A fatal accident has occurred last month in the regional security company, followed, which I have been recruited as a safety advisor. The company provides security guards for the range of buildings such as factories, shopping centres, offices and the building sites. Last month the guard at the building was found dead due to carbon monoxide poisoning. The report is the response to the concern showed by the chief executive. An investigation report into the accident is to be prepared to assess if the management could have done more to prevent or reduce the risk and to identify what has to be done to prevent such incidents in future.
The immediate cause of the accident is the carbon monoxide poisoning. It is the colourless and the odourless gas that is released by the generators, which are mainly used during the power outages. The precaution of the use of generator is to avoid fumes by keeping generator on in ventilated area. If the door is closed or there is no space for the fumes to escape. These fumes will accumulate in one place and kill a person. Death occurs by breathing exhaust that leads to loss of consciousness (Blässer et al. 2014). There are many evidences that supports the death of the guard named Tom Wooner.
Firstly, when the security guard James Collinson entered the building to take over Tom he found him locked inside the door that was labelled as “Keep the door opened when using the generator”.
The factory has no power as the operational complex of the factory was disused. Upon requesting the boss, Bill Hunt for generator one was provided along with the can of petrol. However it was not brand new and did not contain any warning or danger sign. It may be one of the reasons that Tom was not aware of keeping the door open. However, the reason for ignoring the safety sign on the door may be due to extreme cold climate for the last few nights.
Secondly, as per the statement given by James Collinson, there is no training provided to the guards in regards to the use of generators and the dangerous fumes. He also informed that they were responsible to contact the control room soon after the start and end of the shift time. However, this was really not practiced by the guard. If only this was practiced stringently, the control room would have sensed a problem upon not receiving any call from Tom after the end shift time. This indicates violation of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.
Thirdly, according to James there is also no risk assessment process in the factory site or for the jobs. This was contradictory from the witness given by Lucy Brown who mentioned about risk assessment being conducted few years ago for the security guards. No changes were made after the last risk assessment. She also claims that on James’s request she has purchased two branded generators, which is contradictory to the James statement of the generators being not branded. It violates the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which requires safe maintenance of work environment, handling and storage of dangerous materials, training of staff and welfare provision (Holt and Allen 2015).
Fourthly, Lucy confessed that she has thrown away the instructions with the packaging. It may be the cause that James felt that these generators were not branded. It could not detect any warning sign. This was the reason that Tom was not aware of the consequences of closing the door while using the generator. However, Lucy informs that she remembers that the generator contained waring on it to use in well-ventilated area. However, she did not fulfil her responsibility of safety management to the security guards. This indicates violation of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 which requires safety assessment and management of the employees and the work activities (Reese 2015).
Fifthly, Bill Hunt the area manager agreed that it was anticipated that the security guards would know of the risks associated with the generator. Due to this anticipation, they did not conduct the risk assent of the generator, which was a major drawback. It is indicative of “Gross Negligence Manslaughter” which means neglecting the duty of care grossly (Vaughan 2016).
Sixthly, James seems to violate the instructions mentioned by Bill. Instead of keeping the generator outside the building, James has placed inside the building and hence the fumes were not dispersed. According to director Fred Stephens, Bill was responsible for inspection of the area but in vain. Bill rarely visited the sites. He violated the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Holt and Allen 2015).
The underlying causes can be summarised as- lack of effective communication between the managers and the security guards, irresponsibility from the office manager and the area manger, throwing of warning signs, lack of risk assessment, lack of effective training and instructions to the guards, lack of involvement from the control room, reluctance of Tom to ignore the safety signs. These activities were indicating violation of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (Holt and Allen 2015).
The immediate recommendations to prevent the recurrence of the incident are (Van Vilsteren et al. 2015)-
The long-term management actions include
Training of the employees- includes education and demonstration of safe work practices
The employees will be taught about the following-
Risk assessment strategies- There should be a regular assessment of the generator and other possible risks associated with the workplace of the security guards. It includes identification of risks and the development of response plans.
Ensure strict adherence to polices- Enforcement of safe work policies and practices. Enforcement through continuous training and reminders and through discipline.
Firstly, stringent policies should be developed by the the organisation in order to ensure that all the safety measures are taken by the employees and it ensures health and safety. In order for the staff to adhere to the policies, the area manger and the officer manger together with workers should be involved in auditing process. It involves inspection of the role of each member. For instance-
In case, the employees or any of the managers are found to neglect the policies or protocol in anticipation of positive implications or any assumption that particularly task may be avoided, a disciplinary action should be taken against that employee.
