Unit A Jan 10

Front 1

(a) Explain why organisations often identify the costs of health and safety control measures much more easily than they identify the costs that can arise from poor health and safety standards.

Back 1

Quantifiable = Capital & running costs for providing control measures Results = immediate and visible. Harder to identify = financial losses; reduction in accidents/incidents; loss of productivity; loss of reputation/goodwill. Why? Lack of expertise; time for investigation;

Front 2

(b) Outline, with examples, the meaning of the terms ‘insured’ and ‘uninsured’ costs in connection with accidents and incidents at work AND outline the relative size of these two costs in an organisation as demonstrated by accident costing studies.

Back 2

Insured = Plant damage; building damage; employers’ liability; public/third party liability; fire. Uninsured = products; materials, overtime; temporary labour; investigation time; emergency supplies; supervisors’ time. Uninsured costs were typically from 8to 36 times greater than insured costs

Front 3

The following table shows the number of lost-time accidents recorded at two organisations involved in similar manufacturing processes. The figures in brackets show the average numbers of employees at each organisation for the year in question. (refer to data). (a) Calculate AND compare the annual lost-time accident incidence rates for the two organisations for the years shown AND comment on any trends.

Back 3

No of Accident in the period divided by Average No of Employed during the period X 1000. Rising trend in x with a falling trend in y

Front 4

(b) Outline any possible limitations with the data itself, or the way that it is collected, that might make direct comparisons of the rates at the two organisations unreliable or misleading.

Back 4

different definitions of lost time accidents; different methods of reporting them; data produced by either organisation may not take into account overtime worked nor include accidents to part time staff and those occurring to non-employees such as contractors; cultural issues such as the possible existence of a greater propensity to take time off in one organisation

Front 5

(a) Outline reasons for establishing effective consultation arrangements with employees on health and safety matters in the workplace.

Back 5

Statutory requirement for consult = HSWA section 2(4) & (7); develop a sense of ownership for safety measures amongst employees; improve perception about the value and importance of health and safety; gain input of employee knowledge to ensure more workable improvements and solutions; encourage submission of improvement ideas by employees.

Front 6

(b) Outline a range of formal and informal consultation arrangements that may contribute to effective consultation on health and safety matters in the workplace.

Back 6

Establish safety committees; consult with union-appointed safety representatives; consult with elected representatives of employee safety; planned direct consultation at departmental meetings or team briefings; consult as part of accident/incident investigation or as part of RS; day to day informal consultation by supervisors with employees at the workplace; tool box talks; use of departmental/team meetings for ad-hoc consultation on safety issues; discuss safety as part of safety circles or improvement groups; use staff appraisals, questionnaires and suggestion schemes.

Front 7

A risk assessment has identified the need to introduce a safe system of work for cleaning some moving machinery. The system proposed would allow the machinery to be cleaned by the operator whilst it was running at normal speed with the guards removed. This would present a risk of injury from the moving parts. To reduce this risk it is proposed that the cleaning is undertaken with a long-handled device which would enable the operator’s hands to be kept away from the moving parts.
(a) Outline the extent to which the proposed system of work meets the ‘general principles of prevention’ referred to in Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Your answer should refer to the specific ‘general principles of prevention’ which are relevant to this scenario.

Back 7

Avoid risks; evaluate the risks which cannot be avoided; combat risks at source; adapt work to individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health; adapt to technical progress; replace dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous; develop coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment; give collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; give appropriate instructions to employees.

Front 8

(b) Outline the steps that an organisation should take to ensure the effective implementation of a new safe system of work, assuming that a detailed risk assessment has already been undertaken.

Back 8

Explain need for new SSOW to operators; consult & involve them in the drafting process; provide equipment and tools; train those involved in the new system; use pilot-scheme & close supervision; monitor use of the procedure; encourage feedback; review system of work after a specified period of time.

Front 9

Human failure was identified as a significant factor in an accident involving a crane. An employee was seriously injured when struck by material being transported by the crane.
Outline the types of human failure which may have contributed to the accident AND in EACH case give examples relevant to the scenario to illustrate your answer.

