Fire Health Environment: Harvest Time Bakery Company - Case Study Example

Fire health environment Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecture Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 12th March, 2013. Introduction The case deals with Health and Safety at work Act1974 1which should be observed in all working premises. This is a case of fire safety where two workers were under obligation of making some repair on a conveyer belt which was supposed to cool for 12 hours before anything was done but in this case the cooling had only taken two hours. This meant that the temperatures were still high in the inside as compared to the outside. It can be seen to be a matter of negligence on the side of the managers for two facts: They wanted the repairs to be done so fast in order to recover from the loss that they would incur out of making the repairs and: Secondly due to the lack of keeping safety standards while making the repairs in a hot oven. Rules applicable in the case Several rules are applicable in this case where Civil Law 2under Common Law 3is used to rule out the case. A Civil Law 4is described as a wrong that is committed against a person who suffers harm. The wrong committed is called a tort and is liable to compensation. In the case of Harvest Time Bakery, the employees may be said to commit a tort if: They were negligent in giving orders to employees which would result to harm and The employees saw a likelihood of breaking a statutory duty but never informed the employees. Harvest Time Bakery company has committed both torts hence in their judgement, they will be judged for double barrelled action. Common Law 5states that everyone has a duty of care where an individual should see unforeseeable injury and it is to their action to take caution before the injury occurs. Employees should thereby have the responsibility of acting with reasonableness when it comes to allocation of duties especially to high risky areas where the management of Harvest Time Bakery did not. Negligence is also seen where there was loss that was experienced. For one to say that they are negligent the employers of the company had the duty to take care of the employees with regard to their safety and this indicated that they had the responsibility in terms of a safe work place and safe working equipments. Breaching of statutory duty is another civil law that the company can be judged against .This is because the company did not observe safety regulations that had been stipulated by the statutory hence causing harm to the employees. Under The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 19996, it states that due to breach of general duties by the employer, he or she is entitled to civil action. The Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) gives regulations as to the conduct employees and employers should have in conducting their business. Tough not under civil law, this can be used to rule out the case. Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 19747 states that: Employees are under obligation to their employees to ensure that they have healthy and safe working conditions. They are also responsible to provide working places that are safe from any harm or injury. To ensure that any handling of equipment is done in a safe way hence minimising of risk associated to the equipment in the workplace. To be available to provide any crucial information that might be necessary while handling of equipment in the workplace. To provide maximum supervision and allocate training sessions on the safety of the workplace. To maintain a safe environment where employees will work with minimal exposure of health and safety risk. This therefore makes employers who have full time workers come up with a health and safety policy that has to be signed by every worker who operates in the business. Section 7 of the Act defines the duties of an employee’s where: It is their responsibility to ensure that reasonable care is given to him or her as the owner of the workplace and other people who may be affected by harm or risk at their workplace. That an employer should inform their employees on what can be attributed to risk so that they can avoid it. Failure for the employees not abiding to the information given will make them liable to the risk they expose themselves and the workers. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 19998 states that it is a requirement for employees to follow any instruction they might have been given in order to minimise health and safety risks. Section 37 of the Act gives offences of body corporate where managers and directors can be charged on matters involving safety and health issues at the workplace. Applicable cases that have been ruled similarly The case of Wilson Clyde Coal v English9 is one attributed to a duty of care where Mr. English was employed at a coal company. While repairing an airway, he found some manholes which he tried escaping them but to no success. This made him crushed by the side of the road and died. His family sought for damages but the company took it to be negligence that Mr. English portrayed which contributed to his death. In ruling out the case, the courts found out that the employer had not practised a duty of care and safety in his work premises as assigning work to an employee stipulated that safety standards had to be laid. Not having any safety regulations in the mine made the company to be blamed for the death of Mr. English. The case of Corn v Weir’s, 10is one indicating breach by loss where the facts of the case were work was going on in a building that had stairs with no hand rail. Corn an employee was carrying sheets of glass with both hands and while transporting them, he lost balance and fell over the stairs where he was succumbed to injury. By no presence of a handrail indicated that the company did not abide by the safety and health standards which would mean a high exposure to risk. The presence of a handrail indicated that even with an occurrence of an accident, this would serve a preventive measure and would minimise the risk for rolling over the stairs. The case was ruled against corn where the courts held that there was no evidence of the company’s breach of statutory duties in the event of his injury. The case of Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company Ltd11 deals with safety in the workplace where there was payment of damages as a matter of being liable after an employee experienced electrocution due to non proper installation of electricity in a kiosk. it was ruled that the employer would be responsible because he did not observe any safety caution in the place of work .The case of J Armour v J Skeen (Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow), 12involves directors being charged with safety and health issue in the workplace where it was established that the directors of the company had personal liability to ensure that all statutory duties were followed in the company. This among them included ensuring that safe working conditions were maintained. By being ignorant of the safety rules and not coming up with a safety policy made the executives liable. Following the above statement, a workman of the company died as he was repairing a road bridge. The director responsible for supervising had not produced any policy regarding safety as he had not formulated any. The courts ruled out that the director was responsible for the death due to lack of duty of care hence guilty of the offence with regards to Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974, and s.37 (1)13. Conclusion The employees of the company are therefore liable to pay for damages to the families of the deceased. They are to be held liable due to the fact that the directors never took much caution on giving the safety requirements to the employees as in the making of the conveyer belt, there was no way of reversing it even while caught in danger. It can be assumed that the managers were after profit so they had to make the repairs so quick in order to recover for the losses that would be incurred when the oven was not in use. Avoiding costs was one of the major factors that lead to the two employees dying. The management was aware that sending them a few hours after the oven went off was risking their lives as the temperatures were still hot in the inside. As a remedy, the management should pay up for damages to their families and should be punished further for being negligent in their work. The employees activities after the work as seen in the case study does not have any evidence of their risk exposure because it cannot be determined if they were in a hurry to carry out the repair task. References Civil Law Common Law Corn v Weir’s [1960] 2 A11 ER 300, CA Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974, and s.37 (1) J Armour v J Skeen (Procurator Fiscal, Glasgow) [1977] IRLR 310. Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company Ltd (1938). The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Wilson Clyde Coal v English [1938] AC 57, 67 Read More