Health and Safety in the Construction Industry - Term Paper Example

«Health and Safety in the Construction Industry» There are various occupational hazards that are encountered by workers in the construction industry. Operation of heavy equipment, handling of power tools, precarious positions in the construction site are just some of the situations that place construction workers at most risk for injury in the work place. It is with these dangers in mind that the Health and Safety Act has been passed in order to minimize risks, to set standards of behaviour, to put forth safety regulations, and to set-up the process for prosecuting violators of the Health and Safety Act. In the report (Improving Health and Safety in the Construction Industry) of the National Audit Office (NAO), they stated that “under health and safety legislation, those who create risks are legally responsible for controlling and maintaining that risk” (National Audit Office, 2004). This statement implies that where a risk is created in the supply chain, the people who are responsible for creating such risks are burdened with the responsibility of minimizing and preventing injuries to workers in the supply chain. This statement also implies that the members of the supply chain should work together in order to minimize, if not totally eliminate injuries. Such a statement requires all members of the supply chain to work together with those who are exposed to risks or injuries in the workplace. This paper will discuss the statement of the NAO and will illustrate statutes, health and safety regulations, and case laws related to the prosecution of supply chain members found guilty of violating the Health and Safety Act and other health and safety regulations and standards. The National Audit Office report established, among other things, that the accident rate in the United Kingdom was one of the lowest in the European Union. In 2002-2003, 226 workers were fatally injured, and about 70% of these were construction workers; about 4000 construction workers suffered minor injuries; and health records indicated that musculoskeletal diseases were prevalent among the workers. These numbers are very alarming. They imply that there are not enough safety precautions in place to prevent injuries and to ensure the safety of these construction workers. The statement of the NAO in their report stressed that those creating the health risks are also legally responsible for controlling and managing such risk. The report goes on to say that everybody has to safeguard his own safety and the safety of those affected by their work. These statements imply that those who create the risk and those who are exposed to the risk bear the responsibility of keeping each other safe. The report was able to establish that many stakeholders in the construction industry are not aware of their responsibilities in the industry. And this lack of knowledge and lack of awareness is impacting greatly on the health and safety performance of stakeholders involved. The report cites that some public sector agencies are sometimes too preoccupied and are more concerned with getting the lowest possible price for various construction projects; and that they ignore the whole life costs and the health and safety of the workers who will later be involved in the project. Many designers also are not aware of their responsibilities, and some of them actually think that they do not have any duties or responsibilities towards their employees. These beliefs are very dangerous in the construction industry. They place construction workers in a position that exposes them to serious injuries and possibly unfortunate fatalities. The NAO report serves as a warning, an eye-opener for all the stakeholders in the construction industry. There are various cases of violations of the Health and Safety Act as far as the construction industry is concerned. These violations have been dealt with based on the standards set by the Act and other related laws. In the case of the lift operating company of Otis Investments and Otis Limited, both companies were fined £400,000 when two of their employees died after falling down a lift shaft in one of their high-rise block of flats in Southampton. Due to inadequate fixings on one of the lower rail openings of the lift doors, the two men fell 30 meters down the shaft. Maintenance had not been regularly carried out in the work area, especially the entrance and lift doors which placed people at risk for injury or, in this instance, death. The prosecution for the violation of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 was brought by the Health and Safety Executive, and trial was held at the Southampton Crown Court. The judge in the case awarded costs to the injured parties amounting to £145,000. This case “highlighted the importance of a maintenance regime in which particular account is taken of the door retaining system” (Health and Safety Business, 2006). Another case of health and safety violation was exemplified in the Balfour Beatty case, where Balfour Beatty and the GT Railway Maintenance and Elec-Track were fined £200,000 and were ordered to pay £42,000 in costs for putting their employees’ safety at risk. This ruling came in the heels of a railway accident where an employee was seriously injured after being electrocuted by a 25,000-volt overhead power line. Three railway companies were also fined a total of £600,000 for the incident. The prosecution was handled by the Office of the Rail Regulation (ORR) which reprimanded the companies involved for not implementing a safe system of work. The deputy chief inspector of railways stressed that with such high-risk activities going on in the railways, “there should have been a robust permit-to-work system confirming it was safe to start work” (Spence, 2008, as quoted by Urpeth, 2008). However, the system set-up in the railway was a short-cut, and this short-cut caused confusion and burn injuries for the workers. The law firm Irwin Mitchell echoed the above sentiments when they said that employers have a responsibility to undertake a risk assessment of the workplace and to implement a safety system based on their assessment in order to ultimately prevent injuries or deaths in the workplace. After a disastrous incident involving a scaffolding collapse in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire on the 11th of April, 2006, the Health and Safety Executive handed out a safety alert to the construction industry. The incident injured two and killed one of the workers in the construction project. The HSE emphasized in their alert about the importance of providing and maintaining stable scaffolds in construction projects. They also recommended that these scaffolds should be regularly checked. They stressed that the checks or regular inspection should take into account the scaffolding design implementation, the securing of scaffoldings to structures, the intended and actual loadings on scaffolds, the risk of direct impact by construction plant or vehicles, the frequency and thoroughness of scaffold inspection arrangements, the systems in place for handover or new and adaptable scaffolds, the training and competence of scaffold erectors, the adequacy of scaffold foundations, and the prevention of unauthorized modifications (Workplace Law Network, 2006). These standards now serve as guidelines for the construction industry to follow when it comes to securing scaffoldings in the workplace. Philip Wolstenholme, owner of A1 Access Scaffolding in Rotherham was sentenced for three months after one of his workers was seriously injured after falling in a dismantling job for the scaffolding