hospital.
Managing director of the ‘Do More’ company is Harry leaves. As a PCBU, it is the duty of
the managing director to look after for the safety of the workers who worked in the company
while the working hours of the organisation. Everyone who is working in an organisation
including the owner of the firm has responsibilities to certify safety at the workplace (Noe, et

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 2
al., 2017). It is the main duty of PCBU in the WHS Act 2011, under section 19, to make the
workplace healthy and safe as far as reasonably possible by removing the risks. If there is no
reasonable possibility to remove the risks then they must be minimised (Wynn-Moylan,
2017). PCBU has a similar duty to look after to the health of the workers, who carried the
work in may be at high risk in the business.
A self-employed or business-person should ensure its health and safety at the workplace with
reasonable possibilities (Ashworth & Perera, 2018). A PCBU is responsible to provide and
maintain the safe working environment, without any risks of health. It includes the safe exit
from the workplace in case of any mishaps, safe systems, structure and plants. By providing
active protectors on machines and working with the regularity, PCBU can avoid the risks of
safety and health (Dabee, 2017). By using, handling, storing or transporting the toxic
chemicals safely, risks can be evaded. One should provide the facilities, suitable for the
workers like dining areas, washrooms and lockers. Proper information, training, instructions
provide to the workers, can help them and to the others around them, to work with health and
safety, without risks (Kletz, 2018). A workplace should be monitored with the health
conditions of the workers to preventing the injury or the illness in the premises if needed.
A PCBU has a duty of consultation under WHS laws. By consult, co-operate and share the
duties with other workers, they can work together to safeguard the needs of workplace safety
and duty holders can make it easier to keep everyone healthy and safe (Farr, et al., 2019). If
two or more people have the same duties related to the safety of the workplace, they must
consult with each other for the proper obligation of the work (Jurisic, et al., 2017). Each duty
holder has the responsibility to clear their duties. PCBU must have to consult the duty to the
workers and the representatives. Control on the duties or management of the duties is a
responsibility of a PCBU so that anything arising, cannot create a risk workplace safety and

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 3
health. PCBU should be responsible for the control or management of fitting or fixing the
machines in a workplace so the risk of safety can be avoided (Goddard, 2018). PCBU should
know about the activities like erects, installation or commission plant in the workplace and
must ensure all the activities of structuring.
Here, in the given scenario a duty holder a PCBU failed to comply with the duty of safety
that brought a risk to a person of death. In case of engaged in conducting without any valid
reason or intentionally put a life of a person in danger or too serious injury, the penalty will
be charged with $600000 or five years in jail or both. The penalty in case of the breach of the
duty offence of health and safety is $300000 for PCBU (Dabee, 2016). When a PCBU fails in
the duty to comply with safety then charges for the offence will be $100000. Besides it also
courts may impose substitute preparations like orders related to contrary publicity,
restoration, a project of safety and health at work, injunctions, training and undertaking of
health and safety at work.
In the given scenario, R. Heed is the manager of human resources, R. Fiddell is the plant
superintendent, C. Roach is the marketing manager and F. Hope is the safety adviser in the
company. An officer who is also known as a senior executive is the 0one who makes the
decisions that affect a part of a business or whole. Officers confirm that if a PCBU complies
or not with the duties under WHS act. Officers are required to exercise ‘due diligence’ to do
their duty (Bristow, 2018). In the ‘due diligence,’ an officer works with taking reasonable
steps to avoid the offences with working under the responsibilities of corporate governance.
Officers have to be proactive to certify if there is any failure to fulfill with the applicable duty
of safety and health of the workers, happen in an organisation. Duty of an officer comes in
section 27 with the Act of WHS (Emerson, 2017). The scope of the duty of an officer is
related directly to the significant form of the position of their work.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 4
Officers must ensure the allocations and should work effectively. If an officer trusts on the
proficiency of the manager, it must be verified in the judiciary terms. Officers support in
sustainability and help in the improvement of the performance in WHS (Jonathan-Zamir, et
al., 2015). Officers can reduce the hazards and risks with the manner of response time and
with the surety about the implements, can help in the complying of duties and obligation in
the company. Officers can provide training and instructions with the notice of verification of
the provision, to the company to follow them. They can prove the offence of other duty
holders by using the relevant resources and process.
An officer can be penalized for a fault if found guilty under WHS act (Rawling & Schofield-
Georgeson, 2018). If an officer has been found engaged in conducting without any valid
reason or intentionally put a life of a person in danger or too serious injury, they will be
charged with the penalty of $600000 or five years in jail or both. If an officer fails to comply
in its duty of health and safety, a penalty of $300000 will be fine for breach of the duty.
When found failed in complying with the duty of health and safety officer will be charged
with $100000.
Workers of the ‘Do More Steel’ company are, J. Sparke who is the plant engineer, Ima Necte
who is a foreman, C. Pollard and D. Basse are the operators in the slitting line. D. Snell is
another foreman in the electrical department. J. Rite is the supervisor and R. Hansen was the
fitter who got died in an accident occurred in the company, both were in the mechanical
department of the company. Duty of workers is coming under section 28 in the Act of WHS.
Workers should also take care of their safety and of the other co-workers too, in a workplace
(Evesson & Oxenbridge, 2017). They must comply with the instructions given by PCBU to
them. They should co-operate with the procedures and policies of the organisation, related to
workplace health and safety. A worker will be penalized with $300000- or five-years jail or

