Ensuring Health and Safety Workplace - Case Study Example

Ensuring Health and Safety Workplace Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 References 9 Introduction Creating a conducive work environment has come of age in the contemporary society where more than ever before workers have become very much aware of their rights more especially on the conditions of the place they work in. The general workplace is expected to be free from any risk that may cause physical injury to the people working there. The Organisational Health and Safety at Workplace (OHSW) legislation has come into being amidst mixed reactions from the general public and the workforce on the role of management in ensuring organizational operations do not pose great risk to the staff and the customers working or getting served from various organizations. This follows a series of risks that have caused injuries both to workforce and the customers not only in Australia but globally (Australian and New Zealand Standard 48:2001). This assessment report is aimed at presenting a detailed analysis of the most recent incident Harris Scarfe. The assessment will further look into the management theories, legal issues, the state of risks and the monitoring and of evaluating risks control measures at Harris Scarfe. 1. The failures that may have contributed to the incident Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd is major retailer in the country. However, it has not gone without featuring in the public domain for its risk concerns. In 16th march 2005 for instance, Harris Scarfe appeared in the public press after an old woman aged 89 years was injured while shopping in the company’s premises. After the family members of the injured old woman reported the case to SafeWork SA, the case was investigated and the retailer taken to court for prosecution. Harris 2 years later after the case had ended was convicted fined $20,000 as compensation for the 89 year old lady. The incident had cause very serious injuries to the woman especially on the Achilles tendon after she had been hit from behind by the overloaded stock trolley. Later on the lady could die after suffering from numerous health conditions caused by the incident. The investigations report by SafeWork SA revealed that Harris Scarfe was not compliant of Section 22(2) of the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act of 1986. The report had established further that the use of the stock trolleys at Harris Scarfe was not well managed and posed a great danger to all people working and shopping within the Company premises. Consequently, the Company was fined extra $20,400 for failing to comply with OHSW legislation (Government of South Australia 2007). First and foremost is to recognize that the role of OHSW legislation is to make sure that various managements in respective organizations and companies comply with the law of creating and ensuring health and safe working environment both for the employers and other users more especially the customers. Given the findings of the report by SafeWork SA, it is very clear that the management system within Harris Scarfe had failed to address the issue related to handling stock trolleys and often the employees and the shoppers were subjected to great risk of being injured. The OHS laws according to SafeWork SA Executive Director, Michele Patterson are there to protect both the workers and the general public from those incidents waiting to happen. The failure for the company management is attributed to the fact that it had ignored putting in controls to ensure that trolleys are not loaded until they obstruct the operator. Within, the premises, the retailer’s management had also failed in ensuring that there was smooth system for the trolleys to away from the public. Finally, Harris Scarfe had also failed to address the issues related to training and guidance on the loading and use of stock trolleys (Government of South Australia 2007). . 2. Legal roles and responsibilities of key people in this case study The case of Harris Scarfe is just one among several that have failed to fully company with OHS laws. The process of implementing the legal requirements of OHSW is complex and always requires that key stakeholders including the staff and the supervisors work as a team to ensure the legal obligations and responsibilities are not overlooked in their daily operations. The process starts with the employees who operate at different points of the organization by identifying those areas of operations that are risk to them and the customers and make appropriate reports accordingly to their supervisors. The incidence at Harris Scarfe is to a greater part has been accelerated by the failure of the workers to know exactly what is required of them when suing such stock trolleys. Following the reporting by the workers through their representatives, the employers are expected to listen and take appropriate precautionary measures as provided for in regulation 17 under Schedule. According to Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 2010, the employers are supposed to ensure health and safe working environment for all its employees plus any other person that may be affected either directly or indirectly from the company’s operations. In case the employer contravenes WorkSafe Law, then is handled as someone who has failed to comply with the legislation and subject to face criminal judges for engaging someone to work in unsafe conditions. On the other hand, the employee under the common law is expected to whatever required of him as it is to ensure compliance with state laws and regulations. Given the case of Harris Scarfe, it can therefore be cited that despite the continuous and persistent risk both the employee and the employer had failed to participating in managing risks by taking precautionary measures to reduce them (Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 2010). The consultative process in the case of Harris Scarfe could have played a major role in raising and addressing the identified risk. Consultations are of great significance in many organizations. The consultation arrangements are expected to include various stakeholders such as the OHS committees, the auditors, the supervisors, inspectors and surveyors. The purpose of having consultation committees is to ensure continuous review of different reports and findings from the operations inspections. During the consultation process, it’s expected that various OHS activities will be discussed and that the OHS committees and other OHS representatives will have time to work on the consultative arrangements and how their effectiveness can be ensured (Australian and New Zealand Standard 48:2001). During the consultative processes, employees’ contribution and feedback is likely to play a major role in informing the OHS committees’ steps. Perhaps this is what had lacked at Harris Scarfe and therefore even though employees had some concerns, there were no proper forums and sittings to address them. In many organizations where consultative arrangements occurs, employees are always encouraged to raise issues and give feedbacks to their managers, representatives and other committee members. Finally, the consultative committees further are expected to inform the employees through the company websites and forums on the recommended measures to improve on Health and Safety measures at workplace (Consultation Policy Statement 2009). 