An Investigation into the Poor Health and Safety Record for Silverfield Contractors Ltd - Case Study Example

An investigation into the poor health and safety record for Silverfield Contractors Ltd. and management initiatives to improve this record on construction projects BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE DATE HERE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Silverfield Construction Ltd. maintains an inferior record for maintaining a business environment dedicated to improving health and safety. Maintaining adequate safety measures and ensuring employee health are critical in construction, as safety hazards are commonplace in this industry and maintaining safety and health minimises cost-related and liability-related risks to the construction organisation. It is the obligation of contractors in this industry to ensure potential hazards are minimised and that appropriate precautions are undertaken to ensure worker health and safety. Several accidents have occurred which led to major injuries to one employee, involving a dislocated shoulder requiring surgery after a crane’s brakes failed. Minor bruising to another employee occurred as a result of this same accident. The company sustained a near miss when lightweight pieces of building siding fell onto workers below a scaffolding system. The severity of the two different situations involving prohibition notices have also lead to decreased reputation in the competitive construction market for Silverfield. Evaluation of the incidents, founded on examination of corporate records and qualitative interviews and focus groups with relevant internal employees and executives, identified the following root causes for the five investigated accidents and incidents. The firm maintains an inadequate reporting system, managerial incompetency in terms of oversight and the ability to role model a culture of risk mitigation and safety, and an executive team that is highly resistant to improving induction and training practices to improve health and safety knowledge at the organisation. Based on all findings, it is recommended that Silverfield recruit an external HR consultant firm to assist in improving HR practices and building a cohesive, safety-oriented culture. It is further recommended that a total quality management system be implemented at the firm to improve documentation and compliance measures to health and safety whilst also assigning a change champion to ensure that health and safety-related changes are implemented without resistance. 1.0 Introduction This report has been constructed in agreement with Silverfield Contractors Ltd. in order to improve the safety and health policies and activities at the organisation. Inadequacy related to the application of quality safety and health processes on construction sites serves as a detriment and liability to the firm when working on construction sites. The health and safety record at Silverfield, between 2010 and 2014, has been insufficient in terms of compliance to health and safety legislation and best practice processes, which has underpinned this report’s investigation into the accidents that have occurred when the firm is operating on construction sites. Whilst the 1974 Health and Safety at Work legislation has been a well-respected framework for health and safety at organisations for nearly four decades, the frequency of incidents occurring at Silverfield mandate an investigation into why non-compliance to this Act and other legislations appear to be ongoing at the firm. This report aims to review the root causes of various accidents and incidents that have occurred at Silverfield Construction over the last four years. Whether the issues are that of blatant non-compliance to health and safety laws or problems with managerial oversight, Silverfield requires an in-depth analysis of recent safety incidents in order to improve its health and safety record. Through exploration of relevant legislation in this domain and an investigation into the managerial processes at the construction firm, this report highlights new health and safety best practice methodologies and internal activities requiring implementation to satisfy Silverfield’s obligations in ensuring the health and safety of its workers. Data supporting this report’s investigations and recommendations for improvement were underpinned by business records and through qualitative data gleaned from employee interviews and focus groups consisting of internal managers and executives. Analysis of research findings both quantitative and qualitative assist in detailing the catalysts for recurring accidents at Silverfield and the blend of managerial and process-related failures that have led to this poor health and safety record. 2.0 Review of company track record – (2010 to 2014) As identified in the company records, there have been five incidents and accidents that have occurred at the company between 2010 and 2014. These health and safety problems have led to improvement notices and prohibition notices, highlighting the seriousness of these offences. The two incidents that created issuance of prohibition notices dictated that Silverfield Construction immediately cease all activities occurring at the construction site as the site has been deemed substantially unsafe. Under Section 22 of the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act, any activity that currently involves a significant risk of worker injury gives relevant health and safety inspectors authority to serve the firm a prohibition notice which enforces an immediate halt of the specified activity, guaranteeing no further activity at the site until corrective action has been implemented (Health and Safety Executive 2011). Ceasing construction activities for this SME can lead to substantial expenditures, a significant economic liability for a firm of this size and scope. Below is a comprehensive review of problems and accidents that have occurred at Silverfield: 1. Improvement notice issuance: Improper work procedures during the conduct of work in confined spaces. A 2010 construction project involving the construction of an addition to an existing three-story office complex maintained a high voltage underground electrical system that was designed to distribute electricity to all facilities. Access to this high voltage system was only achievable through a manhole which led to seven different 22 kV cables attached to switchgear and then forward onto various substations serving each facility. Silverfield had contracted temporary electrical