Health, Safety, and Environment: Harvest Time Bakery Tragedy - Case Study Example

 Health, Safety, and Environment: Harvest Time Bakery Tragedy Introduction This report investigates the legal impact of workplace accidents through the use of a case study. The specific objectives are to determine the breached legislature and the legal avenues for the victims to seek compensation. Other aspects focused on are the possible defence strategies and lastly how the defendants will try to prosecution may claim legal rights. The information is intended to supplement findings of other quantities analysis of this case study and to provide guidance to the authorities and affected victims. The conflict between production and health and safety management exists because of the competition between the labour and productivity in an organisation. However, as these factors are more inclined to the employer, it should be noted that the effect of risks are felt more by the employee. This risks cause financial, psychological and emotional loss to the employee. It is estimated that 3% of GNP is lost to accidents at the work place (Mossink and De Greef 2002). The costs incurred in the accidents are however lower than in claims and court settlements. According to Mottiar (2004) and Dalley (2005), annual costs due to health and safety in the UK are approximately €2 billion. In other countries the costs resulting from accidents at work are estimated at 3.6 billion annually (Indecon Consultants 2006). These high costs may have resulted from the “Good Health Is Good Business Campaign” (Health and Safety Executive 2005) Scope and focus of research This report uses an exploratory approach to the case study and is focused on the collection of the cost of similar cases by health and safety and authority. Case study This case shows dimension of how corporation failed to prioritise employees’ safety above the productivity. Even if death could have been avoided in this case, the traumatic stress that would have resulted from the experience would have been a case for legal compensation. Amati and Scaife (2006) indicated that such experiences result in high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the employer should assess the damages on employees to avoid compensating for exaggerated injury. Health and Safety Executive (2006) notes that some employees maximize financial gains from claim settlements by exaggerating the damage incurred. The economic impact is the loss of long term pay and legal claim settlement for damages caused by the accident (DKM Economic Consultants 2004). Contravened legal statutes The Company contravened Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, in that it did not ensure the safety of their employees at work with a safe system of work. The management should have ensured that the machine was cooled before subjecting two employees into it. Moreover, the employees were completely unaware of the danger they were getting into by entering the oven. It is the management’s legal obligation to make its employees aware of the danger they are getting into by getting into the oven. In this respect the management had failed to provide a safe work environment to its employees. The management also failed to inform its employees of the possibility of dangers arising during work. It is not a legal obligation of the employee to ensure their own safety under any circumstance. The duty rests wholly on the employer to provide information, system and equipment to ensure safety at work for employees. The employer should have considered carefully every aspect of the job and how they would relate to the employees safety. The whole system should have been checked for hazards and the risks evaluated. After this there should have been an elimination of the potential hazards in this case the high temperatures could have been eliminated by allowing the recommended cooling time. The company also failed to have the recommended number of workers which was 4 and not 2. Although a lot of the legal duty rests with the employer, subsequent regulation puts responsibility on the employee to assist the employer with the duty of care by indicating possible potential dangers during work. In this scenario, the two employees are noted to have been more focused on the remuneration and getting the work done and not on their own safety. Consultation with the employers must take place on the matters that may affect the health of the employees with the employees themselves. There was failure on the part of the employers to give employees the opportunity to express their concerns as pertaining to safety during work. This includes concerns about machinery guards, safety signs and protective clothing. The employees should also refrain from using equipment that they are not trained to use. It is their legal obligation to tell the management of any dangers in the work environment before beginning work. The employees are legally obliged to take care of themselves and not to interfere with anything provided to ensure their safety of the two workers who died in the oven. The Managing Director contravened Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 as the managing director had neglected the legal aspects of safety as is mandated by the HASAWA. This applies as the crime committed by the company was done under his supervision. The managing director was in full consent of the undertaking that resulted in the deaths. The managing director was also charged with conniving as they were fully aware though not directly concerned with the undertaking. They however chose to ignore their responsibility to provide care for the workers harmed. The Engineer contravened Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 the engineer failed in his legal obligation to provide care to the employees or any other person who is directly affected by his undertakings. In this case, the chief engineer‘s omission to enforce proper maintenance and advice the management on the dangers of the undertaking of the company. This contravened legislature protects secondary persons from activities of a company that may pose risks to their lives. The risks addressed in this law are all risks that are attributed to the activities or the mannerism in which the activities are undertaken. The Production Director contravened Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in that an offence committed by the company, namely failure in its duty under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure that the undertaking was in full compliance of the law. The production director was in full consent or conniving to the undertaking but neglected to take action that would avert the accident. Aspects to prove that the defendant was guilty The employer owes the employee the duty of care to the employees. This puts the employee fully under the protection of the legal obligations put on the employer. The burden of prove will rest on the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that: The director