Safety at work place and especially on construction sites is a key parameter. Different parties at the construction site have different responsibilities on the safety and each party is usually expected to abide to their roles. OHS Act 2004 is able to define the different roles of the different parties on construction in relation to enhancing the safety measures. These definitions are able to help in accountability for the stakeholders in enhancing the safety on site. Moreover, each section of the construction activity has its own laws which are able to relate to the specific tasks being performed. Each stakeholder is expected to play their part to ensure that the employees and workers on site are safe. On time of incidents and accidents, the different parties are held accountable if they did not meet the specific requirements of safety measures according to the laws. With the consideration of the responsibilities and laws, the different entities can be persecuted according to the law. This ensures that the OHS rules are followed to the later and safety on site is adhered to. The most important aspect of these laws is enhancing the safety measures of the workers. This paper will analyse the case study of safety hazards, which involved several employees when on duty. It will analyse the different OHS laws, which were not adhered to, and the different entities who were responsible for maintaining their safety.
1. One of the key entity who had a great responsibility in controlling the situation is the
Van der Meer Bonser. As part of the contracted consultant to the project, the entity had the responsibility of advising the Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd (CC) on the safety measures of the work on site. First, it had to be noted that Van der Meet Bonser did not carry the required survey and analysis of the situation to ensure the levels of excavations. This had could help by offering their consultation on the situation and offer any key information regarding the site and level of excavations. Moreover, Van Dee Meet Bonser had the key responsibility of advising on the available amenities which could be found on site through their survey. This survey could have been able to find the available sewerage pipes and advice on the handling of the excavation and therefore able to avoid the damage and leakage which promoted the situation.
In addition, as part of the team on site, Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd (CC) had the responsibility of controlling the site. Site CC had their engineer on site; they could advice on the situation on the ground and when to stop the excavation works. According to the laws, the people on the ground will be able to understand the soil conditions and therefore be able to advice accordingly on what next. Six the sewage damage on the site pipes were able to worsen the conditions, the CC had the responsibility to enhance the control of the incident. Through their site engineer Taylor, CC should have known about the site situation and the wall situation. Through this analysis, the engineer would have instructed the stoppage of the excavation activity due to the site condition. In addition, through the site manager, CC had the ability to ensure that the collapse of the wall did not happen. According to the OHS 2004 laws, the site manager could have analysed the safety measure of the wall and offered the relevant recommendations on the action to be taken.
2. One of the key entity which I would held responsible and prosecute on this situation is the Van der Meer Bonser. I would persecute them under section 27 to 31 and under section 32. Failing to carry the relevant survey of the ground conditions was the major reason which led to the failing of the walk stability. The soil conditions are prone to changes and therefore the reliance on the past survey was not a wise idea for Van der Meer Bonser to use. As the consultant, Van der Meer Bonser had the greatest responsibility of controlling the accident according to sections 27 to 31 of the OHS Act. They had the power of ordering the stoppage of excavations and also offering the levels which were appropriate for excavation. The failure to carry out the survey would have led to the collapse of the walk and therefore I can use this argument to be able to prosecute them. In this case, I could also use the section 32 to persecute Van der Meer Bonser with negligence on the dangers which may arise on site.
In addition, the second entity whom I could prosecute in this case is the CC which I would do under section 21 for failing to provide health security on site. As the main parties carrying out the works, they had the better understanding of the site and they could be able to advice on the unsafe working environment. I would prosecute CC with ignorance of the dangers, which are available on site and continuing to work unsafely. As the employer, according to section 21, CC had the responsibility of ensuring that the workers were safe. In addition, I could be able to prosecute them with hiring of unqualified personnel to be in charge of the works. Since Taylor, their site engineer did not the experience on the type of works he was in charge of, he could not recommend on the situation. This helps them to carry the blame on the situation which led to the accident. In addition, I would use the section 21(2) to prosecute CC as well for failing to analyse the situation.
The CC site manager for the CC is another entity whom I will prosecute in this case under section 26 of OHS Act duties. As the overall overseer of the site, the manager had to be aware of the situation on site and be able to advice on the relevant actions. He could have been able to analyse the situation well before recommending on the further excavation works which were carried out. Moreover, the site manager had the responsibility to visiting the works and being aware of the challenges and conditions of the site since proper survey had not been carried out. On failing to advice accordingly, he was unable to honour the OHS code of conduct for the professional and therefore liable to prosecution.
3.
Section 21 offers that the employer has the key responsibility of ensuring that the workers are on a safer working condition. This meant that CC had the responsibility of analysing the situation since they were being in charge of the site. They had the responsibility through their site engineer to analyse the condition of the work and advice on the relevant action which needed to be taken to ensure safer working environment. Therefore, CC has to be held accountable on the accident since they did not take it seriously in controlling the situation and therefore sending the people to work on unhealthy condition. In addition, the section 21 (2) states that the employer must maintain a safer working environment for the employees which CC did not do.
As the site manager and in accordance with the section 26 would be able to hold CC’s site manager accountable for this accident. He had the main responsibility to maintaining the safety of the site and ensuring that each employee working on site is on the safe area. With proper analysis, the site manager would have recommended the stoppage of the excavation works due to unsafe working condition for the employees on site.
