NEBOSH IGC Solve Question Paper Task No 5

 

SCENARIO   

 

The warehouse

                           You are a newly-hired warehouse worker for the distribution organisation Miller-Oslo (MO). You work in one of their small warehouses with 14 other workers, including the warehouse manager (WM) and two supervisors. Goods weighing up to 1000kg are stored in sealed crates or stacked on pallets and then stretch wrapped. These are then stored on racking until required for shipment by distribution vehicles. There are two loading bays at the back of the warehouse, with floor ramps allowing goods to be loaded onto the vehicles by forklift trucks (FLTs). There is a small kitchen, rest area, toilets for workers, and two side offices - the larger office is the WM’s.

                                                                                                                                           Entrance to the warehouse is by ID card access. There is an intercom system to ring for non-card holders. Visitors who are expected will be escorted while inside the building, and unexpected visitors are denied entrance. On your first day of employment the supervisor on duty gives you a quick tour of the building to start your induction. They make sure you know where the fire exits are before rushing you into the smaller office. Inside, you are seated in front of an old television (TV). Next to the TV is a collection of VHS video cassettes labelled: ‘Induction Part 1’; ‘Part 2 - Fire Safety’; ‘Part 3 - Manual Handling’; and ‘Part 4 - What to Do in an Emergency’. The supervisor leaves you alone while you watch the videos.

The videos appear to apply to all MO warehouses. You learn from the ‘What to do in an emergency’ video that the first-aid box is in reception. You think back to the tour of the building and do not remember seeing a reception area or first-aid box. You learn that personal pagers should be turned off during working hours, and that all accidents or near misses should be reported to your health and safety officer. The video happily states that the health and safety officer will teach you ‘everything you need to know’ about health and safety after the induction ends, and your specific warehouse’s health and safety policies and procedures.

The supervisor returns four hours later when you have finished watching the videos. They have a box of high visibility vests, hard hats and gloves, that you sort through to find your closest size. With the induction training complete, they give you an ID card then take you back into the warehouse for your job training. You cannot see any painted traffic lines on the ground separating the pedestrian path and FLT routes, as shown in the videos, so you ask the supervisor if the videos were incorrect. They sigh and tell you that the lines have needed repainting for a long time. You ask who the health and safety officer is and learn that the warehouse has been trying to hire someone for that position “for years”

Over the next week you are taught your job tasks by the other workers and become friendly with them. They teach you a few methods to save time, but they are not sure if these methods are causing overloading of the racking closest to the loading bay. Later that day you hear the WM shouting at an FLT driver for taking too long to load an order onto a delivery vehicle. The WM gives the FLT driver an immediate verbal warning for causing delays. You overhear the WM muttering that they will not let their reputation of keeping the warehouse ahead of schedule be ruined. The workers nearby whisper “avoid the WM because they only come out of their office when angry”. They also mention that this driver has not even been given time off to complete their FLT training.

 

The crash

Later that day, as you pass a loading bay you see an FLT speeding around the corner towards you. The driver notices you, panics and desperately tries to change direction. This driver is the one who was shouted at earlier. You jump back onto the loading bay ramp to avoid the FLT. You slip and twist your ankle. You fall to the ground screaming and your ankle swells painfully. The driver swerves the FLT away from the ramp, but the vehicle begins to tilt. They try to recover the situation but within seconds the FLT topples sideways into the nearby racking. The racking collapses and an avalanche of metal and pallets buries the driver.

A week later, after the warehouse has reopened, the workers call a meeting. You are on sick leave for your injured ankle but decide to attend. When you arrive, you hear shouting from the smaller office. The shouting does not stop as you enter, and you see all of the workers are there, except the FLT driver. Several people are having a loud argument with the WM. The WM notices you sitting down and resting your leg in an ankle brace on a chair. They sneer and point out that this meeting cannot be so important if the FLT driver cannot be ‘bothered’ to show up. The room goes silent. Everyone is horrified by the WM’s comments. One of the workers informs the WM that the FLT driver is in hospital. As a result of the accident they are in a coma and have a crushed skull. The WM finally stops arguing.

Your colleagues demand change. This was the worst accident so far and “cannot be ignored this time”. Eventually the WM reveals that MO are hiring a health and safety consultant to make recommendations for improvements. The WM then starts arguing again, blaming the FLT driver entirely for the accident. They claim this meeting is an excuse for everyone not to work and that they will never allow a worker-demanded meeting again

 

The health and safety consultant (HSC)

The HSC arrives two days later. They spend the first day talking with the WM and looking through paperwork. The next day the HSC gathers the workers and supervisors together, deliberately excluding the WM. They introduce themself, then explain that they will speak to everyone as a group to better understand the warehouse and workforce. They will also speak to everyone individually but assure them that conversations will be confidential.

The two supervisors welcome the HSC because “management might finally listen”. Everyone had been complaining about time pressure and safety concerns for months. They were ignored, so they stopped trying to talk to the WM about it. One of the supervisors says that they are meant to be taking a NEBOSH qualification on behalf of the warehouse, but they have repeatedly been refused time off to study. Another worker furiously recalls that the traffic route lines were meant to be repainted yearly, but the WM always cancelled it because the work would “cause delays”.

Task 5: Determining the contribution of organizational and individual human factors 

5 (a) What organizational factors could have contributed to the accident? 

 

Task-5 A Organizational Factors

Several organizational factors could have contributed to the accident involving the forklift (FLT) and the subsequent collapse of the racking. Here are the organizational factors related to the scenario that could have played a role in the accident:

1.      Lack of Adequate Safety Training:

Inadequate training for the FLT driver may have contributed to their inability to safely navigate the warehouse and respond appropriately when encountering obstacles or unexpected situations.

