Module Handouts For Consumer Protection Law

An Overview of the legal issues arising

Discuss about the Module Handouts for Consumer Protection Law.

Industrial safety, considered under occupational safety and health, is the management of all activities and occurrences within an industry utilised to protect employees as well as other assets (Safeopedia, 2017). Industrial safety measures risks and potential accidents are minimised through the compliance of relevant laws and regulations. Accidents are undesired, unintended, identifiable and separate events or incidents that are likely to cause physical injury, in this case to employees or people at the workplace (Sharman, 2016).  The Royal Decree 71/91 recognises an industrial injury aa an accident arising during the course of one’s work or caused as a result of this work (1991). In Federal Supreme Court Case No 52/20 of 2009, the court held an employer responsible for the safety of the employee by providing equipment. This duty extends even to where employees opt not to wear the equipment as was the situation in this case; the employees in question failed to return their protective gear and the deceased in question had failed to follow stipulated instructions to correctly install scaffolding. The court still held the employer liable (Grose, 2016, p. 61). Cases such as these and many others illustrate the significance of industrial safety and the gravity of the duty placed on employers to ensure their employees work in a safe environment.

The concept of industrial safety is important as it ensures human life is protected especially in industries that are considered ‘high-risk’ for example the mining industry, chemical industries among others (Moraru, et al., 2014). The maintenance of safe and healthy work environments is critical to employee relations but most importantly a legal requirement to be adhered to. Regardless of whether an employee is a seasoned veteran or an entry level worker, it is important for the company to ensure they understand the potential risks to their health and safety while at the work place. This ensures they are well equipped with knowledge to mitigate any arising issues (Moraru, et al., 2014). Additionally, as a legal requirement, it is important for organisations to have safety measures in place so as to avoid future litigation or penalties for non-compliance. Industrial safety is of advantage to employees as they are able to find recourse should they suffer an accident at work.

In a workplace safety case, the first issue to consider is the relationship between the injured person and the organisation in question; that is whether they are an employee or not.  Additionally, the industry in itself will determine whether any safety equipment was to be provided and if so whether it was in fact provided. Another possible legal issue would be to consider causation as this determines ‘blame’; that is identifying the cause of the accident or the circumstances leading to the accident so as to determine liability. With regard to liability there are various other issues to consider, firstly did the injured employee’s actions or omissions contribute in any way to his injury, or did the actions or omissions of another employee cause the injury. It is also important to determine the liability of the company where the injury has been caused by another one of its employees. The occurrence of most accidents has been credited to weak control systems within an organisation; for example where a worker falls off a ladder at work as it slips from under him. An investigation unearths that the one of the rubber feet on the ladder is missing, this goes to show the ladder was not properly maintained; a weakness in the control system led to an personal injury. The majority of workplace accidents have been noted to arise from or involve mechanised equipment (Franck & Franck, 2013, p. 229).

The law governing occupational health and safety in Oman

As a worker at Al Maya Packaging Plant, Yusuf was entitled to certain security measures from his employer as required by law. However technical difficulties led him to suffer injuries as he tried to fix a jam in the machine.  The incident has had lasting effects on Yusuf and his career as he lives in occasional pain, has lost his fingertips and also cannot carry out the chores he previously did at work. In the case of Yusuf the legal issues arising are; firstly whether the company followed the legal provisions under Oman Labour Law with regard to industrial safety. Secondly, whether Yusuf, as an employee, was provided the right equipment as well as instructions prior to beginning the assigned task. Additionally, the liability of Al Maya Packaging plant for Yusuf’s injury and if they are liable to compensate him in any way is in question. The liability of the employee who turned on the machine is also in question and whether Yusuf himself carries any liability by placing his hand in the machine; this will serve to determine whether the workers failed to follow instructions and wear the appropriate equipment.

In Oman, the laws regulating occupational health and safety are contained in the Royal Decree 35/2003 promulgating the Oman Labour Law; and the Ministerial Decision 286/2008 – the Regulation of Occupational Safety and Health for the Establishments. However the general laws governing Oman’s occupational safety are similar to those applied around the world in other jurisdictions. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM), is the authority tasked with the mandate of looking over health and safety matters in the country and ensuring companies adhere to the regulations. Its powers include the authority to; investigate breach in duty and regulations; fine any organizations found in breach of the existing laws; where the breach is great the Ministry may take measures to foresee its closure, fully or partially, require that nay equipment suspected to contribute to health and safety risks is suspended until compliance is met and refer any violations of law discovered in the investigation process to the Royal Oman Police for action. By virtue that Yusuf was a worker at Al Maya packaging plant, it is clear that the company has a duty of care bestowed on it by law to ensure his safety on its premises at all times. This duty involves ensuring he is provided with adequate safety equipment and having regulations in place, set at a conspicuous area, to ensure all workers are aware on how to ensure they are safe while they go about their duties. The plant also has a duty to provide necessary training that may be detrimental to employee safety; that includes teaching them how to operate the machinery and ensuring they are aware of the risks involved and how to mitigate them. The following discussion will outline the provisions of law that cater to these issues and the liability of all the parties involved.

