Workplace Case Dispute

CASE DISPUTE 1

The nature of danger at workplace varies from one place to another.The labor laws offer clear guidelines that both employees andemployers should keenly observe during their activities (Saundry,2014). Ensuring adherence to these rules throughout enhances one`ssafety for most of the time thereby always keeping them on the rightand responsible side. Most of the conflicts that occur at workplacearise from breaching one or more of the safety and regulatoryprocedures (Rogers, 2012). Reviewing disputes at workplace therefore,fundamentally require revisiting and referring to the set rules,regulations and laws to examine their adherence and causes of theconflict (Workplace Safety &amp Health, 2015). This piece of writingreviews a workplace dispute that involved an employee who sustainedlife-threatening injuries while he was working in a workshop. Ananalysis of the case is conducted with appropriate application ofsafety and health regulations that apply to such work places.

Major issue under consideration

John Schmidt seriously injured his arm while he was operating a woodcutting machine. According to an official injury report, Mr. Schmidtclaims that he had strictly followed all rules and regulations thatapply to workshop safety. Upon interrogation, the workshop manager,Mr. David Donald, claimed that everything was in its right place andthat there was nothing that could have caused an injury of that sortto careful employees. Further, he asserted that anything wrong had tobe reported to the workshop’s foreman, Mr. Harry Hiller.

Hiller affirms that Schmidt was careless because he had seen him&quotjoking, laughing and goofing around&quot with his fellowworkers. A fellow worker supports Schmidt`s claim by emphasizing thatin spite of the table saw regular maintenance the safety guard wasnot strong enough to function well. The fellow worker also affirmsthat he had informed the Hiller on the same. He complained throughthe health and safety report book that the place’s safety waspoorly designed, and that there were significant chances that any ofthe employees would be hurt whilst using the machines and space.

Analysis of the Situation

The workplace policy is always to work towards avoiding basic causesof accidents. This policy, therefore, aims at preventing accidentsfrom occurring rather than trying to deal with the outcomes (Liuzzo,2013). Since this is a past occurrence, it is wise to check thecontextual background of the event. Schmidt has an experience usingthe table saw thus on the day of the event he expects nothing less ormore because he has exercised his employee regulations. If he had anydoubts about the poor state of the table saw, he would still haveextended his rights by refusing to operate it due to the imminentrisk (Rogers, 2012). The fellow worker could have earlier informedSchmidt about the table saw condition because the law mandates him todo so.

According to the labor laws, part of the employee duties involvesreporting to the employer and fellow workers about harmful orprobably unsafe conditions (OSHA Workers` Rights, 2015). However, thefellow worker still does make a right move by informing theforeperson about the poor safeguard. Hiller is the supposed custodianof maintenance but, unfortunately, seems not competent at hisposition. Safety is about reassuring (Workplace Safety &amp Health,2015). Hiller had the chance of checking the guard again in responseto drawing the truth of the fellow workers’ claims. Highprobability inclines to Hiller’s lack of proper keenness inmaintaining the guard. The health and safety report confirms thatHiller has been incompetent in conducting and following the setprocedures.

Proposed Decisions

The company can invest in automated safety management systems inaddition to the foreperson as an overseer. This system worksefficiently and can be dependable to evaluate and verify theequipment`s safety condition before use to prevent such accidentsfrom happening in the future. The company can also expand or reviseits communication protocols with effect to sorting upper-levelattention in case the responsible person for the duties fails orslows in taking action. Briefing and conducting another awarenesscampaign and re-evaluating employee responsibilities will also assistthe manager`s vigilance in preventing unnecessary accidents.Reviewing and training workers on trendy or recommended use of workdevices or work practices minimizes accidents in future (Saundry,2014).

Conclusion

According to the health and safety report, Hiller’s lack ofappropriate action is the basic cause of the accident (Liuzzo, 2013).The situation is that Hiller failed to perform his duties as requiredby the stipulated safety and health regulations. He tried coveringhis tracks by insisting that Schmidt was not careful while pushingthe large piece of wood. Schmidt is a responsible worker who observesregulations implying any injuries he experiences materialized as aresult of natural circumstances. According to law, Hiller is theappointed agent to ensure and conduct the company`s responsibility inhealth and safety conditions (Rogers, 2012). The principle interest,in this case, is the protection of human health while working(Liuzzo, 2013). Since Hiller works on behalf of the principalinterest, the company is to blame for the injury of Schmidt.

References

Liuzzo, A. (2013). Essentialsof business law (8th Ed.). New York,NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

OSHA Workers` Rights. (2015). Retrieved November27, 2015, from https://www.osha.gov/workers/index.html

Rogers, S. (2012). Essentialsof business law. Diego, CA:Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Saundry, R. (2014). Workplace Dispute Resolutionand the Management of Individual Conflict. ConflictManagement and Dispute Resolution.

Workplace Safety &amp Health. (2015). RetrievedNovember 27, 2015, fromhttp://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/safety-health/occupationalsafety.htm