Occupational Health and Safety Law - Assignment Example

Compensation Name Institution Course Lecturer Date Question 1 From the scenario it is evident that Rajesh is an employee of the Yum Yum Pizzas. Rajesh being a university student is employed on a part time basis to deliver pizzas. He usually conducts his work on shifts which are specified by the employer. In addition, the time at which he begins his work is usually particular but his finishing time is not specific. Though he is employed he is supposed to deliver pizzas using his own means of transport of which he uses his bicycle. In the course of duty Rajesh is supposed to wear a uniform of which the employer has provided him with a uniform inform of a cap and a T-shirt. He is provided with panniers to ensure pizzas remain hot in the delivery process. Unfortunately, one evening Rajesh gets an accident in the course of delivering pizzas. In contemplation of the above information Rajesh is a worker hence covered by work health and safety and workers compensation. He is therefore entitled for compensation. In accordance with the Australian regulatory framework for compensation, workers who suffer or encounter work related injuries are eligible for compensation. This ensures that the injured persons are issued with fiscal awards and in avoidance of litigation. There are laws that are put in place to protect those people who are injured in the workplace or even outside while conducting workplace operations. The workers’ compensation system entails accidents compensation for workers. These are the workers who get injured in the course of their duty or contract diseases. Therefore, in Australia each of its jurisdictions has its own workers compensation legislation that compels employers to insure against legislative and common law. This is to ensure that workers are compensated for work related injury and disease. This legislation does not require proving that the employer acted negligently to qualify for compensation. Since Rajesh was injured in the line of duty he is thereby entitled to compensation. Rajesh suffered injury during his employment. Rajesh, like any other worker is also protected by the law. He is thereby eligible to the workers compensation according to the workers compensation in Australia. The compensation is payable to any worker who go throughan injury in the process of duty and Rajesh is not exempted. He has to be compensated for general damages for hurting and suffering and damages for employer negligence. Rajesh has broken his left leg and will also be incapable of attending school for about two months. The reason of the workers recompense is to offer the injured worker with financial support. The support enables the injured worker to cater for the medical and related expenses accrued in the process. Sometimes the compensation entails outgoings for lost earnings, lump sum payment due to enduring impairment or bereavement. Therefore, if Rajesh claims a common law damages he is thereby entitled compensation to cater his medical expense resulted from the injury and for the time that he will not be working. The employer is responsible for the Rajesh compensation. This is because Rajesh was injured in the process of carrying out the employment duties. It is in accordance with occupational health and safety legislations that employers are required to offer duty of care to employees. The law demands that employer to ensure they put efforts in prevention of workplace injury, diseases and deaths. The law also demands that employers compensate workers who are injured in the process of their employment duties and to issue rehabilitation services to employees suffering from work-related injuries. The employer is supposed to enact measures that will enhance health and safety of all employees. It is the duty of employer to impose methods that will ensure that health and safety of employees is protected. It justified bring to a close that Rajesh is entitled compensation and his employer is liable to that responsibility.This is so for the reason that if there is an occurrence of injury then a compensation claim from the worker is valid. It is specified in the Australian regulatory framework for compensation that as long as the grievance happens during work time or it is resulted by the environment of work, then it is eligible for compensation. In addition, the compensation Act clearly stipulates that an injury is compensated if it occurs while the worker is away from workplace in authorised duty. Whether the worker is in training as part of the employment or was travelling for the purposes of employment. Therefore, Rajesh was injured while away from the place of work and travelling for the purposes of employment duties. Rajesh is thereby deemed eligible for compensation in accordance with legislations depicted in the compensation Act and regulation framework. It is in accordance with occupational health and safety legislations that employers are required to offer duty of care to an employee which is not fully achieved in the Rajesh case. Therefore, the employer is responsible for the Rajesh compensation. This is because Rajesh was injured in the process of carrying out the employment duties. The law demands that employer to ensure they put efforts in prevention of workplace injury, diseases and deaths. The employer is obligated to carry out necessary steps which will enhance protection of employees’ health and safety. This