Industrial Safety and Criminal Laws - Case Study Example

Industrial Safety and criminal laws Name Course Lecturer Aspects of criminal law breached Criminal law covers the crimes, the prosecution process and the defense. The rules deals with criminal activities which are done to cause harm to the public. The decision making process concerning crimes must however interpret the actions and scenarios to establish the grounds for penalties. The causes and responsibilities are established. There are facts in the case study involving the actions that led to the death of two employees. The company, the defendant engagement in the pattern of actions virtually assured the killing of the two workers. This is directly related to the company acts of omissions. The defendant was aware of the 4high risk involved in repairing the oven at its stated heat. However, it is established that the financial gain and demand for production conveniences, that they choose to go on and engaged the workers in a fatal repair. The company course of actions assures the fact that it resulted to death and thus the penalty cannot be a civil matter but a criminal one (Rosner, p. 535). According to Lobel (p. 1071), common legal systems and law likely would consider the company’s reckless behavior which is criminal. The defendant according to the fats is civilly liable. The company breach of safety laws are manifest. This is because the set industrial and workplaces safety and health laws are meant to reassess the approach and recognize and control workplaces injuries. The scenario under this case study however does not prove availability of such procedures to safeguard workplaces and employees for the company. In identifying the scope of problem, it is necessary to bring in considerations the government set regulations, international standards set by various organizations like OSHA and company enforcements and will to the safety of their employees. The company however intensified demands on their workers who were unaware of their rights and safety. In analyzing the current enforcement state, it is conclusively right that there are fewer measures taken by the company. In as much as the set regulations and standards are meant to effectively curb the workplaces injuries; the company workers may not have been aware of their rights. The company failure to adopt such measures meant that the managers never took the necessary steps to make them aware of this. It is company’s responsibility to come up with a mechanism to curb injuries and possible death at workplace. This is not only done by employee, but demand the employees, employer, the public and visitors coming to the site to be aware of dangers and risks involved (Hall, Johnston and Ridgway, p.12). The company however put its workers at risk through negligence and omission a case which would have been regulated and closely discouraged through adhering to technical, safety and awareness measures. There are enough grounds to establish that this was not an unavoidable accident so it is possibly categorized under safety crimes. The victims are excluded as there is no prove of a mechanism which was put up for them to understand the basic of technical and operation problem. The current information and engineer’s attitudes toward then cannot prove safety and unavailability of ways to fix the dangers involved. High demands by employees may equally have led to workers detrimental conditions. The external and internal factors of control are currently lacking in the company. This contributed to the risks, employees abuse based on cost-related and profit-centered issues. The factors in OHS and labor are shown disregard as management oversees the freedom of workers to utilize the possible procedures for their safety and health implications. The relation between the perpetrators, the company and the victim, the employee provides a conceptual framework to define the lack of prevention measures. The options for the relatives to pursue civil action. There is workplace negligence identified in the case. Lack of mechanism to contain dangerous occupational hazards undermined the safety of the victim. The complexities arose by the company complacency which minimized the existence of danger in the repair. The danger was contributed through by absence of strong employer-employees understanding on effective ways of safety. There was therefore no preventive mechanism set in place. Organizational realities of the shortage of staffs that were intended to carry the repair work are a basis for workers also to pursue the civil action. There are substantial managerial barriers which would have eliminated workplace risks. The managers’ acceptance for repair was tantamount to assault from those who would have provided the necessary care. The intervention was not at all effective as the conveyer belt would not be reversed. This might have been the basis by which the workers accepted to continue with the repair by trusting on remedial actions. In accordance to work organization framework through NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) the victims’ rights were undermined (Flin and Yule, p. 46). Management and supervisory practice, the production process, influenced the way work was performed. The human resources policies were undermined by management and production process. Managed care was less emphasized as the priority was given to the containment of cost. As NIOSH theorizes, the dimension of the organization influences the occupational risks and injuries. Unavailability of workplace health services such as risk prevention policies or program reduced training and possibilities of engineering controls. This influenced exposure to death and hazards. By ignoring and tolerating the notion of presence of risk, the environment was conducive for such as serious crime. Lack of awareness on part of the employee may have promoted under reporting of risks and inability to examine threats, physical and serious injuries. The family members of victims should pursue the civil action so as to address the losses. They must prove that there was a regulation, manufacturer precaution of not to work on repairs and operate oven negligently while it was less than 12 hours of cooling. The manufacturer’s precaution was however undermined. Secondly, the company breached its duty by authorizing repair at such thermal conditions. Thirdly, the