A Report on Safety and Risk Management in the Construction Industry

This report examines safety and risk management within the construction industry, using the case of Canberra Industries, where a truck driver was electrocuted due to low-hanging power lines. The report details the company's workplace environment, highlighting unqualified staff and hazardous conditions, including the lack of warning signs and inadequate training. It analyzes the hazards presented by the company, specifically focusing on the electrocution risk, and how safety breaches could have been avoided through proper risk assessment, control measures, and adherence to SafeWork regulations. The report also discusses the legal consequences faced by Canberra Industries, the role of SafeWork in resolving the issue, and potential alternative actions, including a shared responsibility with the power company. Finally, the report concludes with recommendations for improving safety practices, emphasizing the importance of qualified staff, hazard identification, and comprehensive safety training to prevent future incidents.

Running head: Safety and Risk Management 1
Safety and Risk Management
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date

Safety and Risk Management 2
Introduction
The construction industry is one of the fastest growing industries in the whole world. It is
very crucial to the economic development of most countries. Gibb et al. point out that most of
the companies that deal with construction are located in the urban areas where most of the
construction takes place (Gibb et. al., 2010). Such construction includes real estates, bridges, and
roads. Apart from construction, the companies are involved in making alterations to existing
buildings, roads or even replacing them. The industry involves heavy engineering and poses
agreat risk to workers involved in the construction work.Canberra Industriesis a construction
company that has a work site at Turner (Bryne, 2015). It had hired a driver to transport and
unload gravel at the site when the driver was electrocuted by the low-slung power line and died.
The company was prosecuted for failing to provide a safe environment. This essay, therefore,
describes the company’s workplace, the hazards presented by the company to its workers and
how the company breached the safety rules.
Description of the Workplace
Canberra Industries does not provide a safe working environment due to unqualified
staff. There arevarious working strategies have been developed in various countries which are
referred to as directives.Gibb et al. assert that thesedirectives explain the responsibilities of the
employers, for example, risk assessment, theestablishment of prevention and protection services
among others (Gibb et. al., 2010). On the other hand, these directives stipulate the duties of the
workers, for instance, execution of the instructions and proper use of machinery and equipment.It
is the duty of the safety officer to ensure that these directives among other safety measures are
strictly adhered to (Fang & Wu, 2013). However, a safety officer must be qualified and should
displayprofessionalism in his job. Kenoss Industry displayed poor business culture since they

Safety and Risk Management 3
hired the general manager’s son who was not qualified for the job (Kazlauskaitė, 2016).
Therefore, the death of Michael Booth can be blamed on the company’s mistake, hiring
unqualified personnel. A qualified electrician could have pointed out the risk of electrocution on
the jobsite.
Kenoss’ work site is not a conducive environment. The power lines were hanging low to
the point that they came into contact with the tip of the lorry. A research conducted by Zhao et
al.shows that hundreds of construction workers are injured or murdered by overhead power lines
(Zhao et. al., 2009). The researchers argue that the construction businesses account for 39
percent of every job-related electrocution fatalities. In addition to that, theconstructionindustry is
ranked second highest cause of fatalities among all the occupations. Zhao et al. point out that, the
‘Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’ demands that every individual
working with or around electricity should be trained. Additionally, OSHA has requirements
which clarify that all construction workers are supposed to be trained. The purpose of the
training is to ensure that the employees are aware of the dangers and carry out their duties
properly on the worksite (Ousa et. al, 2014). Therefore, KenossCompany should have trained its
employees and also should have put warning tags to the visitors who visited the company
Hazards in the Company
A hazard is an agent which can cause damage or harm to humans. In this case, the hazard
was electricity.Prattargues that when an individual is working in an area with electric circuits or
power tools, one can be exposed to hazards such as electrical shock (Pratt, 2014).). He points out
that construction workers are usually exposed to more hazards due to the fact that their worksites
are cluttered with electric wires. On the work site of the Canberra Industries,Kenoss contractors
had hanging power lines which killed the truck driver by electrocution. To make the matter

