Work Safety: Baked Alive in Bread Factory - Case Study Example

Note: Sorry again for the delay. Please just send me a message if you need anything. Thanks! Safety, Health, and the Environment Baked Alive in Bread Factory 1. Introduction/Outline of Important Points The death of two maintenance workers carrying out repairs inside 75ft oven in a UK bread factory was caused by intense heat that according to the report was still one hundred degrees at the centre of the oven after it was shut down two hours earlier. Result of the investigation shows that the two workers who were unaware of the danger were sent into the oven through the entrance hatch in order to avoid additional maintenance cost of removing and re-installing the side panels. Consequently, the two workers, with only thin suit, gloves, and pads, had to crawl to collect broken parts along the length of the oven that at that time was still too hot at the centre. It was too late when the two workers realized that they were in full danger and trapped inside the oven. The two workers died with burns and factures simply because management and senior staff of this bread factory was more interested in profit and avoiding production losses due to maintenance work than the safety of their workers. The following sections the health and safety issues involved in this incident including breach of safety regulations as indicated in the Health and Safety at Work Act, the criminal liability of the employer and senior staff, the possible options that can be taken by workers relative pursuing civil action against the bread factory, the proof they need in order to establish breach of the law, and potential argument of the respondents to defend themselves against these accusations. 2. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is UK legislation generally aim to ensure health, safety, and welfare of people at work. These include protection against risks associated with workers activities, controlling and keeping workers safe from hazardous substances and emissions (HSWA, 1974, p.1). The duty if each employer in relation to this legislation is ensure “so far as reasonably practicable” the health, safety, and welfare of his employees (2- (1)). These include duties in relation to maintenance of plant and systems of work (2- 2(a)), elimination of risks associate with use, handling, storage, transport of articles and substance (2 – 2(b)), information, instruction, and training (2-2 (c)), providing safe means of escape (2-2 (d)), and provisions for safe facility (2- (2-e)). Similarly, under the Act, employees have their own duty to “take reasonable care” (7(a)) of himself and other persons who may be affected by his activities at work (7(b)). A more detailed explanation of this employee duty in terms of health and safety at work can be found in Regulation 14 of The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 where an employee is obliged to work only in accordance with their training or information provided by his employer (14-(1)). 3. Aspects of Criminal Law In terms of health and safety legislation and regulations at work, the bread factory incident is clearly a breach of employer’s duty to ensure safety and protect his employees’ health. For instance, the fact that the two workers were asked or allowed to enter the oven after just 2 hours rather than 12 as specified in the maintenance manual, was employer’s disregard to their health and safety as specified in Section 2 – 2(a) regarding the maintenance of plant and systems of work. Based on the testimony of Mr. Masters, who seems unfamiliar with the boiling point of water when he admitted that the “work should have not been carried out in temperatures of no more than 100 degrees”, there was no permit to work system in the bread factory that can prevent any unsafe work practices. It is important to note that these workers were not allowed to enter through the side panels where they can easily withdraw from the heat but crawl from the entrance hatch. Moreover, the conveyor belt carrying bread trays was running when the two workers went in as evidenced by Mr. Erickson being pulled out burned and dying on the other end and the multiple fractures suffered by Mr. Mayes. This incident could never happen if there was a permit to work system that would ensure safe work practices in the factory. In Section 37 of The Health Safety Work etc. Act 1974, the corporation owning the factory along with its directors, managers, and so are liable and should be punished if they are proven guilty of the health and safety offence (p.37). This offence is clearly specified in the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 such as corporation actions causing the death of a person and gross breach of a relevant duty of care which is under the law of negligence (1 (1)). However, although criminal liability of may be incurred by employers under The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and their civil liability may arise from breach of their statutory duty, employees affected by the breach cannot file a civil case under both law as breach resulting to civil liability are owed to non-employees (Mandelstam, 2002, p.167). For this reason, civil claims may be filed under the common Law of Negligence and Tort Law which according to Daly (205), deals specifically with injuries incurred as a result of non-intentional failure to act reasonably and breach of duty to provide reasonable and practicable care (p.197). Tort is part of Civil Law and concern with actions of private individuals against other individuals (civil wrong) while prosecution for breaches of duty may be imposed through criminal law using the legislations and regulations mentioned above (Harpwood, 2000, p.6). 