victims suffered physical injuries and death which need to be compensated. Finally causation is seen between a breach of a duty to not repair at high temperatures and the death suffered (Williams, Barrett and Brabston, p, 710). What must be proved for the action to succeed The plaintiff statement of claim will contain material facts to rely on. Among the most necessary in this case is lack of OHS policies and procedures in the company. The negligence by the Chief Engineer to comply with manufacturer’s guidance and precautions is an available fact. The failure of the director to inform the victims and discuss the risks involved greatly undermines the industrial safety regulations. With provisions of all the necessary omissions in the statement, the court then would issue the claim statement. Again, the family members may deliver the relevant documents primarily through the attorney to shows the company’s possession, power and control. This is to provide them in case the other parties request them and thus support their claim (Croall, p.37). The third parties, including fellow employees of the victims, the company that sells ovens and employee representatives may provide the necessary information that pertains to the case, the regulations as well as the company-workers relationship. The initial disclosures of potential risks identified can be used to testify against the act. The provision of workplace safety and health Act require the right to knew for the workers. The logic followed in such as case is unavailability of the right on part of the victim to know, participate and refuse working in hazardous condition. The law require employee to inform or train the workers of the hazards and working safely. There was negligence to provide Material Safety Data Sheet which has information about the hazards of the equipment. This reduced the right to refuse repairing due to unavailability of reasonable grounds of the danger involved. If this was available there could have been aspects of reporting the concerns and refusal of working as per supervisors requirements. There was also no employee committee consulted to correct the dangerous condition or investigate the situation. The employee could not do anything reasonably practicable for their safety. This included assessing the risks; address the risks and consultation with health, technical or legal officers for their safety (Stone, p.93). How may the respondent try to defend it. The defendant may respond differently to the claim through various available options. The company may file a defense statement. This would follow substantial actions taken and which proves it was normal accident. This is because they only allowed removal of out trays and had provided the necessary equipment for safety. The oven, since it had not worked for long may have been assumed it would be cool to 100 degrees and this excludes the fact of manufacturer’s precaution. Secondly, there is an option to file for notice of intent for defense. A criminal case must establish both the presence of guilty mind followed by a guilty action which is absent in the action taken by the company (Harr, p. 66). This strongly can be seen as the repair was not meant for harm but to save the cost of production and avoid foreseen loss. This point immensely reduces the degree of crime in the company action. Cooperate decision brought divergent interests in the decision making process and this strongly distribute the responsibilities. It also informs that it the repair was in workers best interests as it was not a single department undertaking. Having involved all the main director may mean that the decision reached was objective and to the safety of the workers. Thirdly, they may defend their position by claim for settling the whole or part of that claim with family members. As there is no seen provision for settling the case out of the court, the company may request for it as a way to defend their case. This is through identifying some areas which can be settled on for compensation. Fourth, the company may counterclaim against the family suing them. The tragic scenario was by workers reckless moves, as they were informed to relay information when it was not at all possible to move on (Williams, and Barrett, p.346). However, the point at which they relayed it was cumbersome. The engineer would then not coordinate at such stage and reverse the belt. Their prior conversation of haste due to domestic commitments may have endeared their lack of care and safety measures. The defendant had maintained their assurance coverage when the accident happened. The critical variable that affected safety was not absence of intervention measure but the speed the workers took to complete the repair. Infrequent manner of the victims work reduced an objective pace of doing work. The speed determines the accomplishment of work which is beyond company’s control. References Croall, Hazel. "The victims of white-collar crime." BRA RAPPORT 1 (2001): 35-54. Flin, Rhonda, and Steven Yule. "Leadership for safety: industrial experience." Quality and Safety in Health Care 13.suppl 2 (2004): ii45-ii51. Hall, Andy, Richard Johnstone, and Alexa Ridgway. Reflection on reforms: developing criminal accountability for industrial deaths. National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, 2004. Hall, Andy, Richard Johnstone, and Alexa Ridgway. Reflection on reforms: developing criminal accountability for industrial deaths. National Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, 2004. Harr, Jonathan. A civil action. Vintage, 2011. Lobel, Orly. "Interlocking Regulatory and Industrial Relations: The Governance of Workplace Safety." Admin. L. Rev. 57 (2005): 1071. Rosner, David. "When does a worker's death become murder?." American Journal of Public Health 90.4 (2000): 535. Williams, Robert J., and J. Douglas Barrett. "Corporate philanthropy, criminal activity, and firm reputation: is there a link?." Journal of Business Ethics 26.4 (2000): 341-350. Williams, Robert J., J. Douglas Barrett, and Mary Brabston. "Managers' business school education and military service: Possible links to corporate criminal activity." Human Relations 53.5 (2000): 691-712. Stone, Katherine VW. "Revisiting the at-will employment doctrine: Imposed terms, implied terms, and the normative world of the workplace." Industrial Law Journal 36.1 (2007): 84-101. Read More