Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Fosters Abbotsford is an Australian company whose business interest is production of brew. Under the obligation of ensuring safety of employees, the company was sued in accordance to the Occupation Health and Safety law for a tragic incident that saw one of her employees perish. The report intends to elaborate on the facts surrounding the fatal incident and how the court proceedings were conducted up to the delivering of a ruling (WorkSafe 2008b). Company policies in relation to employees are important to enhance the safety of the workers and mitigate accidents. Constant review of company safety rules is important to curb life-threatening incidences that occur in line of duty. In case of a disaster, companies only lose revenue but workers are the worst affected as their lives are at stake during accidents. The Fosters Abbotsford Company experienced a tragic incident in 2006 that attracted a fine of $1.125 million (Hannan 2011). The report looks into the details surrounding the incidents and subsequent safety issues.
A description of the accident
The firms negligence in conducting maintenance of company machines is largely to blame for the accident. In 2003, the company assessment report indicated minimal risks on one of the palletiser that was subsequently replaced in 2004. However, a senior electrician noted the depletion and risk nature of the B1B depalletiser. The company lagged in implementing a serious plan to address the issue. The B1B is the machine that caused the accident. In addition, the imprudent working culture in the company increases the risks of accidents occurring. This culture entails cleaning of machines without stopping the production machines to mitigate accidents. The firm adopted this culture to keep its production constant at all times. Managers routinely monitored the time of these machines (WorkSafe 2008a). Moreover, the dangerous areas on the depalletiser lacked alerting gadgets to aid in visibility and material that is audible enough to guide during the opening of the doors. Lastly, the company failed to comply with the established standards pertaining the use of machinery as envisaged in the Australia law provision. The company workers were supplied with safety booklets that were solely written in one language, English. The language barrier made hard the understanding of the advanced machine precautions. In accordance to this case, Mr. Huynh was unable to understand the scripts on safety.
Mr. Huynh on the daily work routine was working near the B1B depalletiser machine when the accident occurred. According to the medical report, the worker sustained neck injuries. From the aforementioned report, the worker must have been compressed by heavy steel while conducting the cleaning of company reflector. A colleague at the work place found Huynh unconscious and was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to internal injuries. According to the courts judgment, Fosters Company largely assisted the victims family during the grieving times until his final send off. The presence of the companys executive during the burial, together with a large delegation from the companys working pool postulated the gravity of the matter.
An analysis of the contributing factors using the Hazard Management Process
Companies can be danger zones. Hazards make this working place a dangerous location. A number of hazards and risks can cause death, injury and diseases. Firm management is responsible for the protection of its workers. In case of an accident, employee life is at stake although the company may realize some shocks economically. Moreover, protected employees tend to increase the revenue of firms in the long run. A healthy employee will largely be at the disposal of the firm, increasing the firms production. Ensuring safety in the company premises encompasses adherence to a number of issues. These issues are largely addressed by the management process. A hazard management process contains four vital steps towards firm safety. The steps range from identification of a potential hazard to monitoring and review of a formulated solution (McKinnon 2011).
Hazard management processes entail the identification of a hazard, assessment of risks, control of hazards and risks, and finally review of the implemented controls. Fosters Abbotsford Company was inefficient in many areas, hence the loss of life of one of its employees. Considering the company had experienced an incident in 2002 where her worker was injured, the initial measure the firm needed to have employed was identification of depalletiser as a risk area that can relatively cause harm, injury and even deaths. The language barrier, an impediment in communication, is another hazard (WorkSafe 2008a). Communication is vital in understanding the operations of a firm as it is used day-to-day to realize a given objective. Individuals who operate machines without prior knowledge of their safety or how to handle an emergency are at a greater risk. The fact that some of the workers are unable to understand English calls for introduction of other language tutorials on safety. With ease in grasping the details of the safety tutorials, workers will be well aware of how machines operate.
