Health and Safety in Construction Sector - Assignment Example

Health and safety in construction sector Analysis and appraisal of the ments One of the most precarious industries is the construction industry which comprises of many activities which are a threat to life. Common among these activities is modification or alteration, repair, and construction. The industry is pinpointed as one of the dangerous industries due to its organizational and structural challenges in managing the inherent risks and the intrinsically perilous nature of the tasks involved. Activities such as excavations, bridge erection, painting, residential construction, demolitions, and roadway paving are continuously causing over 65% of deaths in the construction industry. This devastating death toll is contributed by ungrounded machinery, electrocutions, falling from rooftops (contributes 15% of deaths in the industry annually), falling construction equipment and collapses as well as inhalation of asbestos or silica dust. Oversimplification of this problem would not help in its management; concrete health and safety recommendations stipulated by various laws must be adhered to. From the above elucidation, health and safety are an important deliberation for all those involve in the construction sector. It ought to be part of daily working both with activities inside and outside the office and on each construction project (Reese, 2011). The duties and responsibilities of maintaining and upholding health and safety in the construction lie with all the parties involved in the construction industry. All those involved in construction have a role to play in ensuring that safety their health and safety and those of others. The laws governing construction works clearly stipulates the diverse roles and responsibilities of the all the parties in engage in construction (Commission of the European Communities, 1993). The director in a construction work carries the general responsibility for ensuring health and safety. Employers are required by the law to ensure the employees safety and welfare at work is observed. Additionally, the staff members also have duties to co-operate in meeting statutory expectations as defined by the health and safety at work act. In a nutshell, all the members of the CDM health and safety supply chain play critical roles in reducing risks at their risk in the workplace and those of other people. Statement by Philip White that “employers are responsible for managing the health and safety risks faced by the employees, and educating them about these risks” is in line with the employees’ rights and safety responsibilities (CIOB contract, 2010; p. 44). According to the health and safety responsibilities, employers are legally mandated to ensure the workplace is safe and healthy (Kersley et al., 2013; Meliá & Becerril, 2009). The employees have rights and responsibilities that protect their wellbeing, as well as their fellows. The current health and safety laws in UK confer the employees with rights that cannot be changed or removed by the employer. The implication of these regulations is to guarantee safety in the workplace (Šukys, Čyras & Šakėnaitė, 2011). They are also intended to make the workplace suitable for the tasks conducted within the working environment and that it does not present risks to employees and others. The statement further suggests that an employer holds the largest responsibility of protecting and informing employees about health and safety that affect the employees at the place of work. Moreover, the statement can be interpreted to mean that employers have the legal responsibility of reporting particular risks that happen, may happen or will happen in the place of work. The employer is also expected to conduct a risk assessment and initiate the necessary measures targeting at guarding the health and safety of the employees and visitors. It can also be figure out that this statement means that employers have the sole responsibility for controlling and mitigating the occurrence of accidents. As per the statement, the health and safety act requires the employer to do everything possible within its ability to minimize the happening of the risk, otherwise any incident that risks employees’ health and safety rests with it. This statement by Philip White seems to be biased since it rests most of the responsibility of detecting safety and health in the workstation. In as much as the employers hold the largest responsibility in the preventing and upholding the security and healthy measures, the employees also are responsible for keeping their safety. The employees also have some very critical responsibilities in mitigating occurrences of risks in the place of work. The role of reducing risks in the workplace and upholding the highest health and safety standards should lie within the two parties. Employees have the duty to take a reasonable care of own safety (Kersley et al., 2013). While the employers are required to educate employees on the health and safety issues, employees are expected to take the necessary caution for their own seek. The HSW Act supports the participation of both employers and employees’ participation in reducing risks. The act is grounded on the principle that those involved in the creation of risks to employees or others while conducting work activities are accountable for the controlling those risks (Walters & International Labour Office, 2010. This Act places specific duties on employers, employees, designer and manufacturers, suppliers and other stakeholders (Hughes & Ferrett, 2011). The HSW Act and other legislation related to it also bestow responsibilities in certain situations with others. According to the primary provision of the Act, employers have the duties to respect the health and safety of their workers and other parties of concerns. The extract from the NAO report which states that “under health and safety legislation those who create risks are legally responsible for controlling and managing that risk” merely overlooks the significance of cooperation in risks management and is based on the idealistic supposition that those who create risks are known and in a position to control it. In a construction site, either the site manager or employee may cause risks to others unintentionally. They might, therefore, not be in a position to control that risk. Employer-employee relationship is fundamental in risk identification and management (Kersley et al., 2013). Employees should identify any inherent risks, whether