PUN301 - Mr Bill Bolt Case Study - OHS Policy and Law Assessment Answer

Assessment Task:

PUN301: OHS Policy and Law Assessment Answer  

Task

Provide researched and appropriately referenced responses in the approved IRAC format to the below Case Study.

Case Study (Total 50%) This Case Study follows Assessment 1 and relates to the same business and key staff. Rattle Engineering has won a contract with a Prime Contractor to the Department of Defence. As a subcontractor to an existing prime contractor to defence, Rattle Engineering receives job taskings from both the prime contractor and directly from the Department of Defence. The business extended on the scope of engineering works they previously undertook, and now undertake Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), import components, manufacture components as well as test and repair components. Currently the business employs 40 staff and are in the process of recruiting an additional 10 more. They have not as yet engaged any specialist sub-trade contractors to support this defence related work which now takes up 80% of their business. While the Department of Defence have offered some “on base” facilities for the company to use, which is known as government furnished premises, at this time they only undertake work in their privately owned existing engineering facility at Banyo, Brisbane, Queensland and transport components between the Department of Defence Base located in Queensland and their factory. Refer to Attachment 1 for key company roles. Case Study Element 1 (5%) Last Monday, Mr Bill Bolt, the factory foremen was in the process of advertising for the employment of two additional staff and preparing the job lists for the current week’s work, as well as planning the following week’s work. On the Friday prior, the Chief Engineer advised him that it appeared that they were not going to meet their first deadline which was due in two weeks. Furthermore, that he wasn’t looking forward to advising the Managing Director of this fact, however, they (Managing Director and Chief Engineer) were both meeting next Tuesday at the Defence Force Base with the Prime Contractor and were hoping they would be able to secure an extension without any penalty. He tasked Bill to finalise the process of recruiting two more staff as soon as possible. As Bill Bolt was preparing the work plan, he reflected how all the new safety systems were costing him time on his production line. In particular, this related to one of the new machines that now required two staff to manually feed material in, due to the nature of the safety guard. Previously, it had been a one person job task because the old machine did not have the hindrance of this type of improved safety guard. At that point, he decided he would remove the safety guard, and that this would allow the machine operator to manage the processing of the material and the welder he had re-tasked to assist the machine operator, could return to the welding line. Taking this option just maybe, they could meet their production target and not incur a penalty. It would only be for two weeks since one of the positions he was recruiting was for the worker that assisted the Machine Operator. Achieving the production outcome would impress the Chief Engineer and the Managing Director and maybe he could achieve his performance bonus. The Machine Operator, Dave Dingle, didn’t mind this change to his machine. Being a long term employee, he had always preferred the old machine anyway, and he too was frustrated.

with these new safety procedures. The Welder didn’t mind, because he didn’t like being a labourer and preferred to just undertake welding tasks. Bill Bolt also knew the new safety manager was away on a course this week. On Tuesday morning, Dave Dingle, the Machine Operator, arrived at work after a big night of activities. On Monday nights he played touch football and last night he also stayed on after the game for some alcoholic drinks. As a result he had far too many alcoholic beverages. As he placed the material into the machine on his own, he reflected just how loud the machine was on his large headache. Feeding the material into the machine, with his left hand he rubbed his sore head and his right hand was then suddenly pinched in the machine, crushing two fingers and amputating another two. He appreciated that the emergency stop bump button was right beside his knee as he stopped the machine and screamed out for help. Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legality of removing the guard on the machine incident.

Case Study Element 2 (10%)

When Bill Bolt heard the incident, he directed that no-body stop work and no-one was to call an ambulance until he checked out the situation (he wanted to put the machine guard back on before the authorities saw it had been removed). When he arrived at the machine the First Aid Officer was attending to Dave Dingle. He ignored Bill’s direction and phoned the Ambulance. As Bill Bolt was still putting the guard back on, the Ambulance Paramedics arrived at the factory. Bill directed them not to enter the premises until he sorted a couple of things out. The First Aid Officer saw this and screamed out to them advising what the injuries were and the declining health state of the injured Dave Dingle. As Bill Bolt was the person in control of the workplace at that time, he had refused permission for the Ambulance Paramedics (Authorised persons) to enter the premises. Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the authority of Ambulance Paramedics in this situation (to complete this you will be required to identify the relevant Act).