firm. Wolstenholme pled guilty before the Sheffield Crown Court for violating the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. The court was able to establish during the trial that Mr. Wolstenholme violated the requirements of a prohibition notice earlier issued by the Health and Safety Executive for an offence under the Health and Safety Act. The notice specifically prohibited him from assigning workers without proper training to erect or dismantle scaffolding. The injured employee did not have any proper training and was not wearing any harness when he was ordered to work on the house in Sheffield (PA Business, 2008). Wolstenholme’s actions were in direct violation of the notice and were against the principles and provisions set by the Health and Safety Act. The CET Group Ltd, of Maidstone, Kent was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £30,000 for violating Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974. This fine was the result of an incident where an employee suffered major injuries after being entangled in a lorry-mounted rotating drill which was being used to bore a hole at a table tennis club. The employee suffered a shattered forearm, fractured humerus and femur, damaged ribs, and extensive bruising. The HSE later established that the company did not conduct a proper risk assessment of the area before the construction was started. They were also able to establish that the drill was unguarded and the emergency stop device of the drill was not working. The actions or, in this case, the inactions of the company resulted to injuries suffered by their employee. This shows how companies are increasingly becoming complacent in their duties of ensuring safety in the workplace. Starting January of 2009, fatal accidents in the workplace shall now be dealt with by a newly-created specialist division. The special division will be tasked to conduct investigations on fatal incidents in the workplace and to identify poor health and safety practices within the construction industry. The division created three groups of lawyers to deal with violations of the health and safety regulations. The HSE also increased the maximum penalties meted out for breaches in the health and safety laws and starting January of this year, fines in the lower courts shall be increased from £5000 to £20,000. The more serious violations of the Health and Safety Act may now be dealt with by the lower courts and prison sentences for breaches can also be issued by the lower courts. “Sentences of up to 12 months can be imposed on any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the company in breach” (Semple Fraser, 2008). These new regulations will effectively put a spotlight on those who prioritize their commercial gain over and above the safety of their workers and the public in general. Directors and senior managers of a company may also be prosecuted for violations of safety offences. Directors are also disqualified from serving as a director of the company if they commit an indictable offence. Employees can also be held liable for putting themselves or their co-workers at risk. Employees have the duty of taking “reasonable care of their own health and safety and that of others who may be affected by their own acts of omissions” (HSW Act, 1999, as quoted by Joyston-Bechal, 2004, p. 12). Employees are also encouraged to cooperate with their employers in relation to the compliance of safety regulations. Civil liabilities are usually imposed on employers for safety violations. These violations are considered a breach of contract between the employer and the employee, the employer being burdened with the responsibility of taking reasonable care that no injury is brought upon his employee. Negligence on the part of the employer is also a ground for civil damages to be awarded to the employee. The employer should not be negligent in providing safe and adequate equipment, safe premises, competent and safe fellow workers, and a safe system of work to his employees. If the employer is proven to be guilty of negligence, then the injured party can claim civil damages for his injuries. Breach of statutory duty or a tort claim can also be brought against the defendant party. “This action allows an injured party to bring an action against any person who has a statutory duty to provide for that person’s health and safety” (Joyston-Bechal, et.al., 2004, p. 15.). In order for a tort claim to succeed in injury claims by employees, the latter has to prove that the defendant has a statutory duty that can give rise to a civil liability (when breached); that the defendant owed such duty to the injured party; such duty was breached; the damage that the injured party suffered damage or injury which the statute meant to prevent; and the damage was caused by the defendant’s breach of such statutory duty. This breach of statutory duty is now one among several claims that injured employees and parties can bring against violators of the health and safety regulations. The standards and regulations which are in place for the protection of construction industry workers serve as guidelines for employers and workers to follow. The employers are burdened with the responsibility of setting up safe premises and other precautions for their workers, while the employees are also burdened with the responsibility of complying with safety standards set by the company for their benefit. Employees are also responsible for keeping themselves and their co-workers safe by not putting themselves in unnecessary danger in the workplace. Violations of health and safety regulations are answerable to civil and criminal liabilities which the Health and Safety Executive investigates and prosecutes. Despite these health and safety regulations firmly set in place, there have been numerous incidents of violations by many construction companies. And it is heartening to note that the Health and Safety Executive remains vigilant in protecting the rights of the workers against safety-careless and profit-minded employers. Works Cited Bennett, F. 2003, The Management of Construction: A Project Life Cycle Approach, Great Britain: Butterworth-Heinemann Construction Company Fined for Entanglement Injury, 10 November 2006, Health and Safety Business, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.healthandsafetybusiness.com/Summer06.html HSE Issues Scaffolding Safety Alert, (n.d), Health and Safety Business, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.healthandsafetybusiness.com/Summer06/Articles/News.html HSE Issues Scaffolding Safety Alert, 26 April 2006, Workplace Law, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/7024 Joyston-Bechal, S., et.al., 2004, Health and Safety Law for the Construction Industry: Mason's guide, UK: Thomas Telford National Audit Office, 2004, Improving Health and Safety in the Construction Industry, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:mC-gmFnxG08J:nao.gov.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/0304531es.pdf+under+health+and+safety+legislation+those+who+create+risk+are+legally+responsible+for+controlling+and+managing+that+risk&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ph PA Business, 26 June 2008, Boss Jailed Over Safety Breach, Irwin Mitchell, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/BossJailedOverSafetyBreach.htm The HSE raises the Bar, 2008, Semple Fraser, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.semplefraser.co.uk/index.php?s=50&c=178&p=2242 Urpeth, D. 30 July 2008, Worker’s Burns Cost Firms £600,000, Irwin Mitchell, viewed 20 January 2009 from http://www.irwinmitchell.com/News/Worker%27sBurnsCostFirms600,000.htm Read More