Issue: Justification that Al Maya plant did not follow the legal provisions outlined in Oman Labour Law with regard to industrial safety; it failed to provide safety equipment and proper instructions.

Issue: Justification that Al Maya plant did not follow the legal provisions outlined in Oman Labour Law with regard to industrial safety; it failed to provide safety equipment and proper instructions.

The Royal Decree 35/2003 provides for the duty of an employer under article 87 to ensure all employees are aware of the possible hazards accompanying their occupation and the protective measures available to them (MOM, 2003, p. 31). This duty includes the duty to ensure the machines and equipment provided are maintained and in the best condition. However, the duty to provide instructions and safety equipment does not displace the employers’ liability or responsibility should the employee fail to comply with these instructions and suffer an injury in the process. This was the holding of the court in the Federal Supreme Court Case No 52/20 where the failure of employees to follow instructions had led to the death of one of them, the court held that the employer was still liable as the provisions of the labour law were mandatory (Grose, 2016, p. 61).

Article 18, Chapter 3 of the Ministerial decree 286/2008 also places the duty to ensure workplace safety on the employer by providing any necessary personal protective equipment. Prior to employment employers are tasked with ensuring that all workers are aware of any potential hazards as well as all protective measures they should undertake to ensure their safety (Oman, 2013). The contract of work on the other hand bestows a reasonable duty of care an diligence on employees to ensure they maintain and care for any work instruments or means of production placed at their disposal. Additionally, they are to abide by all and any safety and health regulations prescribed by law or by their employer.

Yusuf has been identified as a full time worker, this is on the merit that he is said to usually arrive at work at eight in the morning, additionally the mention of a lunch break signals that he spends most of the day at the plant and as such is a full-time employee of Al Maya packaging plant. This relationship bestows certain obligations on Al Maya as the law described above requires that the company avail Yusuf with proper equipment and brief him on security measures to undertake at the workplace. Additionally, the case study mentions that on the day of the accident, Yusuf was placed on a new packaging line; it is the duty of the plant to ensure that Yusuf was provided the necessary support by way of equipment and instructions to safely undertake this new task.

The law also provides that employers routinely check and maintain equipment as per the regulations provided by the Ministry and any other measures they deem fit so as to ensure they fulfil their duty of care to their employees. In this case, Al Maya is tasked with ensuring its packaging equipment is properly monitored and maintained; where machinery is problematic the duty of care would expect that a reasonable employer does not allow, or at least makes it known, to the employers on the unsafety of using it an endeavours to have it fixed as soon as possible. If the jam of the machine in this scenario has been a common occurrence, Al Maya is liable by virtue that they did not undertake the necessary measures to use it on time as well as to inform employees that it was faulty and possibly put it out of bounds, This illuminates a weakness in the company’s control system for which it can be held liable as employee safety is compromised.

As previously mentioned, the provisions of safety law in Oman are not so much different as the practices employed the world over. In principle, as per article 176 of the Oman Civil Code, any harm caused to another renders the doer liable and as such they are tasked with making good the harm (Oman, 2013). Additionally, a person is considered vicariously liable for any actions causing harm to another by those persons under their supervision or control acting in their ordinary course of business under a master and servant relationship (Grose, 2016, p. 116). As held in the Dubai Cassation Nos 130/2003, an employer is vicariously liable for harm caused by his employees during the employment relationship regardless of the absence of actual control at the time the harm was committed.

The principle of vicarious liability mentioned above places the liability of employees on employers if it occurs in the ordinary cause of business. As such, the actions of the employee who turned on the machine place the liability on the packaging plant as he was working as an employee and not on his own volition. He simply turned on the machine to continue his work as he should, However, if there are procedures in place that an employee should undertake that would have prevented the accident and the employee was aware but chose not to follow them then the employee will be held liable as he also has a duty to ensure the safety and care of himself, his co-workers and the equipment in the exercise of his duties. Furthermore, the law highlighted above provides that, regardless of whether the employees follow instructions or not, the employer is still liable to a certain extent and as such Al Maya packaging plant holds some liability over Yusuf’s injury.