Back 9

Slip Based Error (Commission) – simple, frequently-performed physical action goes wrong i.e. flash headlights instead of operating windscreen wash/wipe. Lapse Based Error (Omission) - lapse of memory by omitting to perform a required action i.e. forget to indicate at a road junction. Mistake (Rule-Based) – misapplication of a good rule or application of a bad rule i.e. misjudge overtaking manoeuvre in unfamiliar. Mistake (Knowledge-Based) – lack of rules or routines to handle an unusual situation: resorts to first principles and experience to solve problem i.e. rely on out-of-date map to plan unfamiliar route. Routine - non-compliance becomes the ‘norm’; general consensus that rules no longer apply i.e. high proportion of motorists drive at 80mph on the motorway. Situational – non-compliance is dictated by situation-specific factors (time pressure; workload; unsuitable tools & equipment; weather) i.e. van driver has no option but to speed to complete day’s deliveries.
Exceptional – a person attempts to solve problem in highly unusual circumstances if something has gone wrong i.e. ??

Front 10

A Health and Safety Executive inspector visits a small, limited company. The inspector decides to serve a prohibition notice on the employer in respect of an unguarded machine. (a) Identify the legal criteria that must be satisfied before a prohibition notice may be lawfully served.

Back 10

Prohibition notice = inspector is of the opinion that workplace activity involves or will involve, risk of serious personal injury.

Front 11

(b) If the employer chooses to appeal against the notice identify the effect of the appeal AND the timescale within which an appeal must be made.

Back 11

Appeal must be made within 21 days of the service of the notice. It remains in force, but may be suspended by the tribunal on application by the appellant.

Front 12

At a subsequent visit the inspector discovers that the unguarded machine is still in use by an employee and that this activity has been agreed by the Operations Director. The inspector decides to bring a prosecution against the Operations Director by virtue of Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in respect of the breach of the prohibition notice.
(c) Outline the legal criteria that the inspector would need to satisfy to bring a successful prosecution.

Back 12

Produce evidence that there had been a violation of the requirements of the notice; that the employer was a body corporate; that the Operations Director was a person covered by Section 37 of HSWA - allows prosecution of directors, managers, company secretaries and other company officers whose consent, connivance or neglect has led to health and safety offences being committed by a company; that the offence was committed with their consent or involvement or was attributable to their neglect.

Front 13

(d) Identify the maximum penalties that would be available on conviction of the Operations Director.

Back 13

Lower Courts - Summary conviction for failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition or court order remedy order = £20,000 fine & 6 months imprisonment. Higher Courts Conviction on indictment for failure to comply with an improvement or prohibition or court order remedy = 2 years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both

Front 14

A low pressure storage vessel is connected via pipework to a manufacturing plant which could, in the event of malfunction, generate a pressure great enough to rupture the vessel. To prevent this a pressure detector is installed in the low pressure storage vessel. If pressure starts to rise above an acceptable level the detector activates a valve control system. This in turn closes the inlet valve to the vessel isolating it from excessive pressure. It has been estimated that pressure great enough to rupture the low pressure storage vessel would be generated once every four years on average. Reliability data for the system is given below. (refer to data). (a) Construct an event tree for the protective system described above AND use it to calculate the frequency of a rupture of the low pressure storage vessel.

Back 14

Success - (year) 0.25*(Pressure Detector) 0.95* (Valve Control)0.99* (Inlet Valve) 0.8 = 0.1881 or 0.188/yr
Failure1 - 0.25*0.95*0.99*0.2=0.047025 or 0.047
Failure2 - 0.25*0.95*0.01=0.0002375 or 0.0024
Failure3 - 0.25*0.05 =0.0125

Front 15

(b) It is proposed that, in addition to the protective system described above, the low pressure storage vessel is also fitted with a suitable pressure relief valve (reliability 0.9).
Assuming that the vessel would only rupture if both the protective system and the pressure relief valve failed at the same time, calculate the frequency of rupture of the low pressure storage vessel in these circumstances.

