The immediate and the underlying causes of the accident

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).

Any immediate recommendations to prevent a recurrence

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)-

1. Shifting of the generator outside of building as initially instructed by bill Hunt- It will prevent the further incident of any guard being closed inside the door and subsequent death
2. The room in which generator is currently present must be equipped with exhaust outlets, and cockpit areas even when the windows are present- lack of exhaust fans in the area may have also led to accumulation of CO despite windows were present
3. Immediate display of the safely signs and the warning signs in the area were generator is present- Notices about the operator responsibility, carbon monoxide hazard and electric shock hazard, disposal of the used battery, cautions (exhaust, hot and socket) and the explosion proof  must also be displayed for awareness of the security guards and other staff members.  
4. Install of the carbon monoxide detectors- with a battery backup and alarm. Early detection of carbon monoxide may prevent the death of the employee
5. Generators are to be installed as per the instructions given by the manufacturers. Different manufacturers design the product in different manner and the installation  should not be made in anticipation.      

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-

1. Carbon monoxide hazards-the employees will be trained about how the carbon monoxide training occurs, its symptoms and the preventive measures to take for instance keeping the door happen.
2. Electric shock hazards- Training includes education about electrocution and how to prevent moisture and short circuit. Education on when to take immediate medical help during fire and burn hazards.
3. Employees will be educated on the operator responsibility such as when to stop generator and how during an emergency, how to refuel with care, reading the instructions in the manual before operating a new generator. The employees will be explained about the safety and warning signs present in the manual and on the generator that are helpful to avoid hazards.   

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-

• It will be inspected if the office manager is conducting the risk assessment of security guards on a regularly basis and is followed by implementing safety measures
• Auditor will inspect if the employees are informing the control room before and after the shift time, sharing work related information on timely basis
• Auditors will inspect if the area manger regularly visit the factor sites for invigilating before and after the contract, conducts the risk assessment of the generators
• Survey will be conducted to identify the knowledge and awareness related to individual responsibilities- For instance survey questions can be designed to know if the employees recognise and understand the meaning of the danger signs on the generators and those given in manual.
• Safeguard against Backfeed- it is the main cause of the occupation death. It is the duty of the workers to verify that the power lines have been de-energised. Proper grounding of the lines should be ensured.  

  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.   

Any longer-term management actions to be taken

Action plan

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-

• Provide the security guards with the personal protective and safety equipments free of charge.
• Provide all the safety instructions without assuming that the employee must know it and regularly report the injuries and accidents. It will ensure development of the competent staff.   
• Regular risk assessment and implementation of the protective measures
• Prepare emergency plan
• To identify and prevent the behaviour of negligence

Duties of the area manager- Responsible for the health and safety in the area and support the company policies.  

• Must abide to the occupational Health and safety guidelines
• The area manager must regularly visit the site in which the security guards are working.
• It must be followed by the risk assessment of the area and preventive actions such as correct placement of the equipment. It will ensure a safe place to work.

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.

Action plan

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.