Once liability is found based on the above mentioned laws and precedents, the Sultan’s Decree No 40 of 1977 on Issuing the Compensation for Work Injuries and Professional Diseases comes into play. This decree provides that employees be compensated for any injury or disease suffered because of their work. Article 2 of this decree provides that employers undertake to insure themselves as well as their employees from any possible injuries or other circumstances described under the law. Additionally, Article 32 of the Act requires that should the injury leave the employee permanently disabled then the employee or his dependants should be compensated up to 36times his basic salary. Additionally, the Royal Decree No 71/91, provides for compensation for insured employees in the event of death or disability arising from a work place injury. This decree purposefully covers insurance against industrial injuries and diseases. Articles 20 and 21 of the decree task both employees and their employers with contributing a certain amount to their insurance scheme payable upon either termination of employment or retirement with interest. This insurance covers death or disability at work. According to Art 22, if the male insured worker’s services are terminated due to an industrial injury or death then the insurance should be paid to them or their beneficiaries subject to the contributions made.

In Yusuf’s case, the injury caused him to lose his fingers; this has amounted to a disability that may cost him his job. The incident has left him in excruciating pain and unable to use his hand properly asking him unfit for this job. As liability has already been previously established, Al Maya packaging should be guided by the aforementioned provisions to ensure Yusuf is compensated as he is entitled under the law. The Royal Decree 40 of 1977 entitles Yusuf to compensation as it is expected that his employer undertook to insure him against any injuries or diseases suffered in the course of his duties. The injury has caused him permanent disability by virtue that he has lost fingertips and is always in pain; he ia therefore justifiably entitled to 36times his salary.

Conclusion

In conclusion therefore, Al Maya packaging is liable for Yusuf’s personal injury as well as the emotional damage arising from the loss of his fingertips and the future losses arising from his inability to work as he used to due to the pain he has to live with. This has been made clear by the provisions of law discussed above and the highlighted precedents. Regardless of the liability held by Yusuf or the other employee, Al Maya packaging still has a duty to exercise and as such, subject to its liability, should compensate Yusuf and his dependants accordingly.

Reference list

Al Alawi & Co Advocates & Legal Consultants, 2015. A primer on oman’s private sector labor law, Oman: Al Alawi & Co Advocates & Legal Consultants.

Bin Said, Q., 1991. Royal Decree No 72/91, Oman: Sultan of Oman.

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, 2016. Health and safety in Oman. [Online]  Available at: https://omanlawblog.curtis.com/2016/08/health-and-safety-in-oman.html [Accessed 22 March 2017].

Dubai Cassation Nos 130/2003 (2003).

Export.gov, 2017. Oman-Labor. [Online]  Available at: https://www.export.gov/article?id=Oman-Labor [Accessed 22 March 2017].

Franck, H. & Franck, D., 2013. Forensic engineering fundamanetals. London: CRC Press.

Grose, M., 2016. Construaction law in the United Arab Emirates and the Gulf. 1st ed. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.

ILO, 2013. Occupational safety and health counrty profile: Oman. [Online]  Available at: https://www.ilo.org/safework/countries/arab-states/oman/lang–en/index.htm [Accessed 22 March 2017].

Majan College, 2016. Module handouts:Consumer protection law. s.l.:Majan College.

Majan College, 2017. Module handouts: Introduction to law. s.l.:Majan College.

MOM, 2003. Royal Decree No 35/2003. Oman: Ministry of Man Power.

MOM, 2008. Ministerial Decision 286/2008-the Regulation of Occupational Safety and Health for the Establishments, Oman: MOM.

Moraru, R. I., Babut, G. B. & Mihai, P. S., 2014. Approaching occupational safety and health: Emerging risks, categories and prevention. [Online]
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_Industrial_Safety_important_Do_you_consider_that_regulatory_aspects_are_prevailing_on_scientific_findings
[Accessed 21 March 2017].

Oman, 2013. Oman Civil Code. s.l.:s.n.

Oman, S. O., 2013. Royal Decree No. 35/2003: Issuing the Labour Law. Oman: Sultanate of Oman.

Safeopedia, 2017. Industrial safety. [Online]  Available at: https://www.safeopedia.com/definition/1052/industrial-safety [Accessed 21 March 2017].

Sharman, A., 2016. From accidents to zero: A practical guide to imporving your workplace safety culture. 2nd ed. s.l.:Routledge.

Y Magazine, 2015. Health and safety in Oman. [Online]  Available at: https://www.y-oman.com/2015/09/health-and-safety-in-oman/ [Accessed 22 March 2017].