Safety and Risk Management 4
worse, there were no warning flags on the low-slung wires, no warning signs, no ongoing
training and there was inadequate visitor lists on the site. Hence, the hanging wires were
hazarded to the employees and the visitors.
How the Safety Breach could have been Avoided
One of the ways the safety breach could have been avoided was by controlling the work.
If the construction work could not have been avoided under the live hanging powerlines warning
notice and a barrier was supposed to have been provided (Reason, 2016). In addition to that, the
company should have sought for safe clearance under the overhead lines which was supposed to
be verified by the owner of the line. Also, any equipment which had a height exceeding the safe
clearance was not to be taken below the sagging live power lines (Kiessling et al, 2014).
Furthermore, the company should have ensured the work was under supervision to guarantee that
the safety precaution was adhered to.
The company could have avoided the safety breach by eliminating the danger via
diversion or isolation. The company could have requested for diversion of the overhead
powerlines clear of the work area or ensure that the powerlines are dead as the work progressed
(Bhattacharya, 2014). If the powerlines were diverted the truck would not have come into contact
with the wires. On the other hand, if the wires were dead the driver would be alive.
What Actually Happened
Michael Booth who was a truck driver died after the tip of his truck hit hanging power
lines in a compound that was used by Canberra contracting firm and was electrocuted. Mr. Booth
was making a second delivery to the job site in Turner when the misfortune happened (Bryne,
2015). The company’s attempt to prevent aninvestigation into the death from being conducted
did not bear fruits. Byrne claims that, ACT industrial court was provided with evidence that one

Safety and Risk Management 5
of the company’s officer had attempted to alter Mr. Booth’s attendance record. Kenossand the
project manager, Munir Al Hasani,were arraigned in court for failure to offer a safe workplace
and causing a risk of serious injury and death. However, the court cleared Hasani’s name after
the magistrate discovered that he was not a company’s officer according to the law. Byrne argues
that the industrial court also heard that DimitriBrandis who was in charge of management
systems including safety did not have formal qualifications. Lack of warning tag on the work site
and little documentation for particular risk assessment, for instance, powerlines made the
magistrate conclude that the company was guilty. It was fined $1.1 million for safety breaches.
How SafeWork Resolved the Issue
Safework clearly states that an employer or an individual running an organization or a
business is responsible for the safety and the health of the workers, volunteers, and contractors
while at work. In addition to that, under chapter 4, part 4.7, division 7, the new safe work
legislation is crystal clear on electric hazards presented by overhead and underground power
lines (NSW, 2017). It states that a firm who is carrying out abusinesstransaction at the workplace
has to ensure that no person, plant or anything comes into close contact with an overhead electric
line. Also, if it is not practical to ensure safe distance to a plant, an individual or a thing, then risk
assessment should be conducted. After that, control measures which are consistent the risk
assessment should be implemented (Lam, 2014). In this case, the safe work regulationsshow
clearly that the risk was obvious and could have been avoided. Therefore, the firm was found
guilty under safe work laws and fined to resolve the issue according to the law.
What Could have been done Differently
The court should also have held the power company responsible for the risk of death and
serious injury and also not correcting low-slung power lines conveying 11,000 volts.According