4. Options for Relatives to Pursue Civil Action As mentioned earlier, options in pursuing civil actions against the owner and senior staff is available through Tort Law’s negligence and breach of statutory duty principles. Relatives can claim negligence on the part of the employer resulting to death and breach of duty under relevant UK health and safety at work legislation and regulations. Although breach of duty imposed by legislation and regulations are not necessarily negligence, allowing workers to work in a potentially dangerous condition is considered negligence per se thus subject to Tort (Best & Barnes, 2007, p.162).. 5. Proof Required and Possible Defence of Employer Primarily, the proof required by the relatives are actions associated with negligence on the part of the employer such as the absence of the permit to work system, inadequate risk assessment, violation of required maintenance procedure particularly the timing of maintenance which is 12 hours after the over was shutdown, sending two workers instead of the manufacturer recommended four, and deliberately asking the two workers to work in a running conveyor built. Possible defences may come from employee’s own duty as stated in the Section 7 (a) & (b) of The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. For instance, the defendant may use the principle of causation as in the case of Stringer v Bedfordshire CC (1999) where the judge ruled that the cause of the highway incident was not from defective pavement but rather on inexperienced driver who lost control of the car (Harpwood, 2000, p.180). In the bread factory incident, this can be the duty to take reasonable care or the fact that the two workers did not question the required time before anyone can go inside the oven. This can be the fact that none of them is aware or underwent training or received adequate information regarding proper maintenance of such oven. Another is consent or Volenti Non Fit Injuria where the claimant consented to enter the supposedly hot oven similar to O’Reilly v National Rail and Tramway Appliances where injuries sustained by the claimant was caused by himself when he voluntarily hit the ammunition shell with a sledge hammer (LawSkool, 2011, p.4). Similarly, contributory negligence may imposed on the claimant as in the case of Rushton v Turner Asbestos during the 1960s and Marlton v British Steel in 1999 where the court found the first claimant contributing to negligence when he was ordered and consented to work in the dark that resulted to injury to himself while the other claimant worked too close to hot coke ovens without wearing protective clothing (Harpwood, 2000, p.181). 6. Punishment available/remedial Depending on the seriousness of the violation of the corporation, the Court may impose a remedial order (correcting the things that contributed to the death of certain person) or publicity order as specified in 9 and 10 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Failure to comply with the remedial order and publicity order is punishable by unlimited fine. The difference however, is the fact that publicity that include the name of the corporation, the facts why the corporation is convicted, particulars of the offence, amount of fine, and terms of remedial order will undoubtedly result damaged reputation and serious financial consequences (Davies, 2008, p.39). 7. Conclusion The bread factory management was liable to the death of two workers under Tort Law and duty of care under HSWA, HSWR, and CMCH. Relatives of the two workers may file a civil case under Tort Law and criminal case for violation of health and safety legislation and regulations. The defendant can use the principle of causation, neglect of workers to take reasonable care, consent, and contributory negligence to avoid full liability. There are only two punishments available for corporate manslaughter and homicide – remedial and publicity order – that are punishable by unlimited fine if not complied. 8. Reference List Best A. & Barnes D, (2007), Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems, Aspen Publishers Online, US Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act, (2007), Chapter 19, UK Daly J, (2005), Professional Nursing, Issues, and Challenges, Springer Publishing, UK Davies A, (2008), Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act: Special Report, Workplace Law Group, UK Harpwood V, (2000), Principles of Tort Law, Routledge, UK LawSkool, (2011), Tort Law Summary, LawSkool Co., UK Mandelstam M, (2002), Manual Handling in Health and Social Care: An A-Z of Law and Practice, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, UK The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, (1974), Chapter 37: Health, Safety and Welfare in Connection with Work, and Control of Dangerous Substances, and Certain Emissions into the Atmosphere, UK The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, (1999), Health and Safety 1999, No. 3242, UK Read More