they are the source of it or not, and report it to the employer for effective management strategy to be implemented. The Occupational Health and Safety Act stipulate that the employer should seek the employees’ help in identification of the real problems and improvising the right solutions. The full participation should go beyond consultation and this will inevitably help in creating a safe working environment and create a motivated workforce. It is a reciprocal responsibility of the workers to protect themselves from injuries (Hughes & Ferrett, 2011). Management of health and safety should be systematized to be at par with the current required standards stipulated by ILO. The systematization is centred on full participation rather than leaving the task of risk management to those who create it. The prevention of ill-health and occupational accidents in a well-timed and cost effective approach cannot be attained without total commitment from all parties involved. This closely ties with the Donaghy report which hypothesizes that it is the positive duty of directors to ensure safety through planning, delivering, monitoring and continual reviews of safety management system or procedures. OSHA requires that constructors and contractors pay attention to the small health and safety precincts and guidelines that have been overlooked for perpetuities. Case law examples WorkCover Authority of New South Wales v Kirk Group Holdings Pty Ltd Case facts The plaintiff WorkCover Authority sued Mr Kirk, the director of Kirk Holdings, for causing the death of an employee, Mr Palmer. Kirk Holdings owned a farm near Piston. The director did not take part in active running of the company due to lack of experience and the fact that his health conditions were deteriorating. Mr Kirk left the day to day operations of the farm to Mr Palmer whom he considered to be very competent in handling the tasks involved. In June 1998, Mr Palmer recommended that an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) be purchased and the company complied. On the date of the offence, 28th March, 2001, Mr. Palmer was delivering steel to contractors fencing the farm. There was a formed road that led to the place where the contractors were working, but Mr Palmer ignored that road and decided to drive downhill. The road had a steep slope, the ATV rolled, and Mr Palmer died (Minter, 2015). In defending the charges, Mr Kirk argued that it was unforeseeable that Mr Palmer, an experienced and proficient employee, would ignore warnings, and inessentially leave a well-formed road only to drive down a risky slope. Decision The director and his company were found guilty by the NSW IRC (NSW Industrial Relations Commission) for breaching the duties conferred on them by the OH&S Act of 1983. A fine of $121,000 was imposed on them for failing to safeguard the safety of workers. Appeal Mr Kirk appealed NSW IRC’s decision in the high court. The high court made the verdict that Mr Kirk could not be held responsible for Mr Palmer’s death. “It is absurd to have prosecuted the owner of a farm and its principal on the ground that the principal had failed properly to ensure the health, safety and welfare of his manager, who was a man of optimum skill and experience … a man whose conduct in driving straight down the side of a hill instead of on a formed and safe road was inexplicably reckless” (Minter, 2015). It held that WorkCover did not sufficiently prove how Mr Kirk would have prevented the occurrence of the accident. From this case, it is evident that employees should identify risks present, and inform the employers on the same. Failure to identify how the risks could be prevented curtails the plaintiff’s ability to stage a reasonable claim. Employee participation is mandatory. R. v. Metron Construction and Joel Swartz Case facts On 24th December, 2009, 4 workers died after a swing-stage scaffold on which they were on split. The 4 workers fell from the 13th storey. Two among the workers on the scaffold had safety lines and did not die after the accident (Norm, 2013). Joel Swartz, the president of Metron Construction, and the company were charged for causing bodily injuries and death. Theirs was perceived to be a crime both under criminal negligence and OSHA. Joel Swartz pleaded guilty of the charges while Metron Construction pleaded innocence to the criminal charges levelled against it. Verdict Judge Robert Bigelow imposed a fine of $200,000 on Joel Swartz and his corporation. The judge held that while the fine was comparatively low, it was appropriate since imposing a higher fine would lead to liquidation of Metron Construction (Norm, 2013). A key aspect that is inescapable in both cases is that life is exquisite and all players in the construction industry must abide by the stipulated safety standards. Safety systems must be implemented and employees adequately involved in making key decisions about safety. Apparently, focusing on workplace safety is a good decision that businesses should consider implementing for its benefits and for the benefits of its clients and workers. References List Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Safety and health in the construction sector. Author. Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. 2011. Introduction to health and safety at work. Routledge. Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G., & Oxenbridge, S. 2013. Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. Routledge. Master Builders Association of Victoria, Kestrel Film & Video (Australia), & Australia. (2003). A safe site: Health and safety in domestic construction. Canberra: The Commonwealth. Meliá, J. L., & Becerril, M. 2009. Health behaviour and safety in the construction sector. Minter Ellison. 2015. Workplace Safety. Retrieved from http://www.minterellison.com/N_201002_WS/ Norm, K. 2013. 5 cases OHS managers need to know. Retrieved from http://www.cos-mag.com/legal/legal-columns/5-cases-ohs-managers-need-to-know.html?print=1&tmpl=component Reese, C. D. 2011. Occupational health and safety management: a practical approach. CRC press. Šukys, R., Čyras, P., & Šakėnaitė, J. 2011. Economical loss due to non-compliance with requirements for personnel safety and health in Lithuanian construction sector. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. doi:10.3846/13923730.2011.576841 Walters, D., & International Labour Office. 2010. The role of worker representation and consultation in managing health and safety in the construction industry. Geneva: ILO. Read More