Call/WhatsApp/Text: +44 20 3289 5183

Question: Ritzy Printing (RP) is a printing company. The workforce consists of 80 workers, an early shift manager (ESM) a late shift manager (LSM) and a managing director (MD).

08 Mar 2023,7:16 AM

 

SCENARIO

Ritzy Printing (RP) is a printing company. The workforce consists of 80 workers, an early shift manager (ESM) a late shift manager (LSM) and a managing director (MD). The organisation is generally very busy and regularly takes on workers on short-term (temporary) contracts. The temporary workers carry out various print-related tasks.

 

RP currently has a very large order for some brochures, and the delivery date is due very soon.

 

You have just joined the organisation as their health and safety adviser. The previous adviser retired two months ago.

 

The MD has decided that, because of the tasks the temporary workers carry out, a brief induction session covering the organisation’s history is considered sufficient. As the temporary workers carry out many different tasks (for which there is no job description) they are shown how to do the tasks when required, by one of the permanent workers. Once the temporary workers have been shown what to do, they are left to carry out the tasks by themselves.

 

Due to an increase in sickness absence, extra temporary workers have been recruited. The MD is keen to get these new workers started and keep to the target of all deliveries out on time. The MD offers all workers a bonus as an incentive, if all deliveries are out on time. If this target is achieved the bonus will be paid at the end of the year to all those workers employed at the time.

 

The ESM starts to allocate tasks to the temporary workers. These tasks are in the busiest areas of the organisation, where the most help is required.

 

A young temporary worker, who started with RP the previous week, has been tasked with monitoring one of the print runs (which involves a series of large printers, each of which prints a different colour onto the pages passing through them) in the printing department. The role of keeping the printers running would normally be carried out by a competent worker, so the young temporary worker is told that if there are any issues to let the ESM know. There is signage on the printers supporting this, which states ‘No clearing printer jams without authorisation and isolation of power’.

 

Towards the end of the shift, one of the rollers in a printer seems to be jammed. The young temporary worker is unsure what to do. They lift the interlocking guard (a guard that when in place prevents the machine from operating) to check if they can see what is jamming the roller. They do see what the problem is and go to find the ESM. When they cannot find the ESM, they decide to unjam the printer themselves, as they think this will be helpful. As the young temporary worker clears the printer jam, the printer unexpectedly restarts, trapping the worker’s hand between the printer rollers. A second temporary worker is walking by as the accident happens and immediately calls the emergency services, as they do not know what else to do.

 

The injured young temporary worker manages to get their hand free from the rollers but is in considerable pain. The second temporary worker leads the injured worker to reception where a first-aider carries out emergency first aid.

 

When the paramedics arrive, they assess the injury and then take the young temporary worker to hospital. You see the ambulance leave as you arrive for work, so go to find out what has happened. Initially, you ask the first-aider if you can take a statement from them. They agree, so you go to find somewhere more private to carry out the interview. The second temporary worker returns to the printing department.

 

As soon as the ESM hears what has happened, they arrange for the printer to be restarted. The ESM then telephones the MD, who is off site, meeting a perspective customer. The MD is annoyed by the interruption. The MD tells the ESM that as the early shift has nearly finished, they should investigate the accident the following morning. The MD also asks if the print run has recommenced. The ESM knew the MD would ask this and is pleased to be able to tell them that it has.

The LSM has arrived for their shift and is told by the ESM that there has been an accident, but it has been dealt with and the printer is operating as normal.

 

You have finished taking the first-aider’s statement and, assuming the ESM will have started the investigation, you go to the printing area to see how it is progressing. You ask the ESM if they saw what happened. The ESM confirms that they did not, and that the MD has told them to investigate in the morning. You are surprised by this. You ask where the accident happened and are pointed towards the print run that is in operation. Confused, you ask why the accident scene has not been preserved. The ESM explains that there is a very tight deadline with the current order and there was nothing to see. During their interview, the first-aider mentioned that another temporary worker witnessed the accident. You ask the ESM where that worker is now, and they reply that the worker will have gone home as their shift has finished. The ESM then leaves for the day.

