Safety Health & Environment - Case Study Example

Safety, Неаlth, and Еnvirоnmеnt Name: Instructor: Date: The following are the possible breaches of criminal statute law and civil statute law in the above-mentioned situation; First, there is a possible breach of the HSWA Act of 1974, which states that employers have the duty protect the health, safety, as well as welfare of their employees by offering and upholding safe systems of work. Additionally, it states that employers have to ensure safety in the utilization, usage, storage and transportation of substances, by providing information, supervision and training. Key Sections of the HSWA Act 1974 Section 2(1) This is the general duty of care and requires that: “It shall be the duty of each employer to make sure, so far as is logically feasible, the health and safety, in addition to welfare at work, of all his employees” (whsmconsultants /WHSM- Requirements. N.p, n.d. Web. 24 may 2013.) The qualification of ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ is the most commonly used qualification in health and safety law. It was defined in the case of Edwards’s v National Coal Board 1949. However, it is worthwhile highlighting that the information provided in the form of prohibition notice did not comply with the HSWA Act of 1974. Notably, in the above- mentioned case, there are only signs that indicate no entry due to the danger. Significantly, the HSWA Act provides that, for one to serve a prohibition notice, an inspector ought to be of the viewpoint that there is, or is possible to be, a risk of severe individual injury. For example, the building encroaches a despair state, and there is a hole in the floorboards on the upper floor.  Moreover, it is significant emphasizing that, the provision of an exclusion notice necessitates an activity to be closed and stipulates the critical procedures before activities can resume. Considerably, I the mentioned situation, activities in the building have not stopped; hence, security personnel have noted regular visits into the warehouse.  Similarly, the notice does not stipulate the necessary actions and precautions that are critical for employees to resume their activities in the building. Moreover, one should note that, the HSWA Act of 1974 dictates that the execution of the notice can be postponed if there is a continuing process that desires to be accomplished before it can be ready safe. For example, the company ought to repair the large hole in the floorboards on the upper floor first. Additionally, the company has breached the HSWA Act of 1974 in the sense that, it has disconnected power supply whilst activities in the building are still underway. Consequently, such actions have posted a profound danger because the employees are the great danger since they carry activities in the darkness. Consequently, the company has breached the law by failing to comply with the HSWA Act, which states that, employers must present safe work environment, with safe admittance and outlet. Furthermore, it is advisable noting that, in the above-mentioned situation, there are two storey warehouses, which are falling into a state of despair. This implies that, due t the building’s storey nature, any possible danger damages by the collapse of the building will extend to the neighboring people and buildings. Consequently, since the employer has not served the neighboring community with a warning notice, he has breached the HSWA ACT, which states that an employer must protect the immediate neighbors who are likely influenced by the operations of the company. Moreover, the employer has contravened the law by failing to check with safety authorities and set up a safety-working group as required by safety authorities. Moreover, the employer has not conducted a risk appraisal of his workstation. He has also failed to provide his employees with information, teaching and training in how to utilize DSE securely. The PPE regulations of 1992 dictates that where PPE is identified as necessary, after considering other control measures, the regulations necessitate that PPE must be well-matched with the job and its user and Its suitability must be assessed. Additionally, the PPE ought to be properly maintained, cleaned and replaced when required and Suitable storage must be provided. Similarly, employees must be provided with the necessary information, teaching and preparation, and they must be responsible for reporting loss or defects. Notably, the employees themselves have also contravened the law by engaging in risky situations. For instance, in the above-mentioned situation, it is obvious that the security personnel have noted regular visits into the warehouse. Significantly, the employees have contravened the MHSW regulations of 1999 that states that, employees must notify their employer (or a particular employee bestowed with health, as well as safety tasks) of work circumstances that could pose a severe and instant danger, and any inadequacy that they might sensibly recognize in the existing arrangements for health and safety. