Health and Safety Legislation by Construction and Engineering Industries - Coursework Example

Introduction: An overview of the paper Body: Evaluation of the application of Health and Safety legislation by construction and engineering industries, risk assessment preparation and strategies for effective management of health and safety legislation based on the Fresha Bakery and harvest Ltd case Conclusion: A brief conclusion of the paper from a general perspective Introduction Fire safety and a healthy environment for employees in all industry is an issue that should be addressed fully by employers of respective industries. For instance, all employers should follow all the rules and regulations as stipulated clearly in the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 to the core for the safety of the employees. The 1974 Act on Health and Safety at Work is a very crucial piece of legislation that safeguards the safety of workers in their working places (Day, Rowland and Reader, 2003, p32). The Act has strict punishments to employers who tend to breach the law by offering poor conditions of working to their employees. There are specific standards in which fire safety is addressed. The standards include gear certification, the construction industry, record keeping, the general industry, as well as shipyard employment (Stranks, 2005 p42). The essay below seeks to address the safety and health issue affecting Fresha Bakery and harvest Time Ltd in which two of the employees of the industry died in the bakery due to intensive temperatures when making some repairs in the bakery. Currently, the fire, health, safety, and environmental legislation can easily be traced from the Health and Safety at Work Act of the year 1974. Such legislation should be applied effectively in both the engineering and the construction industry. Unfortunately, in the current world, majority of industry fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the legislation putting the health and safety of employees in total danger. For instance, the management of Fresha Bakery and harvest failed to apply the requirements of the Act by putting production a priority to the health and safety of the employees who perished. This is a criminal act as per the requirements of the Health and Safety Act of 1974 under section 37, which states that it is the duty of each employer to ensure that the health and safety of all employees is taken care of (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, 1975). In all the construction and engineering industries, it is the duty of all employers to ensure that any employee who takes part in any kind of construction or repair of the plant are in full protective gear (Stranks, 2005 p26). As per the requirement of the health and safety law at work, the protective gear for the workers should include helmets, gloves, knee and elbow pads, body suits, among others. In case of an accident in the plant, the worker with a full-protected gear would be safeguarded. In the case of the Fresha Bakery and harvest Time Ltd, such a requirement of the health and safety legislation was not applied, and that led to the death of the two employees who were trapped in an overheated bakery. It was indicated in the case that the employer of the two individuals who perished provided thin protective gear to the employees. The gear included thin knee and elbow pads, body suits, gloves, as well as hats (Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, 1975). In majority of construction and engineering industries currently, there is poor application of the fire, health, and safety legislation for the good of the employees. Most of these industries are production oriented leaving behind the crucial issue of health and safety of the workers who contribute greatly to the production of the industry (Day, Rowland and Reader, 2003, p56). The health and safety act at the work place of 1974 clearly indicates that employers should ensure that the health and safety of employees at the work place is fully secure (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, 1974). For instance, the Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd failed to recognize that the health and safety of the two employees was important. The management of the industry was supposed to leave the plant to cool for approximately twelve hours, and yet they allowed the plant to cool for only two hours. By the time the two workers, David Mayes and Ian Erickson, were allowed to get into the oven and do the required repairs, the core of the oven was still heated at 100 degrees Celsius. The management of the industry could not let the plant to cool for the required twelve hours because the industry makes approximately 1,120 pounds per hour, and that they did not want to lose such a big amount of money by putting the life of David Mayes and Ian Erickson in danger. The criminal act the industry did that was against the health and safety act was to allow the two employees from getting to the overheated oven for repairs. Employers are not the only ones to blame in the poor application of the fire, health and safety legislation in the construction and engineering industries, but also employees. The 1974 Act clearly indicates that employees have a duty of protecting their health and safety at the work place (Hopf, 1975 p45). For instance, some of the employees in various construction industries may be lured by huge amount of money just to take part in risky construction activities that may permanently affect their safety and health. In the case of Ian Erickson and David Mayes of the Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd, they knew the risks of getting into an overheated oven to do the repairs they were supposed to make yet they got into the oven. Therefore, though the top management of the industry was prosecuted according to the health and Safety Act at work of 1974, the deceased, Ian Erickson and his counterpart David Mayes, also had a role to play in the poor application of the fire, health and safety legislation (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, 1974). The health and safety act at work of 1974 states under section two of article two that it is the moral duty of all employers to provide as well as maintain plant and systems of work which are considered safe with no risks to health. Such legislation is poorly applied by most of the employers in the construction and engineering industries (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, 1974). For example in the case of the Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd, the top management of the industry is prosecuted because it breached this particular legislation. The oven, which the two employees were to repair, was an extremely risky system of work due to the intensive temperatures that led to the death of the employees. The employers could have allowed the oven to cool to manageable temperatures before letting Ian Erickson and David Mayes to get into the oven for the repairs. In this particular case, the risk assessment preparation would involve the hazards to be encountered by employees, which employee would be greatly affected by the hazards, observing the work place and the work equipment, the generic activities of the industry, as well as referring to the specific legislation of health and safety. The specific workplace hazard in the Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd is the excessive temperatures that led to the death of two employees who were to repair the oven of the industry. Health and safety protection should be offered mainly to the employees who deal with the oven in the industry. The equipment to be used by the employees should also be safe before the employees are given to use. The work place should also be safe without any health risk for the employees before they start working. Based on the working situation at the Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd, it is a clear indication that the industry does not consider the health and safety of its employees. The working situation at the industry is dangerous and risky for the health and safety of the workers. Therefore, there are a number of strategies that can be applied in the industry for an effective management of health and safety legislation. One of the strategies that can be applied in the industry is the innovative management strategy. Under this particular strategy, Fresha Bakery and Harvest Time Ltd management should have a high level of integration of health and safety into wider systems of management. Employees of the industry should be given the chance of getting involved in the management of health and safety legislation (Hopf, 1975 p76). Another crucial strategy that should be applied by the industry for effective management of health and safety legislation is the safe place control strategy. Under this particular strategy, the industry should be keen on controlling hazards at the source. This can be achieved by attending to the design stage, as well as the application of hazard identification, risk control principles and risk assessment. Application of the traditional management of health and safety issue could be another important strategy for an effective management of health and safety legislation. Such a strategy is efficient in the sense that health and safety is integrated into the supervisory role and the key persons are the supervisor or a health and safety specialist. Under this strategy, employees may be involved though their involvement may not be considered critical in the operation of the health and safety management system (Rothstein, 1990 p36). Another strategy that the industry can apply could be a safe person control strategy, which mainly focuses on the control of the behavior of the employee. This strategy is efficient in the management of health and safety legislation because it will shape the employees who may seem to be against a proper safety and health at the work place. Conclusion In conclusion, both the employers and employees of various working places should adhere fully to the regulations of the health and safety at work Act of 1974 for their own safety at the work place. Most of the industries fail to apply the Act in their working places making it hard for the employees to have a safe working place (Rothstein, 1990 p54). The industries and individuals who breach the legislation should be prosecuted accordingly. References Day, R., Rowland, E., & Reader, J. A. (2003). Health, safety and environment legislation a pocket guide. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974, the act outlined. (1975). London] ([1 Chepstow Place, W.2.]): [Health and Safety Executive]. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. (1974). London: H.M.S.O.. Hopf, P. S. (1975). Designer's guide to OSHA; a design manual for architects, engineers, and builders to the Occupational safety and health act. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rothstein, M. A. (1990). Occupational safety and health law (3rd ed.). St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co.. Stranks, J. W. (2005). Health and safety law (5th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall. Read More