 

The LSM is keen to help with the investigation, so you ask them for the existing health and safety documentation. They say that all the risk assessments were completed by your predecessor, and they are not sure where the risk assessments are. They do, however, provide you with the maintenance log for the printer involved; the last entry logged was in December 2019. You recommend that the printer is taken out of commission and not used until the investigation is completed, but the LSM tells you that the MD has given instructions for the print run to continue.

 

Human Resources (HR) have provided you with a telephone number for the temporary worker who witnessed the accident. You telephone them and ask if they are okay. The worker explains that what they saw was very upsetting. They ask how the injured worker is. You reply that you still need to speak to the hospital, but you will keep them updated. You ask the worker to describe what happened. You thank them for answering your questions and say that you will talk to them again when they are back at work. After this, you get an update on the injured worker’s condition. You plan to go to the hospital later to speak to the injured worker.

 

You return to your office and search for filed risk assessments. You eventually find one for the printer which is dated 2017. It covers the use of the printer but does not cover how printer breakdowns are fixed. You return to the LSM and ask if the printers frequently jam, and if there is any additional documentation that covers how to unjam the printers. The LSM replies that the printers do jam and, as far as they are aware, the previous health and safety adviser was working on a safe work method for this.

 

RP was later found guilty of contravening International Labour Organisation R164 - Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation,1981 (No. 164). They were fined €20000 and ordered to pay costs of €8547.60.

 

Task 1: Obligations of employers to workers

 

1            What employer obligations are likely to have been contravened, leading to the temporary worker’s accident in this scenario?                                                  (12)

 

Note: 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.

 

 

 

Task 2: Health and safety management roles and responsibilities

 

2            Comment on the ineffectiveness of roles and responsibilities in relation to health and safety management at RP.                                              (8)

 

Note: You should focus on roles & responsibilities and not the health and safety management system.

 

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

 

 

 

Task 3: Induction training

 

3            What health and safety information should be included in the induction session for temporary workers?                                                  (10)

 

 

 

Task 4: Accident investigation and control measures

 

4            (a)     Based on the scenario only, comment on how the accident investigation was

 

(i)       ineffectively managed by RP.                                                                            (6)

(ii)      effectively managed by RP.                                                                               (9)

 

(b)     What administrative control measures could the employer put in place to help avoid a repeat of this accident?                                         (15)

 

 

 

Task 5: Risk assessment

 

5            Based on the scenario only, comment on the organisation’s approach to assessing health and safety risks.                                          (16)

 

Note: You only need to focus on the general approach of the organisation to assessing health and safety risks, and NOT a detailed 5-step approach.

 

Task 6: Human factors contributing to the accident with the printer

 

6            What individual human factors could have influenced the behaviour of the young temporary worker injured while unjamming the printer?                                                  (14)

 

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

 

 

 

Task 7: Financial arguments for the MD to improve health and safety

 

7            What financial arguments could you use to convince the MD that health and safety needs to be improved?                                                  (10)

 

 

Expert answer

 

Question 1:

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

 

Based on the scenario provided, several employer obligations under Recommendation 10 of International Labour Organisation R164 -Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation,1981 (No. 164) could have been contravened. These include:

  1. Providing a safe and healthy working environment: Employers have an obligation to ensure that their workers are working in a safe and healthy environment that is free from hazards that may cause harm or injury. In this scenario, the temporary worker was not provided with proper training and was not informed about the risks associated with using the grinder, which led to the accident.

  2. Providing adequate training: Employers are responsible for providing their workers with adequate training to enable them to carry out their work safely. In this scenario, the temporary worker did not receive proper training on how to use the grinder, which resulted in the accident.

  3. Ensuring that workers have the necessary personal protective equipment (PPE): Employers are responsible for providing their workers with the necessary PPE to ensure their safety. In this scenario, the temporary worker was not provided with the necessary PPE, such as safety glasses and gloves, which could have prevented the accident.

