ASSIGNEMNT ANSWER TEMPLATE
FULL NAME Muhammad Yasir
BATCH NO 102 - A
ASSIGNMENT NO 02
DATE 18-8-2025
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTION:
Save the Assignment with Your Complete Name
Assignment must be submitted in same format; No PDF file is accepted.
Scenario
You are a co-ordinator for a behavioural safety audit (BSA) programme at a food manufacturing site.
Behavioural safety is just one of a range of approaches that senior managers want to introduce to the site to
change the organisation and improve health and safety. Your job is to co-ordinate the activities of ten trained
observers across the site, one of whom is a young apprentice, and one an expectant mother with a child due
in six months. The observers are workers who have volunteered to actively monitor their respective
manufacturing department. You report to a supervisor who is not convinced of the value of the BSA
programme.
Your supervisor talks to you about an accident that occurred two weeks ago, where a contractor suffered a
knee injury. The contractor works for a national contracting maintenance company and was brought on site
to do a specific job. The supervisor thinks the accident is an obvious case of ‘human error’ that is not worth
the time to investigate further. Your supervisor hands you the accident report to read and suggests that any
reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. Reading the report, you note that the injured
contractor was rescued by the site’s emergency response team, taken to hospital and was off work for a
week.
When the injured contractor is well enough to return to work, you arrange a meeting and ask some
questions. Although the contractor has a lot of experience in contracting work, including involvement in
permit-to-work systems at other sites, this was the first time they had worked at this food manufacturing site.
You ask how the injury occurred. They reply that while adjusting a piece of equipment alone, they slipped on
a working platform, made of scaffolding poles (tubes) and scaffold boards, that was erected by the
contractor. The contractor confirms that, before starting the job, they had received specific induction training
and job-specific information from the site supervisor, although that was the last time that they saw them on
that day. You also ask about the safety of the work environment, and they indicate it appeared to be fine.
You visit the accident scene and observe that oil, used by a site maintenance technician to lubricate
equipment above the working area, has leaked onto the working platform below and coated the boards.
You discover that the work carried out by the contractor was done under the authority of a permit-to-work
(PTW), The contractor, trained in the responsibilities of what accepting a permit meant, presented a job
description note to the manufacturing site’s PTW issuer and a brief discussion took place. They appeared to
be extremely busy, and the contractor overheard them say that they were issuing up to 75 PTWs a day. The
permit was issued to cover the period 09:00 - 17:00 that day. The contractor also told you that the permit
issuer talked about associated control measures, including isolation of equipment before starting work and
the wearing of head protection while working on equipment.
Task: Explaining to the contractor the obligations of employers to workers
What employer obligations are likely to have been contravened, leading to the contractor’s accident in this
scenario? (10)
You only need to consider those obligations placed upon employers under Recommendation 10 of
International Labour Organisation R164 - Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation,1981 (No. 164).
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information from the
scenario
Answer
Write answer in the below section Feedback and
Marking (for
Internal Use Only)
Employers Obligation Contravened in the Scenario:
Following employer’s obligations that have been contravened and leading to contractor’s
accident are given below,
“Safe & Healthy Working Platform was not provided” The working platform became
hazardous due to oil leakage from site maintenance activities, which was not controlled or
cleaned, no immediate housekeeping or protective measure was arranged directly
contributing to the contractor’s slip and injury.
“No Supervision and Monitoring during Work” The site supervisor only provided the
induction training but did not monitor and supervise the contractors work during the day.
This showed lack of follow-up in supervision in work on-site.
“Lack of communication with Contractor” Although the supervisor provided the induction
training but he did not communicate and informed about potential oil leakage above the
work area.
“Accident Investigation” The supervisor dismissed the incident as “human error” and did
not investigate due to lack of time, breaching the obligation to investigate accidents and
prevent recurrence.
“No control on Hazards” There was no effective monitoring of the working area after
maintenance oiling above the contractor’s platform, showing a failure to control risks.
WORD COUNT
REFERENCE &
RESOURCES USE During
the Assessment
