NEBOSH IGC Solve Question Paper Task No 1

  

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 1: Understanding moral management of health and safety in the workplace 

1 Health and safety should be managed for moral, financial and legal reasons. What is unacceptable about the moral management of health and safety in the warehouse? Note: 

You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information from the scenario.

Solution:-

Understanding moral management of health and safety in the workplace

From a moral perspective, several aspects of the management of health and safety in the warehouse, as depicted in the scenario, can be considered unacceptable. Here are some key points highlighting what is unacceptable about the management of health and safety in the warehouse based on moral arguments: Lack of Adequate Training: It is morally unacceptable to neglect providing adequate training to employees, especially for tasks that involve operating heavy equipment like forklifts. This lack of training puts workers at risk and disregards their well-being. Pressure to Prioritize Productivity Over Safety: Morally, the pressure to prioritize productivity at the expense of safety is unacceptable. Placing production targets above the safety and health of employees reflects a disregard for their physical and emotional well-being. Failure to Address Safety Concerns: Ignoring or dismissing workers' safety concerns, as described in the scenario, is morally wrong. Failing to address these concerns prevents employees from working in a safe environment and can lead to avoidable accidents. Resistance to Employee Involvement:Suppressing employee-demanded meetings and excluding workers from safety discussions goes against moral principles of fairness, transparency, and the right to participate in decisions affecting one's safety.  Inadequate Hazard Identification and Mitigation: Morally, organizations have a duty to identify and mitigate workplace hazards to protect their employees. Neglecting this duty and allowing hazardous conditions to persist is ethically unacceptable.  Lack of Empathy and Compassion: The lack of empathy and compassion demonstrated by the Warehouse Manager (WM), especially when discussing the injured FLT driver's absence, is morally reprehensible. Such behavior fails to recognize the dignity and worth of individuals . Ineffective Communication: Poor communication and lack of clarity in safety procedures and expectations can lead to misunderstandings and unsafe conditions.  Failure to Learn from Past Incidents: Morally, it is unacceptable to neglect conducting thorough investigations and learning from past incidents. Failure to do so perpetuates the same mistakes and disregards the safety and health of workers . Absence of a Health and Safety Officer: Failing to hire a dedicated health and safety officer, despite the need, is morally wrong. Such an officer plays a critical role in safeguarding employee well-being and should be a priority . Blaming the Employee for the Accident: Blaming the FLT driver entirely for the accident without considering systemic factors is morally unjust. Morally responsible management acknowledges that accidents often result from a combination of factors .  Neglecting the Well-being of Injured Workers: Mocking or belittling the absence of an injured worker, as shown in the scenario, is morally reprehensible. It shows a lack of compassion and empathy for those who have suffered harm while on the job . Lack of Empowerment and Trust: Fostering a work environment where employees feel powerless to raise safety concerns or discouraged from doing so is morally unacceptable. Trust and empowerment are essential for a safety-conscious culture. Failure to Provide Necessary Resources: If the organization fails to allocate sufficient resources, both financial and human, for safety and health initiatives, it is morally irresponsible. Providing the necessary resources is a moral obligation to protect employees. Ignoring Worker Input and Insights: Disregarding worker input and insights related to safety and health is morally wrong. Employees often have valuable on-the-ground knowledge that can contribute to safer work practices.  Dismissing Long-Standing Safety Issues: Continuously neglecting long-standing safety issues, such as the need for repainting traffic lines, demonstrates a lack of commitment to employees' well-being. Morally, these issues should be addressed promptly.  Reputation Over Employee Safety: Prioritizing the organization's reputation and schedule over employee safety, as demonstrated by the Warehouse Manager's reaction, is ethically indefensible. The well-being of employees should always take precedence.