|
The case of Apex Building Services, also known as Dynabuild, a construction company is a live example specifying that negligence of safety measures at workplace can cost heavily. There were few objective factors that helped in concluding that these of-fences were serious. A hefty penalty was charged on the building company and similar others who ignored safety measures for workers. Let us see, what those factors are that compelled in giving the conclusion of serious of-fence. 1. When the first accident occurred both the defendant and George Karam, who was site supervisor, were present at work site. Mr. Karam was appointed to control workers at the site and was also responsible to look after their safety. However, he didn’t take it seriously and ignored usage of some safety protection system. Before the first incident occurred, notice was sent to the defendant about the unsafe system their sub-contractors especially Form com, has been using at the site. The notice cropped up after several inspections were conducted at the working site by the prosecutor before the incident occurrence. Emphasis was given on the methods they followed while performing work at heights. Specifically referring the immediate risk that can be caused due to form work deck where persons were working. To avert the risk, the notice also directed to implement some safety measures at the workplace and strictly indicated that no worker should be allowed to work on form work deck until it is safe to access. 2. The next factor is Apex has clearly failed to solicit the Safe Work Method Statement from its sub contractor Form com for building the form work at such a risky position. Even though the statement was once provided by Form com, which was accepted by Apex, it failed to provide temporary catch platforms and hand rails for worker's safety, especially for working at heights more than 1.8 meters. 3. The site inspections put Apex on notice for practicing unsafe protection methods while working and gave directions too, which were greatly overlooked. All the deficiencies stated in the notice have been observed to be ignored by the defendant at the time of first incident, as well as after the other two incidents. So, based on the evidence that in spite of prior notice, the defendant has neglected to take appropriate measures, a conclusion was compelled that Apex’s ignorance is the main cause for the occurrence of first incident. 4. Despite the Prohibition notice, serious accident on previous day and terms in SWMS, the second incident occurred where another worker was placed in a risky position. This clearly shows that nothing was done for employees to deal with risks of working on the heights. 5. At the time of third incident despite of prior knowledge, the Dynabuild still failed to provide remedies and the system was having serious deficiencies that placed another worker Mr. Stewart in risky position.
Related Articles -
dynabuild,
|