had consent to the offense committed or that the offense occurred as a result of the directors’ negligence. The first duty is to prove that a breach of law had occurred by the company failing to comply with the legal duty imposed by the HSWA 1974 ACT. It should be noted that the director or management may create difficulty in establishing proof that would secure their conviction. The aspect of conniving is determined by whether the director is aware though they may not have encouraged the undertaking. There is need to prove neglect on the directors part and to prove that they have failed to do what they are legally obliged to. Even in the event that the directors are not bound by law to act in any way to prevent crime, there is the legal interpretation that considers action by moral or non-legal duties. These are based on the social responsibility and are dependent on the director’s position in the organisational structure and the mind control that comes with it. There therefore is a duty of care breached as the directors failed the test of reasonableness as the director did not act responsibly. There is also the burden of prove of negligence as the respondent failed to reasonably foresee that entry into a hot oven could have caused foreseeable harm. Ways to defend The defence may claim that they did not have the duty of care. This only applies to the management who were not aware of the action taken to have the two employees in the hot oven. It may also apply to the management whose mind of control does not cover the decision that resulted in harm. The second aspect of defence is the lack of legal awareness on the employees’ part. The employees failed to implement or were unaware of their role in the legal advisory structure to avert possible accidents. It is evident from the witness testimonies that the two employees had underrated the potential dangers of the job at hand. They both had wanted to get the most of the task oblivious of the dangers and therefore failed to exercise their right to advice the management of the dangers at hand. The Meaning of Work (1987) notes that the reason people work is for the remuneration so the two workers were psychological focused on remuneration and less on safety. The other avenue of defence is to use the Employers’ Legal Claims Insurance. This does not reduce guilt or the penalties imposed but offers out of court settlement for the injured party. If the case goes to the civil court the burden of proof will depend on probability factor. The courts will be focused on determining the value of compensation if at all there are damages to be compensated. By settling out of court, the employers insurance will protect the company from legal claims and the excessive compensation that may result. Conclusions and recommendations There is evidence of comparatively higher loss on the side of the employee in the occurrence of accidents. This leads me to highlight the impact of accidents on employees. Other aspects recommended are the need to maintaining a higher level of contact with injured employees. I further recommend the identification of factors that will motivate employers to establish adequate health and safety controls at the work place. In conducting an assessment of risks involved, it is necessary to first identify the hazards at the work place. A quantification of the extent to which risks apply based on the established controls. This will identify the efficiency of the controls in mitigating any occurrence of risks. In any case the risks levels are found to be higher than the existing controls can manage additional control measures are to be put in place. After implementation of the new control measures, a documentation of the procedures of conduct in implementation of the new control is to be done. It is then recommended that training be done to equip the employees with skills to carry out the task in case of occurrence of the risks. In cases where the risks are difficult to determine, it is important to use a structured assessment procedure to determine hazards involved. Health and Safety Authority (2006) acknowledges the difficulty in assessment of costs incurred after an accident has occurred. In conclusion, the case of harvest time bread factory is a reminder of the importance of a risk assessment and establishment of safe work environments. It may have evidently cost more by reducing the productivity of the factory, but would have minimised the likelihood of accidents occurring. This would have also been a defence for the company directors in the court cases following occurrence of accident. By conducting a risk assessment, the company would have identified the risk and taken counter measures to prevent the accidents. This would have also been in compliance with the legal obligations. Failing in to comply and to carry out these duties could result in prosecutions by the HSE and legal claims from individuals. There is a need to recognise the risks involved during maintenance as well as during the normal operation of corporate systems. In the case study considered here, there was obvious negligence of the management to include the risks involved during repairs in their assessment. References Amati. C., A., and Scaife R., (2006) Investigation of the Links between Psychological Ill Health, Stress and Safety. Research Report 488. Prepared by The Keil Centre for the Health and Safety Executive. Retrievable at; http://www.hse.gov.uk/RESEARCH/rrhtm/index.htm Dalley J. On behalf of the Health and Safety Authority, Ireland (2005). An Assessment of the Cost of Reported Accidents in High-Risk Workplaces. Retrievable at http://www.hsa.ie. DKM Economic Consultants. (On behalf of the Health and Safety Authority, Ireland) (2004). Measuring the Impact of Health and Safety Interventions. Retrievable at http://www.hsa.ie Health and Safety Executive (2005). Good Health and Safety is Good Business". Retrievable at http://www.hse.gov.uk/costs/costs_overview/costs_overview.asp Health and Safety Executive (2006). Cormack, H. Cross, S. Whittington, C. Identifying and evaluating the social and psychological impact of workplace accidents and ill-health incidents on employees. Research Report 464. Prepared by Human Reliability Associates Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive. Retrievable at; http://www.hse.gov.uk/RESEARCH/rrhtm/index.htm Indecon (2006). Report on the Economic Impact of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Legislation. Retrievable at; http://www.entemp.ie/publications/corporate/2006/finalindeconreport.pdf Meaning of Work International Research Team (1987). The Meaning of Work. London: Academic Press Mossink J. & De Greef M. (2002). Inventory of Socioeconomic Costs of Work Accidents. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Retrievable at http://agency.osha.eu.int Mottiar Z., (2004). Feasibility Study on Estimation of Costs of Workplace Accidents, Work-Related Ill-Health and Non-Injury Incidents in Ireland. Retrievable at; http://www.hsa.ie Read More