  4. Conducting risk assessments: Employers have an obligation to identify and assess potential hazards in the workplace and take measures to eliminate or control those hazards. In this scenario, the employer did not conduct a risk assessment of the work that the temporary worker was carrying out, which could have identified the risks associated with using the grinder.

  5. Providing adequate supervision: Employers are responsible for providing their workers with adequate supervision to ensure that they are working safely. In this scenario, the temporary worker was not supervised while using the grinder, which contributed to the accident.

In summary, the employer in this scenario may have contravened several obligations under Recommendation 10 of International Labour Organisation R164 -Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation,1981 (No. 164). These include providing a safe and healthy working environment, providing adequate training, ensuring that workers have the necessary PPE, conducting risk assessments, and providing adequate supervision.

 

Question 2:

 

As the health and safety adviser, your responsibility is to ensure that the company complies with the relevant health and safety legislation and best practices to prevent injuries and illnesses in the workplace. In the given scenario, it is evident that the organization lacks adequate health and safety management practices.

Firstly, the company's induction process is inadequate, and temporary workers are not given adequate training and supervision for the tasks assigned to them. This approach can lead to serious accidents and injuries, as seen in the scenario. Thus, it is essential to develop job descriptions for each task and provide adequate training, supervision, and information on hazards and risks associated with each task.

Secondly, the company lacks emergency response procedures, which can lead to further injuries or complications when accidents occur. Therefore, it is crucial to have an emergency response plan in place and train all employees on emergency procedures and first aid.

Thirdly, the company's management team, especially the MD, lacks an understanding of health and safety management and the importance of investigating accidents. The MD's reaction to the accident is inappropriate, and it is evident that the MD is more focused on achieving targets than ensuring the safety of the workforce. Thus, it is essential to raise awareness among management on their roles and responsibilities in ensuring the health and safety of employees and the importance of investigating accidents and incidents.

Fourthly, the company needs to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of all its processes and identify all potential hazards and risks associated with each task. This risk assessment should be reviewed regularly and updated as necessary.

Lastly, it is crucial to have a culture of health and safety in the organization where employees are encouraged to report all accidents, near misses, and hazards to the management. This approach will help identify potential risks and prevent accidents from happening.

In conclusion, as the health and safety adviser, it is essential to ensure that the organization has adequate health and safety management practices, emergency response procedures, risk assessment, and a culture of health and safety. This approach will help prevent accidents, injuries, and illnesses in the workplace, and ensure the safety and well-being of all employees.

 

Question 1:

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

In this scenario, the obligations of the employer, Ritzy Printing (RP), towards its workers are questionable. RP has failed to provide adequate induction, training, and supervision to its temporary workers, which has resulted in an accident. The employer has also failed to take immediate action to preserve the accident scene and investigate the incident, and instead, prioritized the completion of a print run.

As a health and safety adviser, it is your duty to ensure that RP meets its legal obligations towards its workers. RP has a legal duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare of all its employees, including temporary workers. This includes providing adequate training, supervision, and instruction on the work tasks and any hazards involved.

RP should have provided proper training and supervision to the young temporary worker who was injured, especially since they were asked to perform a task that was beyond their level of competence. RP should have also ensured that the accident scene was preserved and the incident was promptly investigated to determine the root cause of the accident and prevent similar incidents in the future.

RP's decision to prioritize the completion of a print run over the safety of its workers is unacceptable. RP should have suspended the use of the printer involved in the accident until the investigation was complete and the cause of the accident was determined. This would have ensured that the safety of the workers was the top priority.

As the health and safety adviser, you should advise RP to take immediate action to investigate the incident thoroughly, identify the root cause, and take appropriate action to prevent similar incidents from occurring. RP should also review its induction, training, and supervision policies to ensure that they are adequate and meet legal requirements. Additionally, RP should prioritize the safety of its workers over the completion of a print run and suspend the use of any equipment involved in an accident until the investigation is complete.

Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?


Related Questions

What Clients Say About Us

WhatsApp us