maintenance workers charged with responsibility to conduct arc flash analyses of the distribution system and de-energize the cables to allow for construction work to occur in the confined space. Upon entry into the manhole, the temporary employees was informed to conduct minor demolition work on a brickwork structure blocking access to switchgear #2 to provide access. Upon exiting the confined space, health and safety inspectors asked the temporary high voltage maintenance workers if they maintained credentials necessary to successfully perform structural demolition work. The temporary employee indicated no training or experience in this activity and had not been informed this would be an obligation of conducting the high voltage work in this accessibility space. The demolition work was performed by the temporary worker using a sledgehammer. Under Regulation 15 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work legislation of 1999, it obligatory for construction management to provide temporary workers with comprehensive information about special qualifications and skills that would be required to carry out safe work when working under a fixed-term temporary contract (HMSO 2014, p.1). Regulation 15 further mandates that the contractor working with temporary employees conduct relevant health surveillance practices to ensure the health and safety of temporary workers, which was not conducted by the contracting management prior to entering the confined space to perform electrical maintenance work. 2. Manual handling – Issues with occupational H&S. At a public restroom construction site in 2011, effective clean-up required site removal of all demolished ceramic substrate utilised in the previous structure. Employees of Silverfield discovered that a previous construction crew, working for a firm whose contract had been terminated for breach of contract issues, had already filled fourteen 39 kg waste disposal bags with the substrate material, but had failed to complete the waste removal process. Health and safety inspectors witnessed two workers manually carrying these 39 kg bags, with one worker slinging bags over his shoulders. Post-manual handling activity, measurements indicated that each worker had carried these bags 164 metres to the waste receptacle. Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 (MHOR) mandate that it is the obligation of the employer to reduce the risk of injury using reasonable precautions and practices, thereby avoiding musculoskeletal problems (Health and Safety Executive 2014). Employees had asked the construction manager to provide the substrate removal team with a skid steer front-loader to assist in substrate movement. These employees had been informed that all small loading equipment on the site was in active use for other site removal projects and would require submission of an acquisition form to procure such equipment, but not to expect access for three days. Upon inspectors interviewing the employees, the same manager informed the crew that all demolished substrate must be removed on that same day in order to meet contract deadlines. This led to issuance of an improvement notice. 3. Improvement notice: workers hit by falling objects. On a major office complex construction project in 2012, a worker adding finishing aluminium siding to a two-story building addition was charged with cutting aluminium to specifications using a circular saw. The work was being performed on a wooden, four metre scaffold with a standard 950mm top guardrail. During the work process, the cutting employee dropped a small bundle of siding, which landed on two finish carpentry contractors working on a wood planning project on the building’s windows. No injuries occurred as the load weight of the entire bundle of dropped materials was only .18kg. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provides a duty of the employer to guarantee health and safety of workers when reasonably practical and feasible (Health and Safety Executive 2014). Inspection of the scaffolding discovered that the scaffolding, erected by Silverfield, was not fully-planked and had an intermediate guardrail exceeded the maximum height of 470mm. These deviations from standards allowed the aluminium siding materials to slip easily onto the workers below, which led to an improvement notice. 4. Prohibition notice – Two workers hit by moving vehicles. During activities involving new construction of valve work at a water reclamation plant in 2013, heavy valve equipment was being moved by a crane with a typical hoist system. After releasing the load, the driver of the crane suddenly began shouting and bailed from the vehicle, striking one worker in the left thigh and causing only minor bruising. A co-worker performing valve maintenance was banged in his right shoulder, causing a dislocation that required immediate hospital treatment and surgery. The crane ultimately was stopped by a wide drainage ditch and was over-turned. Analysis of the incident revealed that just two days prior, vehicle maintenance workers had expressed concern about a ethylene glycol leak in the crane’s brake hydraulic systems designed to transfer pressure from the control system to the braking system. With only two days left to finish the contract, and without an adequate replacement part available, the construction manager advised the maintenance crew to plug the leak with a rubber plug. Regulation 10 of The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 mandates that an employer informed of a lifting equipment defect ensures that the equipment be put out of service until the defect is corrected (Health and Safety Executive 2014). In this accident, the company was fined by the HSE authorities, a lawsuit filed for extensive damages caused to the property by the defective crane, and the construction manager who authorised continued work despite being notified was prosecuted for negligence. Concurrently, Silverfield was forced to pay due compensation to the injured employee who was unable to work for an estimated period of twelve weeks as a result of gross negligence on behalf of his employer. A lawsuit for the bruised employee struck in the right thigh is still in litigation in pursuit of punitive damages. 