For the case of Van der Meer Bonser, as the consultant and designer, they had the responsibility of caring for the employees who will be send on site. They seemed not to care when they chose to fail to carry any survey on the site. This meant that they were able to come up with great assumptions on the ground condition. This means that they can be also be persecuted through the section 32 of recklessly endangering the people on work. Their ignorance is key on this case of the dangers on site.
1. Consolidated Constructions (CC) as the main supervisor of the works had the main activity of ensuring that the manpower provided was able to understand the working conditions and works being carried out. First, the recruitment of an engineer who had the relevant experience on this field would be the first thing which CC would do. Since their site engineer, Taylor did not have the relevant experience on the situation, he was unable to advice accordingly on the situation and dangers involved. The Victorian OHS Act 2004 on section under section 144 states that the manger has the responsibility of ensuring that the working environment are safe for the employees. Without the understanding of the dangers, one would be unable to recommend which activity are safer or not. In addition, CC would have done a visual inspection of the site through their site manger before recommending on the further excavation of the site. According to the construction laws, one is required to be able to carry the safer acts which they are sure according to their knowledge site the site conditions are prone to changes. The site manager just relied on the information from Van der Meer Bonser and not the site conditions which was being experienced on the moment of the works. Moreover, the CC would not have done any work on the site without the analysis of the amenities which were underground. They could have gone to the records to find whether any amenities were present the way the sewage pipes were found. This could have prevented the damage of the pipes which led to the loosening of the soil and leading to the failure of the wall. This was a key step which CC failed to follow and which the construction rules are able to permit to ensure that the preservation of other propertied is done.
2. First, the visual analysis of the site would be a key necessary step which could have been used to prevent the accident on site. The look on the soil at the site would be key in ensuring that the excavation is carried in accordance with the soil stability. This means that the site manager and engineer had the responsibility of looking on the situation and behaviour is the soil at each moment and therefore ensuring that the working condition is safe. In addition, trial pits would have been a key necessary exercise which the CC and other parties would have engaged to ensure that they are aware of the soil conditions. The analysis of the situation would have been made sure that the parties are clear on the soil stability and the level, which the excavation can be carried out. This would be able to analyse the situation at the beginning and even help to determine the type of equipment, which will be used to maintain the required stability of the walls.
In addition, use of qualified personnel who have the relevant experience would be a key step in ensuring that such accidents do not happen on the latter date. The failure of the site engineer to recognize the available danger on the activity can be blamed for the accident on this situation. The engineer did not recognize the effect of the sewage on loosening the soil and therefore went on with further excavation and therefore leading to the accident. Moreover, another key step, which could be used to ensure that such accidents are prevented, is to ensure that the site survey is carried out properly. The soil conditions are prone to changes and the reliance on the past survey is not enough to state the condition of the site. Therefore with proper analysis, the situation would have been prevented and ensure that the working condition and levels are maintained. Lastly, the use of the previous development plans which has been done on the area would be key to ensure that the amenities on the site are protected. The damage on the sewage popes on the site would have been prevented if the excavation team had the knowledge on the pipes o the site. This would have prevented the loosening of the soils and therefor able to prevent the danger to some extent.
3. The van der Meer Bonser Pty Ltd has the responsibility of carrying out the proper survey of the site. This would ensure that as the consultant on the project, they are able to advice on the relevant action and levels which the excavation can be carried out at each moment. The survey would be able to enhance the working condition by controlling the excavation levels at each moment on site. The party also would be able to enhance the relevant knowledge on the amenities which are on site and therefore able to advice the different parties working on site. Through the survey, the van der Meer Bonser Pty Ltd would be able to know the amenities wand development records, which have been carried out on site, and ensuring that the excavation is done at a careful procedure.
CC had the responsibility of ensuring that they have the proper personnel in charge of the works and the equipment used on the site. Through their analysis, they are required to employ the best equipped person who understand the works on site and able to control the key activities and the dangers which are involved. The CC did not get the person who could control the situation and therefore led to the accident. The accident could have been controlled since the engineer had the powers to control the excavation team. Moreover, it is clear that CC had the power to get the best machine which would not be able to affect the stability of the wall during the excavation works. This is a key area which CC did not consider well during this exercise and therefore led to the accident.
In addition, Develco Project would have instructed the different parties on the different activities which they are supposed to undertake and ensure that they meet the standards of their works. All these parties were on contract and therefore had a level which activities they were supposed to carry out. For instance Van der Meer Bonser had to carry out the survey and Develco could have instructed them to undertake such responsibilities as part of the developer.
Conclusion
Different parties have different responsibilities in ensuring that the safety at the sites is achieved. According to OHS Act 2004, the parties can be held reliable to failing to undertake their responsibilities under the different sections. On this case, Van der Meer Bonser, Consolidated Constructions Pty Ltd (CC) and CC site manager were able to violate different rules on this act and therefore they can be held accountable and be persecuted. These sections are able to enhance the safety of the workers and enhancing the construction activities at different sections and activities.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download