Health and Safety at Workplace - Article Example

1 – Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 outlines the general duties employers have towards their employees, employers have to the general public, and the duties of employees towards each other. In a sense, these duties are categorized into absolute duties and duties that are reasonably practicable. Absolute duties and practices are practicable in the sense that the duty holder must do everything within his power, regardless of the time and money constraints, to perform the duty and abide with the outlined responsibility (HSE, 2009). Reasonably practicable on the other hand is a lesser standard than practicable duties as outlined in section 7A of HSWA 1974. According to the Court of Appeal in Edwards v. National Coal Board in its definition of reasonably practicable, duty holders must balance the risks involved against the sacrifice that must be taken to avert the risks. In other words, reasonably practicable duties are those duties where the risks involved in a particular job or in the workplace are to be weighed against the cost, time, and trouble required in taking measure against the risk. If a gross disproportion exist between the risk and the sacrifice, with the risk being insignificant to the sacrifice involved, the duty holder can not be held criminally liable. 2 – In workplace health and safety, the terms Regulations, Guidance, and Approved Codes of Practice have different meanings and functions. Regulations identify workplace-related risks and outlines specific measures that must be taken to avoid accidents in the workplace. What these regulations set out is considered absolute in the sense that all employers and employees must follow these regulations whether they are reasonably practicable or not. An example of a workplace regulation is employees in construction sites must wear protective hats at all times. Guidance on the other hand aims to interpret certain provisions required in HSWA vis-à-vis the other legal requirements on workplace safety. Guidance can be very generic pertaining to the processes involved in various industries or can be very specific in outlining the processes involved in a particular industry, as long as it helps stakeholders comply with the given law or requirement. Unlike regulations, guidance is not compulsory. Stakeholders can take alternative course of actions not offered in the guidance. Approved Code of Practices in the context of workplace health and safety offers practical advice on how specific HSWA regulations must be carried out by stakeholders in order to comply with the law. It clears terms and provides illustrations on how these terms can be carried out. For example, Approved Code of Practice can provide a guide to stakeholders which practices are reasonably applicable. 3 – The following are the factors that need consideration in carrying out a risk assessment as required by Article 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999: (for employers) (a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking. For self-employed, (a) the risks to his own health and safety which he is exposed while he is at work; and (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions (Crown Copyright, 1999). 4 – Certain articles and substances need to be transported from one location to the other. In various situations, these articles and substances pose danger to the health of the individuals performing the task as well as to the people present in the immediate environment of the article or substance. Section 2 sub-section 2 of the HSWA 1974 gives protection to the handlers of hazardous articles and substances as well as to the people in the immediate presence of these articles and substances by requiring employees to take full responsibility in the use, handling, transport, and storage of these articles or substances. This means that employers must protect the safety of their employees at all cost when dealing with hazardous articles and substances by (a) making sure that these hazardous elements are well contained and are in controlled conditions, (b) the employees handling these articles and substances wear protective suits. Whenever applicable, employees need to provide comprehensive insurance coverage for the employees handling these articles and substances to ensure that they are comprehensively protected. 5 – As per Article 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the factory manager must assess the new work process on two grounds: (a) whether the new process is risk-free to the factory employees exposed to the work and (b) whether the new process will not pose any individuals not directly connected to the work in progress required by the new process to risks and dangers. The suitability and the sufficiency of the criteria required in implementing the risk assessment will be based on the provisions required from Article 4 to Article 30 of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 whenever applicable to the industry where the factory belongs. This means that the suitability and the sufficiency of the criteria will be judged on whether it is able to address the requirements outlined by the rest of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The manager, in behalf of his employer, should review the risk assessment at a later date whenever (a) the employer (or the manager) suspects that the risk assessment is no longer valid or no longer applicable under normal circumstances and (b) if there are subsequent changes in the processes by which the risk assessment relates where a review of the assessment requires changes to be implemented. 6 – The management or indirect cause of the Piper Alpha disaster can be categorized into (a) the failure of the management to upgrade the safety features of the oil platform after changes were made in its operations, (b) the management’s inability to provide identifiable chain of command in emergency situations, and (c) the absence of safety protocols and endorsement of activities in the platform. When the platform was changed from producing petroleum oils to producing petroleum gas, the fire-safety features of its walls were not upgraded or changed to include blast walls. Blast walls are necessary protection from fire when blasts occur. Because of the absence of the identification of the chain of command, the employees got disoriented as to what to do when the initial blast killed the on-site managers and supervisors. Lastly, the blast would not have occurred had there been a proper endorsement of activities as defined by the management. The engineering failure that resulted to the Piper Alpha disaster started when the shift engineer failed to inform the incoming engineer of the maintenance done in one of the gas valves as well as the failure to inform the records custodian of the documented activity. In addition to that, there is also no visual indication that repair and maintenance have been performed in certain sections. The engineering department also had no slots for repair and maintenance records because all files are recorded according to locations and not on the nature of the activities performed. The absence of these elements resulted in the disastrous event. The absence of chain of command as well as the lack of initiative is the elements responsible for errors in the operator’s level. When there is a visual confirmation that the Piper is on fire, the operators did not shut down the lines that fuels the fire to Piper because there were no order given. 7 – The responsibilities of the designers as outlined in the CDM 2007 can be categorized into the following: (a) designers are required to inform the clients of their duties; (b) designers are required to take steps to avoid risks to the health and safety of any person involved in all phases of the project from construction to demolition of the project; (c) identify and eliminate hazards which may put people and the environment at risk; and (d) Ensure that any structure designed for use as a workplace has been designed so as to comply with the provisions of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. 8 – Under CDM 2007, designers are identified as the people involved in the design phase of the project, particularly if they have some influence on how the projects are designed. From this definition, Fire Engineers can be classified as designers. Fire Engineers determine whether the design submitted for fire safety review are sufficient and ensure the protection of the individuals occupying the building or the infrastructure. In the event that Fire Engineers deem that the design submitted does not conform to the fire safety standards, they can impose a rework on the design or can implement major changes in the design until they are satisfied that the building and its inhabitants are free from the risks of fire. Because of their power to implement change or impose new designs based on the established standards, they actually influence the design of the projects. Hence, they can be classified as designers as per CDM 2007. References Edwards v. National Coal Board, [1949] 1 All ER 743 Health and Safety Executive. (2009). Proving the Offence: Rules of Evidence. Enforcement Guide. Retrieved online http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/rules/prove.htm on August 31, 2009 Crown Copyright. (1999). The Management of Health and Safety Work Regulations 1999. Retrieved online http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19993242.htm#3 on August 31, 2009 Read More