5. Prohibition notice – Two incidents of collapse of temporary structures and scaffolding. In 2014, a worker sustained no injuries after the collapse of a scaffold being utilised for gutter dismantling and replacement on a residential project. Dismantling of the gutter system could not successfully be accomplished using only tools, but required the worker to utilise physical force to wrench the gutter pegs from their housing plates. In tugging at the gutter material, the worker lost his balance and sustained a fall of 2.2 metres after his violent movements caused the scaffolding to collapse. Examination of the incident discovered the scaffolding had been erected using bricks to support the scaffolding rather than being secured by locked castors. Regulation 10(1) of the Construction Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 1996 mandates that any dismantling or demolition project that potentially poses risk to a worker is carried out in a manner that suitably prevents health danger (Health and Safety Executive 2014). When delegating the dismantling project, it was determined that the construction manager should have provided the worker with a harness to secure footing and provided an assisting employee to perform the physical wrenching process. Silverfield was fined £8,000 for breach of regulation 6(3) of The Work at Height Regulations 2005. Also in 2014, a four metre planked scaffolding collapsed whilst working on a major industrial project, which led to serious injuries for an employee who sustained a fall. Investigation revealed that the scaffold instruction manual mandated the utilisation of outriggers and stabilisers to secure the integrity of the unit. However, the scaffolding had been erected by an inexperienced employee who utilised incompatible components to brace the scaffolding unit. Furthermore, when scaffolding is to exceed two metres in height, it is mandated by Regulation 12(4) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 that when potential fall height exceeds two metres when working on scaffolding, the unit must be inspected every seven days to ensure integrity and stability (Health and Safety Executive 2014). The company could not produce an auditing record mandated by the Work at Height Regulations 2005 indicating a substantial breach of duty, indicating that the scaffolding had not been properly inspected. Prohibition notice impact: As a result of the three prohibition notices served to Silverfield, the company experienced a loss of over 850 man-hours and total financial expenditures of £420,000 which were inclusive of court-related judgments, overtime paid, fines and property damages. Work suspensions occurring as a result of prohibition notice scenarios led to decreased customer relationship management advantages with clients and provided Silverfield with a diminished reputation in the UK market for competency and quality. 3.0 Root causes of the incidents Based on tangible corporate records and the qualitative research results of interviews and focus groups with relevant Silverfield employees and executives, the root causes of all incidents have been identified. Managerial oversight – Ineffective management organisation was directly responsible for several incidents and accidents. In the situation where two workers were hit by the runaway crane resulting from hydraulic fluid leaks, management dismissed concerns from maintenance workers and allowed work to continue even though potential risks had been identified with dangerous heavy equipment. Interviews with a sample of 24 different employees determined that management was directly responsible for building an organisational culture where safety and health was not a cohesive set of company values. Many employees were able to recall historical situations when working with Silverfield management (not cited by the HSE) where concerns about potential risks had been brought to management attention, but employees were informed that deadline issues prevented further exploration of these potential risks. This built a culture where employees had begun developing the attitude insinuating that it was their responsibility to essentially, as stated by two employees in the focus group, to get the job done quickly and by whatever means necessary to meet deadline and budget. Incompetent reporting systems – Executives who were interviewed revealed a fundamental lack of knowledge about the processes required for risk reporting and auditing systems, a top-down issue in the organisational hierarchy. Upon deeper investigation and auditing into corporate records, a whopping total of 49 infractions for failing to provide documentation of scaffolding inspections, heavy equipment inspections, and various risk audits were discovered; improper records management. Interviewed employees maintained little knowledge and experience with appropriate inspection checklists. Further investigation identified that the majority of employees had not been effectively training on auditing and proper records management for auditing and inspection documentation. Lord Young (2010) offers that there is inconsistency with local safety and health authorities where advices for companies and regulations are not always consistent with best practices in risk management. Hence, for a company to be competent in risk management and risk auditing/reporting, businesses must rely on their own internal knowledge management systems and not necessarily local authorities, to ensure compliance to HSE guidelines and ensure a proper auditing and inspection process as part of risk management focus. Substantial training and induction issues - During the induction process, no interviewed employees maintained any recollection of being provided a health and safety plan and investigation uncovered no such guidelines as part of the HR training module. Complete auditing of the training modules utilised by the firm found that the majority of training materials provided consisted of a series of safety-related videos which were significantly out-of-date and not largely relevant to new, contemporary guidelines and best practices. Furthermore, one executive in the focus group argued that the costs of new HR programme developments could exceed £500,000, illustrating a lack of willingness to revamp induction and training materials due to the cost burdens. This seems to be a common phenomenon, as reported by Ragnar Lofstedt (2011) who suggests that many business leaders (over 1/3) believe that regulations related to safety and health pose obstacles to the firm in experiencing business growth. There seemed to be a general sentiment in the executive group that the HR department required much less funding and recognition than other operational divisions. Furthermore, another executive argued that health and safety best practices were the responsibility of undergraduate construction courses at universities, hence knowledge of safety awareness should have already been engrained in recruited employees. However, a recent report provided by Rita Donaghy (2009) offers that there might be a gap in whether universities are effectively covering these health and safety concepts, leading to a recommendation by Donaghy for the Higher Education Funding Council of England to review such curriculum. Furthermore, auditing of HR selection practices identified that over 40 percent of employees at Silverfield did not maintain an undergraduate degree or maintained only training from relevant trade schools. 