Important Issues on the Workplace Safety - Literature review Example

Name Tutor Course Date Monitor a safe workplace Introduction The 2004 OHS Act is an effort by the government to see to it that working places are made safe for bother employees and employers. There are regulations and requirements that are provided in the Act which need to be observed. Incidents plastered in news show that there are still areas that need sensitization in regard to the 2004 OHS Act. Employers have to do everything possible to enhance the observation of the rule. This paper discusses two incidents in the news which highlights important issues on the workplace safety Act 2004. Source and summary of articles In the first article which is titled, ‘Whistleblower slam site safety’, in the Canberra Times, it is reported that construction workers are being forced to sign off workplace safety before their pay cheques are handed to them. This is according to the construction union. The recent development in the construction industry brought into focus the issue of safety after 21 year old, Ben Catanzariti, a concreter, was killed after being hit by a concrete boom at a site in Kingston, Victoria. A fellow worker had days earlier tripped and fell from scaffolding and this speared his led in a reinforcing bar. At the Belconnen site another worker fell from formwork. It is reported that Mr. Catanzariti’s death is the fourth to happen since December (Williams 2012). An audit by the ACT government into the construction industry was instigated following the events. A sub-contracting firm officer at the site reported to have received death threats for reporting the site on the safety breaches. The second article reported in Yahoo! 7 news, the South Australian Cricket Association (SACA) was fined $11,000 following an industrial accident at the Adelaide Oval which resulted in one employee being burnt on her neck and face. The victim, Ms Whibley, was in the process of cleaning a deep fryer when hot oil accidentally splashed onto her shoulder, arm, neck, and face. The victim had to spend three days in hospital where she recovered and resumed work. SACA pleaded guilty for not being able to maintain a safe system of work and going against the workplace safety laws. The association failed to provide direction of the cleaning of fryers. Identifying and clarifying the breach/change/amendment In the first article about the construction industry accident, Section 21 of the 2004 OHS Act was breached. Employers are required to maintain and provide a working environment that is safe and without any risk. Part two of the section maintains that the tools, machinery and the entire system need to be safe and well maintained. Ben Catanzariti deal could be avoided if the Kingston site maintained the 2004 OHS Act requirements on the safety of tools and machinery. The concrete boom hit Ben to death. Another worker fell off from scaffolding and pierced his led in a reinforcing bar. The way that the scaffolding was built is dangerous for the workers. Without the reinforcing bar piercing him, that worker would have had a minor injury (Creighton & Rozen, 2007). It is serious offense that workers at the site are being forced to sign off on the workplace safety before being paid. In other words, the site management wants to get away with any breach of the 2004 OHS Act having revoked any legal binding by their workers. In the second article, NACA contravened Section 21 of the 2004 OHS Act, Part 2(e), the Act states that an employer should provide as much instruction, information, supervision and training to the workers in order to work safely. In this case, NACA did not explain to the employee how the deep fryers need to be cleaned. The employee burnt for attempting to clean a deep fryer with hot oil. The oil splashed on her neck, face, arm, and shoulder. The association pleaded guilty and explained that the risk had been eliminated by advising employees to clean deep fryers when the oil had cooled. Had NACA provided enough information, such an incident would not have happened. The summary and questions to post in the discussion forum The two articles bring forth important questions that have to be asked on matters of workplace safety as far as the 2004 Act is concerned. It is traumatizing to not that there are serious breaches of the Act that are happening despite the sensitization that has been done on the Act. The first question to be asked is how public awareness has to be enhanced in order to avoid discrimination and intimidation from employers to their employees in regard to workplace safety 2004 Act? The construction workers are being deprived of their right by being forced to sign off their workplace safety prior to being paid (Creighton & Rozen, 2007). Secondly, it should be asked whether employers are doing enough to create a safe environment through provision of adequate information on safety measures. The employee at NACA was burnt for not being directed well on how to clean the deep fryers. Measures were taken after the burning incident. Discussion on the discussion forum related to each article The 2004 OHS Act is very important to the federal government of Australia and the state of Victoria in particular. The enforcement of the safety Act in workplaces has not taken course in every corner of the state. Report incidents and accidents show that employers are avoiding to follow the regulations set out in the Act with the objective of cutting down on expenses. The first article about the construction industry reveals the callous nature of employers as they push workers not to sign off the workplace safety. The worker who fell of the scaffolding had his leg damaged owing to the way it was constructed. This shows that safety measures were not observed according to the 2004 OHS Act. The incident involving NACA shows absence of provision of information according to the regulation of the Act. The employee burnt for not being direct well on how to clean the deep fryer. Conclusion 2004 OHS Act is a revised edition of what was contained in the 1985 Act. Despite the measures expostulated in the Sections and Subsections in the Act, there are still cases of incidents that occur do not the breach of the safety Act. Both the employers and employees have a role to play in enforcing the workplace safety Act. Some employees are deliberately going against the spirit of the 2004 Act by pressuring employees to sign off. The provision of adequate information is not observed in every work environment. The two articles chosen highlights important issues on the 2004 OHS Act. Work cited Williams Jacqueline, ‘Whistleblower slams site safety’, The Canberra Times, 28th 2012, retrieved from: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/whistleblower-slams-site-safety-20120727-230cx.html Loukas, ‘SACA fined for Oval Safety Breach’ Yahoo! 7 News, Founten, ABC, September 7th 2012, retrieved from: http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/14784697/saca-fined-for-oval-safety-breach/ Creighton, Breen. & Rozen, Peter. “Occupational Health and Safety Law in Victoria”, Federation Press, 2007. Read More