2.      Time Pressure and Productivity Demands:

The warehouse workers in the scenario were under pressure to meet demanding schedules and productivity targets. This pressure may have encouraged the FLT driver to rush, increasing the risk of accidents.

3.      Ineffective Communication and Reporting:

The scenario suggests that workers had raised concerns about time pressure, safety issues, and maintenance problems in the past. If these concerns were not effectively communicated to management or if there was a lack of reporting mechanisms, it could have prevented the organization from addressing potential hazards in a timely manner.

4.      Lack of Safety Oversight and Leadership:

The Warehouse Manager (WM) in the scenario did not effectively demonstrate commitment to safety and health. Their focus on productivity and resistance to worker-demanded meetings may have contributed to a culture that prioritized productivity over safety.

5.      Inadequate Hazard Identification and Mitigation:

The absence of painted traffic lines separating pedestrian paths from FLT routes, as mentioned in the scenario, indicates a failure to identify and address potential hazards in the workplace.

6.      Failure to Investigate and Learn from Past Incidents:

The scenario does not mention previous incidents or accidents, but if there were any, a lack of thorough investigation and failure to learn from past incidents could have contributed to the unsafe conditions in the warehouse.

7.      Lack of Empowerment and Employee Involvement:

Employees in the scenario may have felt powerless to raise safety concerns or were discouraged from doing so. A lack of employee involvement in safety initiatives and decision-making can result in missed opportunities to identify and address hazards.

8.      Resistance to Change and Safety Improvements:

The WM's resistance to worker-demanded meetings and reluctance to engage with employees on safety matters suggests resistance to change and improvements in safety practices.

9.      Inadequate Emergency Preparedness:

In the event of an accident, it's essential to have well-defined emergency response procedures in place. If such procedures were lacking or if employees were not adequately trained on them, it could have hindered the response to the accident.

10.   Ineffective Risk Assessment:

Failure to identify and assess potential risks, such as the risk associated with FLT operations and racking stability, could have contributed to the accident.

11.   Inadequate Maintenance and Housekeeping:

The scenario does not mention the maintenance status of the forklifts, equipment, or the condition of the racking. If routine maintenance and housekeeping practices were neglected, it could have led to equipment malfunctions or unstable racking, increasing the risk of accidents.

12.  Lack of Safety Committees or Employee Involvement:

The scenario suggests that there was no established safety committee or employee involvement in safety-related discussions. If such committees were absent, it could have resulted in a lack of employee input and oversight of safety matters.

13.  Absence of a Health and Safety Officer:

The scenario mentions that the warehouse had been trying to hire a health and safety officer "for years" but had not succeeded. The absence of a dedicated safety professional in the organization may have contributed to a lack of expertise in identifying and mitigating safety risks.

 

(b) What individual human factors of workers could have contributed to the accident? 

Note: You should support both your answers, where applicable, using relevant information from the scenario. 

Task 5 B Individual human factors

Individual human factors of workers can play a significant role in accidents and incidents in the workplace. In the scenario provided, several individual human factors of workers could have contributed to the accident involving the forklift (FLT) and the collapse of the racking. Here are some individual human factors related to the scenario that could have played a role in the accident:

1. Lack of Personal Training and Experience: 

The scenario mentions that the FLT driver had not completed their FLT training. This lack of training and experience could have contributed to their inability to safely operate the forklift and avoid accidents.

• Personal Complacency

  :

Workers who have been in the job for a longer time may become complacent and less attentive to safety procedures. If the FLT driver or other employees had become complacent, it could have led to unsafe behaviors or decisions.

3.     Person Age and Experience:

Age can influence a worker's level of experience and familiarity with workplace tasks and safety protocols. Younger or less experienced workers may be more prone to errors or risky behaviors, especially if they are not adequately trained.

4.     Person Risk Perception:

Workers' perception of risk can vary based on their individual attitudes and beliefs. Some workers may perceive certain tasks as less risky than they actually are, leading to a lack of caution and potentially

5. Overconfidence:

Workers, including the FLT driver, may overestimate their abilities or underestimate the risks associated with their tasks, leading to risky behaviors.

6. Personal Attitude -Failure to Follow Safety Procedures:

Workers may disregard safety procedures or take shortcuts to save time. In the scenario, the absence of painted traffic lines could have influenced the FLT driver's route selection if they failed to follow designated paths.

7. Personal Fatigue and Mental State:

Fatigue, stress, or personal issues can affect a worker's mental state and concentration. Workers who are fatigued or stressed may be less alert and more prone to accidents.

   8. Personal Emotional State:

An employee's emotional state, such as stress, frustration, or anxiety, can impact their ability to concentrate and make sound decisions. In the scenario, if the FLT driver or other workers were experiencing high levels of stress or anxiety due to workplace pressures, it could have affected their judgment and reactions.

9.   Competency and Skill Level:

Variations in competency and skill levels among workers can influence their ability to perform tasks safely. Workers who lack the necessary skills or competency may be more likely to make errors or engage in unsafe practices.

10.Health Conditions and Medications:

Health conditions and medications can affect a worker's physical and mental capabilities. Some medical conditions or medications may impair a worker's alertness, coordination, or judgment, increasing the risk of accidents.

11.  Personal Motivation

Workers with varying levels of motivation and work ethic may prioritize safety differently. Those who are highly motivated may be more likely to follow safety procedures, while others may be less committed to safety.