care was neglected in the Rajesh case since the employer did not provide the necessary gears that correspond to the pizzas delivery. Rajesh was not provided with necessary paraphernalia for carrying out the pizzas delivery. The employer allowed him to deliver pizza using his own bicycle which in some instances could not be in a good condition to work. The employer did not fulfil his duty of care to his employee. It is the employer duty to ensure there is adequate provision and maintenance work systems. The employer is compelled to enhance ample welfare provision and secure working environment. The employer is supposed to provide enough information and guidelines that informs on the workplace hazards. The regulations demand the employer to carry out exemplary supervision of employees in the place of work. In addition, the employer should enhance monitoring of the conditions in the place of work and the health of employees. All these are duties imposed on employer by the occupational health and safety statute to ensure that they take sensible healthcare and safety of the employees. In relation to the detailed regulation and instructions imposed by the occupational health and safety it is evident that there is negligence in the employer’s part. The employer did not take the reasonable measures to ensure that he complied with regulatory framework for occupational health and safety.These include hazard identification, assessment of risk and control and proper consultation with the employees on matters of information and risk exposure. It is due to the employer negligence that the employee was subjected to work pressure which eventually resulted to the injury. Therefore, it is justifiable for the injured worker to claim compensation for the employers’ negligence. The employee is justified to be entitled for compensation from the employer thereof. Question 2 In the course of Rajesh accident, Prudence, a young socialite is caught up the process and is also injured. In this case, Prudence is a third party who is injured in the process of an employee carrying out his employment duty. Prudence was injured when Rajesh was rushing when delivering the pizzas. This injury is caused by negligence of another party and hence a claim may be made to recover for the damages. Though Prudence is not an employee of the Yum Yum Pizzas he is eligible to claim a third party claim. Third party claim is the claim that is brought against the party outside your employer. Therefore, when one is injured it is his right to seek for compensation so that the at-fault party is held liable. In accordance to the occupational health and safety legislation prudence is qualified for compensation. In this case thereof, the compensation for Prudence will fall on both Rajesh and his employer. This is because the injury arose due to negligence of the two parties. Rajesh did not fulfil his obligations as an employee as it is stipulated on the occupation health and safety employees’ duty. The law requires that employees to take care of their health and of others in workplace and in the process of carrying out employment duties. On the other hand the employer to Rajesh is also held accountable to offer compensation to Prudence. This is provided in the occupation health and safety employers’ duty of care to the third persons. The employer are issued with a duty if care to people who are not employees but are present in the operations of work. It is therefore in order to conclude that Prudence is to obtain compensation from Rajesh. The accident was resulted by Rajesh negligence. This is because he wilfully placed at risk the safety of Prudence when he decided to exceed the speed limit. According to the occupational health and safety, the employee has a duty of care to his own safety and health while at work. The decision to over speed was against the regulation of him taking care of his own health and safety. In addition, it is the duty of employees to take care health and safety of others in workplace or workplace operations according to the occupational health and safety statute. It is also the employee duty not to irresponsibly place at risk the safety and health of another during his employment duties. It is the employee’s duty to work together with the employer interests of work place operations of which Rajesh did not comply with. It is evident when on his employment duty went to pick alcohol for a party he was attending after his shift. Furthermore, it is order for Prudence to receive compensation from the Rajesh employer. This is articulated in the occupational health and safety regulation of employers’ duty of care to persons other than the employees. The legislation imposes duty on employers to enhance health and safety and welfare of people not working for the employer. The duties of care is also extended to the third persons outside the place of work but are affected by the operations of work. In this case, Prudence was affected when pizzas were being delivered. Prudence was injured in the process of operations of the business activities outside the workplace.In fulfilment of employers’ duty of care to the third persons, Rajesh employer or the Yum Yum Pizzas is thereby obligated to compensate Prudence. References Griffiths, A., Haigh, N., & Rassias, J. (2007). A Framework for Understanding Institutional Governance Systems and Climate Change:: The Case of Australia. European Management Journal, 25(6), 415-427. Read More