Safety and Risk Management 6
to Albert& Hallowell, electrical companies are supposed to consider strategies for preventing
accidents and deaths by ensuring that overhead power lines are within a safe height (2013). In
this perspective, the court should have considered the fact that the owner of the power lines
posed a greater hazard to every individual that was working on that site (Amicucci&Settino,
2017).It was sad to see the power company not being charged with theinstallation of power lines
to such a low height yet the latter is aware the power lines can become loose as a result of
expansion.
How I Would Address this Issue
If I was working in such a workplace, I would have appealed the case and ask the
industrial court not to impose restrictions and fines on the company. In spite of the firm safety
breaches, the power company would have shared the blame. The power company should have
erected warning posters on such a site to warn individuals and drivers to mind the height of their
equipment or vehicles (Shelton, 2014). Also, I would have appealed the case due to the fact that
the power company did not consider some of the safety measures and failed to evaluate such a
great risk during installation. However, I would have accepted the mistake and ensure that such a
hazard is eliminated in future.
To prevent such an incident in the future I would ensure recruitment of a high-quality
staff that is skilled in risk assessment and safety management practices. It was unfortunate that
the safety officer was hired for the job simply because it was his father’s company.The staff
would ensure that all the risks and potential hazards within the work site are identified,
evaluated, eliminated or minimized (Suter, 2016). Additionally, I would ensure that all workers
have gone through induction on safety issues. Lastly, I would ensure that there is direct
supervision of the implementation of the safe work laws within the company.

Safety and Risk Management 7
Conclusion
To sum it all, Kenoss firm does not provide a safe environment for the workers. The fact
that the company failed to train the workers on safety issues proves this point beyond reasonable
doubt. Also, the firm did not put awarning sign on the job site to alert the visitors or its workers
the danger posed by the low-hanging wires which carried 11,000 volts of electric current. The
death of driver reveals the company’s weaknesses. Electricity, in this case, was the hazard and
could have been avoided by erecting a warning sign. The safe work resolved this issue legally
whereby the company faced a heavy fine of 1.1 million dollars. However, in my point of view,
the judgment was too harsh for the company considering that the owner of the power lines also
posed a great hazard due to theinstallation of power lines to unsafe heights. If I was working in
the company, I would have appealed the case and have the power company share the blame also.
Nevertheless, I would ensure I have hired a quality staff in a professional way to deal with risk
management and safety issues

Safety and Risk Management 8
References
Albert, A., & Hallowell, M. R. (2013).Safety risk management for electrical transmission and
distribution line construction. Safety science, 51(1), 118-126.
Amicucci, G. L., &Settino, M. T. (2017, June).Accidents with injuries or death during non-
electrical work activities near overhead power lines. In Environment and Electrical
Engineering and 2017 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe
(EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), International Conference on (pp. 1-6).
Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Power system protection problems caused by grid connected PV
systems.
Bryne, E. (2015). ACT company Kenoss found guilty of breaching work safety laws after truck
driver’s electrocution. ABC.Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/kenoss-company-found-guilty-over-truck-
drivers-electrocution/6568268
Fang, D., & Wu, H. (2013).Development of a Safety Culture Interaction (SCI) model for
construction projects. Safety science, 57, 138-149.
Kazlauskaitė, R., Pupienienė, I., &Bučiūnienė, I. (2016). 8. employability of older workers in a
changing labor market: the case of a post-soviet country. Handbook of Contemporary
Research on Emerging Markets, 174.
Kiessling, F., Nefzger, P., Nolasco, J. F., &Kaintzyk, U. (2014). Overhead power lines:
planning, design, construction. Springer.
Lam, J. (2014). Enterprise risk management: from incentives to controls. John Wiley & Sons.
NSW.(2017). NSW Legislation.NSW government. Retrieved from
https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2017/404/chap3/part3.2/div5/sec44

Safety and Risk Management 9
Pratt, A. (2014). Prevention of electrical accidents with safe personal protective bonding and
earthing. Dissertation: Bachelor of Engineering (Power). University of Southern
Queensland.
Reason, J. (2016). Managing the risks of organizational accidents.Routledge.
Shelton, C. (2014). Electrical installations. Nelson Thornes.
Sousa, V., Almeida, N. M., & Dias, L. A. (2014). Risk-based management of occupational safety
and health in the construction industry–Part 1: Background knowledge. Safety
science, 66, 75-86.
Suter II, G. W. (2016). Ecological risk assessment.CRC press.
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.