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 5
both if found guilty in case of engaged in conduct which leads a life to death or illness or
serious injury. A worker will be charged with a penalty of $150000 if fails to obey with the
notified duty of safety and health. Charges for a worker of the penalty will be $50000 in case
of failure to fulfill the duty of safety and health.
From one weekend, slitting line was closed and to stop the hydraulic pumps, the safety pin
was not put in of threader clamp. While closing, the table can be crept down sometimes by
the threader clamp, and at the hinged segment, the front wheels may run in wrong way. Dave
Basse who is the operator of the slitting line noticed in his shift about the safety pin that it
was not put in and the table was sneaked by the clamp. Dave advised Ima Necte who is the
production foreman in the company, to fix the pin, who then went for some help to fix it to
Craig Pollard, another operator of slitting line. Both of them start again the hydraulic pumps
to manage the clamp again on the table with the help of the direction panels.
Though, the exceed wheels had blocked in contradiction of the table edge and barred any
movement. After that, the clamp controls had been placed in the non-working position by
Craig. Necte then called Rob Hansen who was the maintenance fitter, to adjust the clamp
again on the tracks. Hansen used a hand-operated puller on the clamp and on pinch roll then
tried to set it back on the tracks. The limit switch overriding device ran after the relocation of
the wheels on the tracks and the clamp itself left to the pinch roll.
Unfortunately, speed of the movement of the clamp not gave Hansen a time to move from his
place as he was upright in the middle of the clamp assembly and the pinch roll operating. As
a result, he was harshly crushed in between the lugs of safety pin of the clamp and the pinch
roll operating. He got internal injuries in his upper part of the body including abdomen area
and chest. He died after two days of the accident in the hospital. Safety advisor and the other
workers of the company gave their statements regarding the unfortunate incident. From these

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 6
statements, one can know about the reason of bad incident which was not supposed to
happen. Rob Hansen a mechanical fitter, was on holidays from the last 5 weeks, and on the
very first day to the work after the holidays. Rob was on the night shift that day and it was the
middle time of the night. Rob called for help by a production foreman named Ima Necte, in
slitting line to get the clamp back on the tracks. Ima Necte was working then with Craig
Pollard who is a slitting line operator. They both did not know about how to fix the clamp
back on rails. Before calling Rob for help, Craig did off the lever.
Joe Rite a mechanical supervisor said that Rob did that job once before this time, without any
problem and Joe himself did not train or give any instruction to Rob to do that job. Joe
assumed that may be another fitter told Rob about how to do that. Joe also added that to
operating the device, one must stand behind it for the safety of its own. Dick Snell who is an
electrical foreman, stated that when he came back to the work after his two months holidays,
there were some changes made in the circuits while he was not there and he was not aware of
these changes. Plant engineer Joseph Sparke told that the engineers were not available that
time as they were working in the other construction of painting facility and there was not any
urgent safety matter raised in the slitting line before or that time.
After analysing these statements, one can easily realize the ignorance happen at the
workplace of the company. There must be two or more than two fitters to do the fixing work
at a time to get some help in need. They should know about the changes that occurred in their
absence in any place or any department. Workers must take proper training first then should
start doing any work (Fayol, 2016). Every worker in the workplace must keep the knowledge
of their operating systems properly. Workers should not call other workers for help without
giving any further information to their leader or without asking the leader.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 7
In this scenario, there are offences and breaches happen to the duty of health and safety at the
workplace. The penalty in the case of breach of the duty offence in health and safety is the
charges of $300000 or five-years jail for PCBU and an officer, as the life of a worker was at
risk and even the worker got died (Campbell, 2016). Besides it also courts may impose
substitute preparations like orders related to contrary publicity, restoration, a project of safety
and health at work, injunctions, training and undertaking of health and safety at work (Kagan,
2019). For a worker, the penalty will be $150000.
Conclusion
Accidents in the workplace are mainly arise due to ignorance and absence of proper
knowledge. To avoid the accidents in a workplace one should update with the changes made
in the machinery and should know about the equipment uses. Every day many workers
expected to work free of injury without any health risks. After taking measures to confirm the
health and safety of the employees, still accidents are happening. However, one can
minimized these accidents and serious illness at the workplace. It is very important to be
aware of the hazards while working in the workplace. Some jobs have more risks in
comparison to the others like construction in which the workers have to work with heavy
equipment.
There are some steps that must be follow in the workplace to avoid the accidents and illness
with extra precautions, no matter what kind of work or environment it is. It has been
concluded from the above essay that in case of accidents, an organisation must take
responsibility for the accidents and take care of employees. The head of an organisation is
must be responsible for the mishaps in the workplace. A PCBU has to be alert as they
responsible to provide and maintain the safe working environment, without any risks of
health. It is cleared above that officers have to be proactive to certify if there is any failure to