Back 15

Failure probability 0.047+0.0024+0.0125 = 0.0619 or 0.062
Combined system failure probability 0.062*01(Valve Control) = 0.0062/yr or frequency of one every 161 years

Front 16

(c) Outline the issues that would need to be considered when deciding whether both protective systems were needed on the low pressure storage vessel.

Back 16

probability of rupture; consequences of rupture; legal requirements; HSE guidance; industry codes of practice and guidance; tolerability of risk criteria (unacceptable, tolerable, broadly acceptable region); cost of the protective systems &their reliability. many still did not fully understand the relevant issues.

Front 17

A forklift truck is used to move loaded pallets in a large distribution warehouse. On one particular occasion the truck skidded on a patch of oil. As a consequence the truck collided with an unaccompanied visitor and crushed the visitor’s leg.
(a) Outline reasons why the accident should be investigated.

Back 17

Identify immediate and underlying; prevent a recurrence; assess compliance with legal requirements; demonstrate management commitment to H&S; restore employee morale; obtain information & evidence for use in the event of civil claim or criminal prosecution; provide useful information for the costing of accidents and for identifying trends and to identify the need to review risk assessments and safe systems of work.

Front 18

(b) The initial responses of reporting and securing the scene of the accident have been carried out.
Outline the actions which should be taken in order to collect evidence for an investigation of the accident.

Back 18

Take photos; make sketches take measurements of scene; Obtain and CCTV footage that may be available; Look at any relevant procedures that are in place; Look at any RA/SSOW in place; Look at training records that may exist for people involved in accident; Identify environmental factors that could have contributed to the accident e.g. poor light, noise, wet conditions; Identify immediate causes/underlying causes; Interview all parties involves ASAP, e.g. injured party, witnesses.

Front 19

(c) The investigation reveals that there have been previous skidding incidents which had not been reported and the company therefore decides to introduce a formal system for reporting ‘near miss’ incidents.
Outline the factors that should be considered when developing and implementing such a system.

Back 19

Obstacles that might prevent the system from working effectively; Clear definition of ‘near Miss’; Who will report near misses; Training required; Consultation with employee; Provision of information, instruction and training; introduce and practice a no blame culture; Ease of reporting, clear, straight forward format; arrange for investigation to be investigated and line management to identify and implement any remedial action necessary; Define reporting lines to ensure actions are implemented; Positive feedback for reporters; ensure reports on the incidents are collated, the data analysed and remedial action taken and monitored on a regular basis

Front 20

The case of R v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Another [1982] arose from a serious fire during a ship repair at Swan Hunter’s shipyard. Swan Hunter were convicted in the Court of Appeal.
(a) Identify the specific provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 under which Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd (Swan Hunter) were prosecuted AND in EACH case outline the reasons why the company was convicted.

Back 20

Swan Hunter were prosecuted under Section 2(2) of the HASWA - failure to provide a SSOW for their employees who were put at risk following the contractors’ failure to remove oxygen hoses from below deck; Section 2(2) of HASWA - provide information and instruction since their failure to provide this to the contractors put their own employees at risk; Section 3 of HASWA - failure to conduct their undertaking so as to avoid risks to persons not in their employment since they did not give information to the contractors on safe methods of work in connection with the oxygen hoses and so put them at risk.

Front 21

(b) The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 were not in force at the time of this case. Had these Regulations been in force, identify the requirements of the Regulations under which Swan Hunter could have been prosecuted specifically in connection with the fire incident AND outline reasons in EACH case.
Requirements in the Regulations relating to competent health and safety assistance and emergency procedures should be excluded.

Back 21

Regulation 3 – Risk assessment - assess risks to their own and other employees, relevant to the welding work carried out by the contractors; Regulation 4 – Principles of preventions to be applied - comply with the principles of prevention which were not applied since the overall prevention policy and work organisation did not control the risk; Regulation 5 – Heath & Safety Arrangement - make arrangements for health and safety with the evidence revealing unsafe systems of work and failure to manage risks under their control created by the contractors; Regulation 11 – Co-operation and Co-ordination - failure to cooperate and coordinate precautions with other employers sharing their worksite which was relevant to the contractor situation; Regulation 12 – Persons working in host employers’ or self-employed persons’ undertakings - duty to give information and instruction to visiting workers, since Swan Hunter failed to give instructions to the contractor’s employees.