Action plan
Actions |
|
Timescale |
Outcome |
Evaluation |
Immediate actions |
1.Proper placement of generator |
1 day |
Placing in correct location based on manufacturer’s instructions will prevent future hazard |
|
2.Display of safety and warning signs |
1 day |
Will help the employees to read and be alert |
Weekly monitoring of safety signs and take action if not placed correctly. |
|
3.Install of the carbon monoxide detectors |
1 day |
It will detect the fumes and trigger alarm to cause immediate rescue |
Weekly evaluation of the functioning of the detectors. |
|
4. Buildings to be equipped with exhaust outlets, and cockpit areas |
1 week |
It will help in disperse of the carbon monoxide fumes in case the doors of the generator room is closed |
|
|
Long term actions |
1.Regularly Training of employees |
1 month |
It will protect the health and safety of the employee by giving them knowledge |
Conduct surveys to know if the employees are aware of the company regulations |
2. Development of Risk assessment strategies- · Identify the hazards · Decide who might be harmed · Evaluate the risks · Record your findings · Review of assessment |
Regular basis (weekly) |
Prevent proposed risks |
|
|
3. Formulating and circulating policies |
3 weeks |
When each member adheres to policies the probability of risk occurrence is decreased |
Regular inspection after every three months to identify the breach of the company policies. Inspect if the company is complying with – · Health and Safety at Work ACT, 1974 · Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999 |
Accident at workplace and legal consequences are inevitable. The company must report the accident and the death of the employee to the health and safety executive at the local area. The company must indulge in detailed impartial investigation of the death and identify the need of facilities to prevent such incident in future. All the recordings of the accidents should be detailed in the journal or accident book. It will prevent accidents in future. The company must pay compensation to the employee’s family as the area manager and office manger are at fault. The company can provide compensation if it is insured. The company is liable to provide certificate of the insurance company to cover a successful claim. The company must revise the law needs of the business through legal evaluation (Brunekreeft et al., 2016).
Other than the regulations set by the company the staff, members have their individual duties to be fulfilled as per Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (section 7). As per this Act, the employees must look after themselves and others while at work. It is the duty of the employees as per “Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999” to report failures in any health and safety measures. As per this act the employee must confirm to the health and safety instructions (Reese 2015).
Duties of the security guards- They must be aware of their own rights as an employee and control their health and safety as well as their fellow members. Regular sharing of the work related concerns to the control room or the union leader adhere to company standards and regulations. They must regularly report the hazards, which cannot be controlled personally. The security guards must strictly adhere to the company policies and comply with the measures. The management must establish criminal code obligations so that the employees meet their legal obligations.
Duties of the office manger-
Duties of the area manager- Responsible for the health and safety in the area and support the company policies.
Duty of local Health and Safety executive- to introduce new laws after the accidents and required disciplinary actions that can be taken by the company (Brunekreeft et al. 2016).
The company has mentioned its vision to establish safe and healthy work environment for all its employees. To fulfil this obligation, the organisation is aware of its duties such as providing necessary organisation’s equipment and training. As per the company’s policy, the employees are also responsible for their own health and safety.
The company has partially complied with the legal obligations. For instance, the company has set all the rules and regulations required to safeguard the employees. There was no monitoring of adherence to these regulations by the directors of the organisation. There were no risk assessment strategies been developed or conducted regularly by the office manger although it was mentioned in the protocol. Similarly, the area manger did not conduct regular site inspection although it was his responsibility. The safety policies are signed by the staff on recruitment but were not adhered. It can be considered an offence under Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. It indicates gross violation of the duty of care by the senior management of the company (Field and Jones 2015). On the other hand, the noncompliance of the policies by the staff was also the main reason for the accidents to occur. For instance, the security guard ignored the warning sign displayed on the door. After the accident has occurred, the company has not generated any report. The company must balance the human consequences of an accident with the legal consequences.