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 8
obey or fulfill the applicable duty of safety and health of the workers, happen in an
organisation. Workers in the workplace must follow the given instructions and should wear
the required safety equipment according to their work profile.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 9
Bibliography
Ashworth, A. & Perera, S., 2018. Contractual procedures in the construction industry.
s.l.:Routledge.
Bristow, G., 2018. The hard road ahead:'Due diligence'obligation under new'chain of
responsibility'regime.. Governance Directions, 70(1), pp. 32-33.
Campbell, T., 2016. The obligations and risks imposed on directors by workplace laws..
Governance Directions, 68(9), pp. 530-531.
Conway, S. H., Pompeii, L. A. & Casanova, V., 2017. A qualitative assessment of safe work
practices in logging in the southern United States.. American journal of industrial medicine,
60(1), pp. 58-68.
Dabee, N., 2016. The health and safety at work act 2015: the myth of increased deterrence..
Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev., Volume 47, p. 585.
Dabee, N., 2017. A new paradigm for occupational health and safety: Is it time to abandon
experience-rating once and for all?.. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 42(1),
pp. 72-73.
Emerson, R. M., 2017. Judging delinquents: Context and process in juvenile court..
s.l.:Routledge.
Evesson, J. & Oxenbridge, S., 2017. The Psychosocial Health and Safety of Australian Home
Care Workers: Risks and Solutions.. s.l.:Centre for Applied Disability Research.
Farr, D., Laird, I. & Lamm, F., 2019. Talking, listening and acting: Developing a conceptual
framework to explore'worker voice'in decisions affecting health and safety outcomes.. New
Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 44(1), p. 79.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 10
Fayol, H., 2016. General and industrial management.. s.l.:Ravenio Books.
Goddard, J., 2018. Adopting a health and safety framework for the assessment and
remediation of earthquake prone buildings.. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations,
43(3), p. 18.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S. D. & Moyal, S., 2015. Measuring procedural justice in
police-citizen encounters.. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), pp. 845-871.
Jurisic, M., Bean, M. & Harbaugh, J., 2017. The personal physician's role in helping patients
with medical conditions stay at work or return to work.. Journal of occupational and
environmental medicine, 59(6), pp. e125-e131.
Kagan, R. A., 2019. Adversarial legalism: The American way of law.. s.l.:Harvard University
Press.
Kletz, T., 2018. An engineer's view of human error.. s.l.:Routledge.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R. & Gerhart, B., 2017. Human resource management: Gaining a
competitive advantage.. New York: NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Panagiotakopoulos, A., 2019. Effective Workforce Development: A Concise Guide for HR
and Line managers.. s.l.:Routledge.
Rawling, M. & Schofield-Georgeson, E., 2018. Industrial legislation in Australia in 2017..
Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(3), pp. 378-396.
Reason, J., 2016. Managing the risks of organizational accidents.. s.l.:Routledge.
Wynn-Moylan, P., 2017. Risk and Hazard Management for Festivals and Events..
s.l.:Routledge.

ORGANISATIONAL HEALTHCARE 11