3. Key hazards from the case study, risk matrix and the hierarchy of control In any given business with the status of Harris Scarfe numerous risks that are both a threat to health and safety are very eminent. At Harris Scarfe, the identified risks include free fall of the workers from sliding in slippery floors, electrical shocks, fall from stairs, persistent use of computers in the shops, fire outbreaks, injuries from falling objects, crashing by stock trolleys and other heavy cargo in the business stores and premises. The workers are also exposed to unhygienic conditions like dust in the store rooms and other sections of the business. However, it’s notable that the degree that each of these hazards will occur vary accordingly. Further, the identified risks also vary in terms of its impact to the safety and health of the workers in the business (Government of South Australia 2007). According to the risk matrix, the risks associated with these hazards can be identified as low, high or medium in terms of their occurrence. The table is an illustration of how these can be classified in terms of their likelihood that they will happen and can have very negative impact on the workers and all those people that may be around. Risk/likelihood Low Medium High Slippery floors Electrical shocks Moving trolleys Falling from stairs Fire Computer effects Falling objects Exposure to dust Table 1: The risk matrix Given the analysis of various hazards as provided in the table above, it’s evident that many of the identified risks have high chances of happening. Perhaps this is because of the nature of operations in the retail stores that involve continuous movements of goods from one point to another. Hazards such as falling because of slippery floors, electrical shocks, moving trolleys, fall from stairs and injuries from falling objectives are among the common Hazards in the retail shop and the likelihood that they will happen is very high. On the other hand, the hazards such as fire and exposure to dust are medium even though it’s recognizable that their effect can be enormous to health and safety whenever they occur. The other recognizable hazard is the effects caused by long time use of computers. However, this is not so common hazard as preventive measures are readily available. However, most important after identifying the hazards that are likely to put the safety and health of the workers and the general public into jeopardy, it is the design of a strategy that can be used to eliminate or reduce significantly the likelihood of the hazard from happening. The table below shows in details the various strategies that can be employed by Harris Scarfe to manage various hazards from becoming risks to health and safety of the employees at workplace (SafeWork 2006). Hierarchy of control 1. Elimination Practicing good in-house cargo movement 2. Substitution Incase the method for elimination fails, use of another method is recommendable 3. Isolation Have the movement of goods done through different paths 4. Engineering Redesign the trolleys used for delivering goods 5. Administration Training employees and giving clear instructions with regard to using different trolleys to ensure safety 6. Personal protective Incase the problem cannot be eliminative protective measures can be used like placing warning notices to the users and the operators of the trolleys. This is to facilitate communication and thereby afford any risk Table 2: Hierarch of control of risks In the WorkSafe SA, it’s however, recommendable that hierarch control of risk be used as a key tool to designing various measures to manage various risks that are a threat to health and safety of the workforce in various organizations. The hierarch control tool is founded on the concept that, “eliminate if possible and if the risk cannot be completely eliminated then protective measures be used to reduce its effects.” Important to note with this hierarch control, is that lower level control is implemented where high level risk is permitted. At every stage where a risk measure has been taken someone must be in charge to ensure its effectiveness and in most instances it’s recommendable that supervisors and managers take charge of their respective areas (Cole 2010). 4. Recommend how organization could evaluate and monitor their OHS systems The current risk facing Harris Scarfe is major and the company cannot be able to forge ahead given the fact its responsible to respect and uphold the OHSW legislation. It’s therefore the responsibility of the management to come up with various ways to ensure that the retailer’s image in the market is not compromised because of its increased cases of accidents at workplaces. It’s therefore important to note that as the company seeks to implement various risk control measures, there is need to put in place a criteria to evaluate and monitor them to ensure their continuous improvement and effectiveness. The recommendable ways to evaluate and monitor risk control measures are through surveys and inspections. Regular surveys and inspections of the operations are important in identifying those areas that need more attention and that can compromise the effectiveness of the overall control measure (Cole 2010). Further, surveys and inspections are expected to provide good ground for reporting any new findings to the consultative committee for further action. The ultimate objective of carrying out surveys and inspections are likely to make key decisions with regard to renovations, innovations and training and instructing employees on how various policies should be applied. However, for key evaluation and monitoring procedures to take place, it’s expected that some tools be used. First and foremost is to ensure that enough financial resources are allocated for redesigning company internal operations and ensure proper training of employees for new challenges. The people that should be involved in the process include the employees, the supervisors, the managers and the OHS committee members (Toohey et al 2005). References Australian and New Zealand Standard 48:2001, ‘Occupational health and safety management systems-specifications with guidance for use’ Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney. Cole K 2010, Management Theory and Practice, Pearson/Prentice Hall, NSW. Consultation Policy Statement 2009, Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd, viewed 18th June 2012 from, http://www.safetyfirsths.info/images/uploads/news/Consultation_Policy_Statement_ %28Consultation_Draft%29.pdf. Government of South Australia 2007, Media Release-SafeWork SA, viewed 18th June 2012 from http://www.safework.sa.gov.au/uploaded_files/270907_harris_scarfe.pdf. Toohey J, Borthwick K and Archer R 2005, OHS in Australia-a management guide, Thomson, South Melbourne. Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Regulations 2010, under the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986, South Australia. SafeWork 2006, Workplace Health and Safety Handbook, Government of South Australia. Read More