The companys management needs to formulate ways of evaluating the understanding of the safety requirements and operation of machines. Assessing individual workers will be helpful to ascertain the depth of knowledge in relation to machine operation and their safety. In accordance to the hazard management process, it is important to address issues raised at each stage (SSN 2003). The firms electrician rightly identified the hazard raised by B1B but upon reporting to the necessary body, delays marred the process of corrective action leading to the death. The company was unable to take an initiative to control this hazard, leading to the death and ultimate penalty in terms of fines. Review reports done in 2004 showed that the risks posed were low, but the 2006 report was more conflicting; indicating risks to be high. The report was unsatisfactory and the necessary steps to mitigate deaths and injuries caused were avoided in accordance to the report. Therefore, it is prudent to engage qualified assessors to ensure quality reports are forwarded for action. Frequent reviews of control measures are important to avert the possibility of a disaster. Most companies, Fosters Abbotsford included, seem to conduct their reviews after the occurrence of disasters. From the discussion, it is apparent that the hazard that caused the death of Mr. Huynh could have been averted (AFN 2008).
The analysis of the subsequent conviction of Fosters Limited in August 2008
The court reached a decision in 2008 and gave a landmark ruling in relation to Mr. Huynh. Before making the ruling, several factors were put into consideration in relation to the Occupation Health and Safety Act. The factors include; the seriousness of the offence, the reasons for the increment of maximum penalty, Amcors case and initial knowledge of the firm on hazardous issues. The immediate family feelings and testimony was also vital in the decision. The penalty increase by the courts definition was meant to ensure that employees were well protected from situations that could cause harm or death at their places of work. The conviction by the court drew very high fine of $1.25 million (WorkSafe 2008c).
The verdict was fair. This is because the court considered the material facts that were brought before her by the prosecutor and the defense. From the facts, it is apparent that the firm failed in the responsibility of ensuring workers protection from any hazard. Having experienced an earlier incident, the firm still failed to prioritize the welfare of its workers. The high penalty was also driven by the increment of penalty by parliament. The aim of the stiff penalty is to ensure employers undertake their obligation in protecting the lives of their employees in the workplace (WorkSafe 2007).
The punishment against the company was appropriate; it served justice to the aggrieved. Failures by the firm to apply the use of hazard management process fully in dispensing its responsibility of worker protection led to the death of a hard working employee. The company was well aware of the hazards but failed to put in place measures to curb them. In addition, the firms reluctance to provide multilingual safety tutorials is one of the preventable factors that call for a maximum penalty (Collins 2008). Although no monetary compensation can replace the life of a person, it makes living worth and endurable. The feeling that lives are a priority to the state will enhance workers confidence.
The financial position of a firm is considered to ensure that the company feels the pinch of its foregone responsibilities. A financial situation was paramount in the decision of this case. Although the firms defense team pleaded with the court to factor in its role in fostering corporate responsibility, the courts intention was to offer justice to the aggrieved and make the ruling a learning process to the firm. The failure in its obligation after a life-threatening situation in 2002 and the need to enforce the new established statute necessitated the penalty. In line with the aforementioned factors, the penalty to Fosters was too low. Pleading guilty assisted in the reduction of the penalty. The courts initial amount for the fine was $1.5 million, implying that the matters in the case were weighty and the penalty could have otherwise been stiffer (Collins 2008).
Ethical and moral issues played a major role in the conviction of Fosters. The company submissions identified the deceased as a person of impeccable character. A good number of the company employees graced the attendance to his burial. The general managers description of the deceased and consequent victims impact statements touched on morality of Huynh. Huynhs wife description of her husband was also one of the moral statements considered at the course of the decision (Minterellison 2008). The judge pointed out that the fines could not compensate the loss realized by the family but its sole intention was to ensure firms exercise their ethical duty in future to ensure workplace is safe for employees. The decision was also meant to bring the Huynh family to some closure. In conclusion, hazard management process is paramount in ensuring occupation health and safety at the work place. The hefty penalty acted as a wakeup call to insensitive firms who are insensitive to the plight of their employees.
List of References
AFN, 2008. Fosters receives record fine for fatal safety breaches. Web.
Collins, S. J., 2008. Fosters fined $1.125m over workers death. Web.
Hannan, E., 2008. Fosters fined $1.1m after work death. Web.
McKinnon, T., 2011. The value of health & Wellbeing in the work place. A brewery experience. Web.
Minterellison, 2008. Record fine in brewery fatality. Web.
SSN, 2003. OH&S risk management. Web.
WorkSafe, 2007. Controlling OHS hazards and risks: A handbook for work places. Web.
WorkSafe, 2008a. Brewer pleads guilty to workplace safety charges. Web.
WorkSafe, 2008b. Fosters fined $1.125m over workers death. Web.
WorkSafe, 2008c. Two dead and a few near misses. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.