Rattle Engineering Case Study Assignment Help

Case Study Element 1

Issue:

Bill Bolt the Factory Foreman at Randall Engineering was tasked with appointing staff for the timely completion of the project. He figured ways to improve work efficiency by reducing its safety. By removing the safety guard Bill freed up personnel and increased his chances of impressing his boss and securing a bonus, but all at the expense of reduced safety and hazardous environment that ensued from his actions. By removing the safety guard Bill exposed the dangerous moving parts of the machine directly with the workers which caused the incident in which the Machine Operator Dave Dingle was badly injured. The question in the instant case is whether Bill right in enhancing efficiency by compromising the security? Or did Dave being delirious caused the incident? How safe was the overall workplace environment at Randall Engineering?

Rule

• Workcover Authority of NSW v Walsh (2004)
• Dixon CJ and Kitto J in Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 
• Osbourne v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd (2010)
• Section 18 and 19 of the WHS Act

Application: 

The purpose of WHS legislation is to provide fair, safe and harmonious workplace by providing procedures for compliance, reporting and issue resolution related to WHS and by promotion employers and workers’ unions to play a constructive role in elimination of any sorts of hazardous or dangerous risks related to the occupation and workplace. (WHS Act 2011, Section 3).

The idea behind protection at workplace as developed in the common law is that a worker / employee should be safe in performing his duties ‘during the course of the employment’. Hence injury arisen should relate to the particular circumstances of the employment, and not merely with the event of the injury. For an injury to be attributable to the employment, it should not arise out of events occurring outside the employment although somehow related to it.

In case of Workcover Authority of NSW v Walsh (2004), the court attributed long drives and little sleep immediately before the death of the person, to the conduct of his employment. Whereas, in case of Scharrer v The Redrock (2010) injuring while travelling from a third place was not attributed to the course of employment. Therefore, being delirious from alcoholic drinks Dave had last night could be said to be from events occurring outside the course of his employment, but it so appears that the fact that machine was intentionally rid of safety measures is more contributing to his injury than his mental state of mind.

A reasonably prudent and careful employer would take preventative measures to avoid exposing the workers to unnecessarily high risk of injuries. The degree of care would vary from case to case. In the instant scenario having worked with heavy machinery, Bill should have exercised more care and preventative measures than removing the ones already in place.

Applying the test in Osbourne v Downer EDI Mining Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd (2010), we may say that:

• the job of Dave involved high risk, 
• there was reasonably foreseeable risk of injury if not mediated / reduced, 
• the loss of fingers is the class of injury to which risk exposed Dave to, and 
• the employer failed to eliminate (in fact increased the risk of injury).

In view of the above, it so appears that the Factory Foreman along with other responsible personnel have failed to take reasonably practicable measures in accordance with section 18 of the WHS Act 2011 to ensure health and safety of the workers which has increased the risk of harm from exposed moving machinery.

Conclusion:

The employer has failed to fulfil the primary duty of care by removing the safety guards from machinery. Moreover, there is no evidence of further protective measures such as heavy industrial gloves worn by Dave which could have protected him from injury. There are also further evidences available to conclude that the workplace environment at Rattle Engineering was not safe enough, evidenced by loud sounds from machinery not cancelled by protective gears. The legality of removing the security guard to enhance productivity is not fair and justifiable by any means under the WHS laws.

Case Study Element 2

Issue:

Soon after the Machine Operator, Dave Dingle, has made contact with the heavy machinery, he is badly hurt and losing some quick blood. However, the Factory Foreman, Bill Bolt, who is the person in charge in the absence of Chief Engineer, has directed the workers in the factory to continue working ignoring the emergency of the situation at hand, and in doing so has also directed them not to call the ambulance until he is satisfied of the gravity of the situation. His intention behind such directions appear to be reinstalling the safety measures in the machine before the regulators / authorities saw it. The First Aid Officer attending to Dave was aware of the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Dave and his declining state of health. He, therefore, called the ambulance ignoring what seemed to be highly ignorant and unnecessary directions from Bill. When ambulance arrived, Bill once again became hinderance in administrating the emergency procedures by stopping the paramedics from entering into the factory premises unless he so allows.