4.0 Conclusion and recommendations One of the most fundamental problems at Silverfield Construction is that the organisation has not properly developed a risk-averse culture or one that is dedicated to ensuring health and safety improvements. This starts at the top of this firm’s centralised command-and-control hierarchy whereby managers are not expressing the appropriate commitment or dedication to health and safety focus and are not role modelling these behaviours. It is recommended that the firm immediately hire a HR consulting firm who can provide guidance on how to establish a cohesive culture of risk reduction and emphasise values related to health and safety. A longitudinal study of businesses between 1977 and 1988 found that establishment of this type of culture contributes to a whopping 765 percent increase in income levels for organisations with a cohesive and dedicated organisational culture (Kotter and Heskett 1992). This consultancy firm can work directly with managers at Silverfield and provide training into transformational leadership ideology, whereby managers role model desired behaviours, consistently reinforce a vision, and open effective lines of communications (Fairholm 2009). It is absolutely critical to establish an internal culture of health and safety focus and risk mitigation in order for Silverfield to avoid future HSE citations and improve the health and safety environment at the firm. In the business’ current state where executives and managers are resistant to upgrading induction and training modules and maintain attitudes that the cost burdens exceed the advantages of a safety culture, it is likely that the organisation will continue to have an inferior safety record into the future. In the situation where Silverfield employees who had requested moving equipment to assist in removal of old building substrate and were dismissed, this iterates that management is setting the tone for employees to dismiss safety in exchange for a focus on operational efficiency and deadline as primary economic goals; rather than human health goals. It is also recommended that the business adopt a total quality management system, whereby auditing, inspections, and risk mitigation activities have a concise and measurable reporting and documentation system. This will infuse accountability for managers on construction sites to ensure compliance to relevant HSE regulations, guarantee that employees are trained on these processes, and ensure that all health and safety documentation can be produced for HSE inspectors and other relevant authorities in this matter. Management must be trained on auditing procedures to ensure employee compliance, thereby accustoming workers to engage in proper best practices to ensure a quality-focused health and safety culture. Silverfield Construction cannot afford another year in which the organisation loses substantial man-hours or face significant fines and legal judgments in an environment where contract procurement for new construction processes has become a highly competitive industry. Reputation and quality, as perceived by clients, is a source of competitive advantage for construction firms in the contemporary competitive environment. The damage caused to Silverfield’s brand image is substantial as a result of the severe accidents and incidents that occurred between 2010 and 2014 and this must be rectified by improving training and induction practices, development of a total quality management ideology at the internal level, and through contracting of a competent HR consultant firm to assist in improving the culture at Silverfield. All of the aforementioned processes require a change management system at Silverfield in order to change attitudes and practices that are substantially lacking as it pertains to maintaining compliance to HSE regulations and risk mitigation. Silverfield should assign a change champion responsible for engaging employees and creating metrics to measure qualitative and quantitative successes in new safety- and health-related objectives. Such an individual maintains competencies for ensuring no socio-psychological resistance to new change practices, serves as a liaison between management and employees, and assists in asserting new vision throughout the entire organisational model. References Donaghy, R. (2009). One death is too many. [online] Available at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/one-death-is-too-many.pdf [accessed 18 October 2014]. Fairholm, M. (2009). Leadership and organisational strategy, The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 14(1), pp.26-27. Health and Safety Executive. (2014). Scaffolding firm fined £30,000 following death of worker. [online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2005/e05029.htm [accessed 17 October 2014]. Health and Safety Executive. (2014). The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2307/regulation/10/made [accessed 17 October 2014]. Health and Safety Executive. (2014). The Work at Height Regulations 2005. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/735/regulation/12/made [accessed 17 October 2014]. Health and Safety Executive. (2013). Vehicle recovery firm fined for breaking prohibition notice. [online] Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-ldn-0411.htm [accessed 20 October 2014]. HMSO. (2014). The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. [online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/15/made [accessed 21 October 2014]. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Free Press. Lofstedt, R.E. (2011). Reclaiming health and safety for all. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/66790/lofstedt-report.pdf [accessed 17 October 2014]. Lord Young. (2010). Common sense, common safety. [online] Available at: https://now.ntu.ac.uk/d2l/le/content/246702/viewContent/1082753/View [accessed 17 October 2014]. Read More