Front 22

(c) The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 are supported by an Approved Code of Practice and guidance. In criminal proceedings outline the legal status of: (i) an Approved Code of Practice; (ii) guidance.

Back 22

ACOP = Failure to comply does not in itself give cause for criminal proceedings; failure to comply with the provisions is permissible as evidence in proceedings under the relevant statutory provisions; failure to comply is sufficient evidence of a breach of the law to allow conviction except in cases where the defendant can show that they have secured compliance with the legal requirements in a way otherwise than by observance of the provisions of the ACOP.
Guidance = not legally binding; demonstrates good practice. one way of complying with a ‘reasonably practicable’ duty; normally enough to show that compliance has been attained.

Front 23

(b) Employers have a duty under common law to take reasonable care to ensure the safety of their employees.
Referring to relevant case law where appropriate, outline the nature of this duty in terms of:
(i) safe plant and equipment; (ii) safe places of work.

Back 23

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Company v English [1938] - duties and their non-delegable nature; consider reasonably foreseeable risks, arrangements to select suitable and safe equipment and introduce proper and adequate systems for inspection, testing and the reporting of defects and subsequent repair within a reasonable time (ranging from new and second-hand equipment) The common law was modified by the Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 which was implemented as a result of the decision in the case of Davie v New Merton Board Mills. Bradford v Robinson Rentals where the case was linked to a relevant legal principle.
EXTERNAL
Employers must provide and maintain reasonably safe premises for their employees, must consider reasonably foreseeable risks and have a duty to inspect, maintain and repair them. The use of a competent contractor for this does not in itself discharge the duty. Paine v Colne Valley Electricity Supply Co. and Latimer v AEC Ltd.
Although the question specifically referred to an employer’s common law duty, many candidates still referred to the requirements of the HASWA. In general, better answers were produced in relation to ‘safe places of work’ than for ‘safe plant and equipment’.
Safe premises = provide &maintain reasonably safe premises; consider any reasonably foreseeable risk that might occur; take reasonable steps to address the risks; regular inspection/repair of premises/equipment (Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd)
Competent Employees = take reasonable care to select, train, instruct, monitor & take action in cases of dangerous behaviour (Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd – in the course of employment

Front 24

As the Health and Safety Adviser to a large organisation, you have decided to develop and introduce an in-house auditing programme to assess the effectiveness of the organisation’s health and safety management arrangements.
Describe the organisational and planning issues to be addressed in the development of the audit programme.
You do not need to consider the specific factors to be audited.

Back 24

Consider logistics and resources required; obtain support & commitment of senior managers and other key stakeholders; Consider the nature, scale and frequency of the audit relative to the level of risk involved, the standards against which the management arrangements were to be audited; identify of the key elements of the audit process such as the planning, interviews and verification, feedback routes; prepare and present final report; develop audit protocols; consider scoring or use of proprietary software; types of auditing (comprehensive, horizontal or vertical slicing); its scope (such as management system elements or selected performance standards); use of single auditor or audit teams; train auditors and brief members of the organisation who were likely to be affected

Front 25

(a) Explain the difference between: (i) common law and statute law;

Back 25

Common Law – judge made law through judicial precedent; not written down; duty of reasonable care; basis of most civil cases; judgement made create binding precedents on subsequent similar cases on all lower courts.
Statute Law – established by parliament; written down in Acts and Regulations; failure to comply constitutes criminal offence; overrides common law

Front 26

(a) Explain the difference between: (ii) civil law and criminal law.

Back 26

Civil Law – resolve dispute of contract; compensation; balance of probability; insurable.
Criminal Law – regulate criminal; punishment; beyond reasonable doubt; not insurable