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 3 - Risk Assessment, Every employer (and self-employed personnel) shall make an appropriate and satisfactory assessment of: The risks to the health plus the safety of his workers to which they are depicted during their work; and the health a, as well as safety risk of neighbors due to his undertaking. An example was the case of R versus the Science Museum’ Trustees Board [1993] and MacKie versus Dundee City Council [2001]. Regulation 4 - Principles of Prevention to be Applied, General Principles of Prevention: Eliminate risk Reduce risk Isolate risk Control risk PPE Discipline Regulation 10 - Information for Employees, This regulation focuses upon the need for every employer to provide his employees with understandable and pertinent information on: The preventive and protective measures; The procedures referred to in regulation 8 (i.e. evacuation procedures, etc.); The identity of persons nominated by him in accordance with regulation 8 (fire wardens, etc.); The risks notified to him in accordance with regulation 11 (risks notified to him by others sharing the workplace, i.e. contractors, etc.). Regulation 22 - Exclusion of Civil Liability, A breach of a duty imposed on an employer by any of these regulations now bestows a right of action during civil proceedings for employees. The duty does not apply to the protection of persons, not in his employment. Other possible breaches of the law include the failure of the inspectors from the local authority. The HSE regulation of 1989 bestows local authority inspectors with the power to penetrate into premises at any rational time or when it is reported that there is a risky situation.  After visiting the premises, they ought to order the premises and its structures be vacated for investigation purposes. Significantly, the inspectors ought to undertake any necessary examinations or inspections by taking any necessary measurements and photographs. Additionally, they ought to seize articles, as well as substances, take samples and Inspect or take copies of documents. Moreover, the inspectors ought to require persons to respond to questions and sign pronouncement of the certainty of their responses. Lastly, after conducting all the above procedures he inspectors must take enforcement action. However, it is worthwhile noting that, the local authority has not conducted any of the above activities; hence, breaching the HSE regulations of 1989. It is worthwhile noting that the employer, his employees and the local authority have generally breached the HSWA regulations due to their negligence. Negligence constitutes a civil tort concerning irrationally careless conduct or else a contravention of the common law care duty, leading to loss, destruction or injury. Significantly, in the above-mentioned situation, all the conserved parties are owed a duty of care. For instance, the employer acts in breach of the above duty by not doing everything that is reasonable to prevent foreseeable harm. Consequently, the above breach leads to possible direct losses, damages, as well as injuries. It is worthwhile highlighting that there is possible breach of the laws by the above-mentioned parties because each of them has neglected his duties. Comment The term ‘Safe system of work’, is not formally defined in the HASAWA, and a certain amount of conjecture is needed. However, in the case of Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. Ltd. v English [1938], the decision provided an outline of the employer’s duty at common law as being the provision and maintenance of a safe place and safe systems of work; reasonably safe and competent fellow employees; and safe plant and appliances. For instance, In the case Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Company [1938] an employer was held liable for injuries to an employee, who was electrocuted, for failing to provide a safe place of work which was caused by the failure of contractors to install sufficient insulation in an electrical kiosk. In addition, the employers’ duty is a personal one so that he remains liable even though he has handed over the execution of the responsibility to a capable independent contractor. Criminal Law has that the mentioned factory has breached: Section 2(1): general duties of employers to their employees: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees” (Tele- communication and Civil Engineering Services. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May2013). Case study: Young v The Post Office [2002] EWCA Civ 661 What happened to an extent that Mr. Young suffered from stress because of his work in the post office? The manager applied a new work system and the manager promised that he will do a flexible working arrangement after seven weeks. The Mr. Young manager did not do anything to cause stress – related illness. The court rewarded 93,880 in damage plus costs. References Capt Organization, (2009). Safety, Health, and Environment. Des Moines, IA: Prentice Hall PTR publishers. Speegle, M. (2012). Safety, Health, and Environment Concepts for the Process Industry. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning publishers. Thomas, C. (2007). Process Technology Safety, Health, and Environment. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning publishers. Dalton, A. (1998). Safety, Health, and Environment Hazards at the Workplace. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning publishers. Thomas, C. (2011). Process Technology: Safety, Health, and Environment. Florence. KY: Cengage Learning publishers. Chaturvedi, P. (2007). Occupational Safety, Health, and Environment and Sustainable Economic Development. Missoula, MT: Concept Publishing Company. Wentz,C.(1998).Safety, Health, and Environmental Protection .Macomb, IL: WCB/McGraw-Hill. European Construction Institute, (1995). Total Protection Management of Construction Safety, Health, and Environment. Florence, KY: Thomas Telford publishers. Genium Publishing Corporation, (1999). Genium’s Handbook of Safety, Health, and Environmental Data for Common Hazardous Substances. Macomb,IL: McGraw-Hill. Rowland, E. (2003). Health, Safety and Environment Legislation: A Pocket Guide. Des Moines, IA: Royal Society of Chemistry publishers. ‘Tele- communication and Civil Engeneering Services”. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 May2013. Gross Disproportion, Step by Step- A Possible Approach to…”N.p.,n.d. Web. 24 May 2013. . Read More