The office manger and the area manger have exhibited criminal negligence by anticipating things that are necessary and not necessary to do. It can be considered that the company has violated the Occupational Safety and Health laws wilfully. The maximum penalty a company has to pay for the wilful violation of the OSHA laws misdemeanour. It may lead to criminal prosecution. Gross negligence is an indictable offence. It may lead to life imprisonment has maximum sentence. These accidents may also attract strict regulatory charges, which, may vary from province to province (Bal et al., 2015). In the given case study, the officer manger and the area manager can be prosecuted for their gross negligence. This negligence has lead to bodily harm and death of the security guard. Therefore, an individual can be prosecuted on this ground and for the failure to discharge the legal duty to prevent harm to the employee. The standard of care that was reasonably expected from the senior officer and the manager were not met.
These prosecutions are rare and occur under gross negligence. If prosecution occurs then it can be safely assumed that the company may be along the side of the employees in the dock for lack of supervision. In this case, the security guard too was at fault for ignoring the warning sign displayed on doors, therefore, it was a gross intelligence on the end of the guard himself. In this case, it would be unusual for the employee to be prosecuted for breach of legislations.
After prosecution, the employee may term jobless and restitution. The prosecutions have devastating effect on the company. The company may also lose it reputation. Such actions can raise questions on management judgment and integrity if not correctly implemented. The employee may be prosecuted to either serve state prison and forceful fine of $50,000. Since, this episodes involve public entities and their trust is sensitive, it is not effective solution to sweep employees fault under the rug. It may have adverse consequences on the company. The prosecution of on employee will act as a lesson for other employee to maintain discipline. The other employees will thus fulfil their responsibilities positively and help others to adhere to company policies. It will thus create a strong image of the company in the employee’s mind and thus he or she may avoid gross negligence. The prosecution will help the organisation to come up with more OSHA plans. The prosecution will help the company to develop policies that are as stringent as the federal level laws (Abrams 2015).
The role of HSE is to investigate and prosecute the breaches of the health and safety law. The enforcement policy statements focuses on the serious nature of death while on job and within the health and safety remit. HSE may not involve in all the manslaughter/homicide investigations. While investigating the death of an employee at workspace, HSE will help the police and the CPS in evidence of breach using the legitimate powers (O’Brien 2015).
The likely outcome of HSE or the policy investigation is reduced costs, reduced risks, decreased threat of lawsuits, increase in productivity, improve of reputation of the company and the corporate responsibility among the customers and communities. There will be fewer employee being absent from work and turnover rate. It reduces the investigation time and resources of interviews. In case a decision is taken by the CPS, then prosecution is invalid despite the gross negligence manslaughter (Calvert 2017).
Conclusion
Fatal accident are inevitable in workplace without appropriate preventive measure and the implementation of stringent policies and practices. In addition to formulating policies, the company must provide training of employees involving the education and demonstration of safe work practices. There should be a regular assessment of the generator and other possible risks associated with the workplace of the security guards. It includes identification of risks and the development of response plans. Regular inspections must be conducted to ensure adherence to the policies (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999).
References
Abrams, A.L., 2015, January. OSHA’s General Duty Clause: A Guide to Enforcement and Legal Defenses. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers.
Bal, P.M., Kooij, D.T. and Rousseau, D.M. eds., 2015. Aging workers and the employee-employer relationship (pp. 129-144). Amsterdam: Springer.
Blässer, K., Tatschner, T. and Bohnert, M., 2014. Suicidal carbon monoxide poisoning using a gas-powered generator. Forensic science international, 236, pp.e19-e21.
Brunekreeft, G., Buchmann, M., Hattori, T. and Meyer, R., 2016. Evaluation of strategy of power generation business under large-scale integration of renewable energy (No. 23). Bremen Energy Working Papers.
Calvert, N., 2017. Policy for Investigation of Legionella infection.
Field, S. and Jones, L., 2015. Is the net of corporate criminal liability under the Corporate Homicide and Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 expanding?. Business Law Review, 36(6), pp.216-219.
Holt, A.S.J. and Allen, J., 2015. Principles of health and safety at work. Routledge.
O’Brien, T., 2015. Listening, responding, improving. HSE response to Office of the Ombudsman Investigation Report Learning to get better. How public Hospitals handle complaints [presentation].
Reese, C.D., 2015. Occupational health and safety management: a practical approach. CRC press.
Van Vilsteren, M., van Oostrom, S.H., de Vet, H.C., Franche, R.L., Boot, C.R. and Anema, J.R., 2015. Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave. The Cochrane Library.
Vaughan, J., 2016. Gross negligence manslaughter and the healthcare professional. The Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 98(2), pp.60-62.
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 formOnce 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 assignmentAs 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