Case Element 3 (10%)

Because the First Aid Officer had called the Ambulance using the emergency number triple zero (000), Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) were automatically notified. About an hour after injured Dave Dingle was transported to hospital by the Ambulance Paramedics, two WHSQ Inspectors arrived at the Rattle Engineering front office. Bill Bolt met the Inspectors in the front office and advised that the Safety Manager was away on a course and both the Managing Director and the Chief Engineer were off site at a meeting. He further advised that it wasn’t convenient just now for them to be at the workshop and directed them to return the following week when the Safety Manager could take them through the factory. They insisted on entering and Bill Bolt directed them not to enter the factory.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the authority of WHSQ Inspectors in this situation. Case Element 4 (10%) The Managing Director, Randall Rattle, notified the Prime Contractor and The Department of Defence of the Incident. He noted it was a requirement of the contract. About a week later, Randall Rattle, as Managing Director, received a formal letter from the Department of Defence advising that they intended on undertaking a WHS Verification Activity on Rattle Engineering with particular regard to machine guarding, hazardous manual handling and emergency procedures. Randall Rattle asked both the Safety Manager and his Lawyer to explain to him why and on what basis the Department of Defence was coming to his factory for this WHS Verification Activity, why were they interested? He did recall the term WHS Verification Activity in the contract. Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legal principles under the WHS Act 2011 for this WHS Verification Activity.

Case Element 5 (5%)

Mrs Ruby Rattle, the Chief Operating Officer, undertook a review of the incident and the rehabilitation process of Dave Dingle. In addition to providing a sustainable supply of materials to the Department of Defence, managing notifiable incidents and injury management was a performance measure under the contract. With the next contract performance review due soon, being only three months after the incident, she was not satisfied with Dave Dingle’s progress regarding his to return to work. Ruby Rattle formed the opinion that Dave Dingle was not actively participating in his return to work plan. She formed the opinion that the best course of action was to terminate Dave Dingle’s employment. Her decision is primarily based on his inability to undertake his normal duties because of his injury and his less than positive attitude towards his rehabilitation. Terminating Dave Dingle would allow the business to recruit a new machine operator to his position and improve the business performance required to meet contract key performance indicators (KPI’s). She prepared the termination notice to be served on Dave Dingle, giving him one month’s notice that he would no longer be employed at Rattle Engineering. Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legality of the decision of the Chief Operating Officer in this situation.

Case Element 6 (10%)

The Senior Inspector of WHSQ investigating the Dave Dingle incident requested Mr Randall Rattle to produce a copy of the safe work procedure for the machine involved in the incident, a copy of the emergency procedures and the results of Rattle Engineering’s incident investigation. The incident investigation results are notes prepared by Mark Rattle, who is both Randall’s brother and the company’s in-house lawyer, which was discussed and provided to and at the request of Rattle Engineering’s external lawyer - 2 in 1 Lawyers. The Chief Engineer advised him not to provide any of that documented material to the Senior Inspector of WHSQ, as he believed it was privileged business records. Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the release of all these documents, in this situation.

Company - Randru Pty Ltd as trustee for the Rattle Family Trust trading as Rattle Engineering. Key Role Descriptions Managing Director - Mr Randall Rattle MEng Has financial accountability and responsibility over the all aspects of the business. Has the authority to hire and terminate staff, buy equipment, goods and supplies. Sets strategic direction for the business. Chief Operating Officer (Company Secretary) - Mrs Ruby Rattle MBA Has financial authority over all aspects of the business. Has the authority to hire and terminate staff, buy equipment, goods and supplies. Contributes to the strategic direction of the business. Chief Engineer - Mr Mark Peg MEng Has financial authority over all projects and work taskings. Has authority to hire staff, buy goods and supplies. Factory Foreman - Mr Bill Bolt BEng Has financial authority over consumables, up to the value of $2,000. Has authority to initiate performance management of staff, buy goods and supplies to the value of $2,000, raise purchase orders for items over this amount. Leading Hand - Mr Tim Taper Has no financial authority, though can raise purchase orders for goods and supplies. Has authority to initiate performance management of staff.
 

This PUN301: Law Assessment has been solved by our Law experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.