Assessment method – Written Questions Essay

Assessment method – Written Questions Essay.

Criteria 1.4: State why and when health and safety control equipment, identified by the principles of protection, should be used relating to types, purpose and limitations of each type, the work situation, occupational use and the general work environment, in relation to: – Collective protective measures

Fencing is used when access to the site needs to be prevented. They can be used to prevent access to the public and the workers making them use a designated entrance to site. This will make sure the members of the public cannot wander on to the site which could be dangerous for them or the workmen.

Also making the workers go in through a designated entrance would allow everyone to be signed onto the site, so the foremen are aware of everyone who is on site. The main type of fencing is Harris fencing; this can be erected with ease and speed. It prevents access to the site but is only temporary and can be taken down as quickly as it can be put up.

Harris fencing could also be blown over in a high wind. Harris fencing is not always necessary as existing fencing may already be in place. A garden fence, a garden wall or a hedgerow can be used to prevent access; they can be used on their own or in conjunction with fencing. Barriers are used to restrict access or to warn the workers of a danger.

These would be used throughout the job when appropriate. If there is a danger such as a trench that has been dug into the ground a barrier should be used to warn people that it is there and also to stop someone from falling down into the trench. Different types of barrier include plastic barriers and bunting which is help up using metal pegs these are usually bright orange. The purpose of barriers is to restrict access and warn of dangers. They are only temporary and can be easily removed. Cones and warning tape could also be used as a barrier to restrict access to a certain area of the site. These are only temporary and can be easily removed. Signage comes in different colours which denote what type of information the sign contains.

Signs can be used on fencing and barriers and can be in other areas of the site such as the site office. Blue signs contain mandatory information. These are things that everyone must do, they could be telling you what type of PPE you have to wear. Red signs are prohibition notices, telling you what you must not do such as smoke. Yellow and black signs contain warning information. The most common example of a warning sign is overhead cable signs. Green signs are Information signs which have information on things like first aid. These signs can be found in places like the site office or the site entrance. Also there is signage on packaging, these are COSHH signs and give information on how to handle that substance.

– Personal protective equipment (PPE)

Hard hat – A hard at is used when there is a danger of falling objects to protect the head from impact injuries or knocks. Some hard hats come with visors and ear defenders attached. The purpose of a hard had is to protect you from a head injury from objects falling from a scaffold, unprotect ends of a scaffold pole and other dangers. They must be warn when there is a scaffold on a site. Sometimes they can easily fall off your head but newer hard hats have a better fit. You can also get bump caps which are light weight hard hats.

Ear Defenders- Ear defenders are used when there is a loud noise on site which could damage your ears. A loud noise could come from many different things on site, it could be you cutting down a brick or a block with a grinder, it could come from someone else using a piece of machinery. You can get ear plugs which you put into your ear which reduce the sound, these can only be used once. If you reuse them you can risk an infection by getting dirt into your ear. You can also get ear defenders which go over your ears which muffle a lot of the sound out. These can be used multiple times but may also not be compatible with other PPE such as a hard hat, although you can get ear defenders that work very well with a hard hat.

Eye Protection – Is used when there is a risk of dust getting into someone’s eyes or an impact injury to the eye. There are different types of eye protection, safety goggles are made of a durable plastic and will stop both dust and flying debris from harming your eyes. Safety spectacles only protect your eyes from flying debris, these can be used when there is not a lot of dust for example cutting a brick with a bolster. Face masks are a rigid plastic visor that will protect your face from flying debris. They are commonly used with garden equipment like chainsaws and strimmer’s. They will not protect you from fine dust particles.

Gloves – Gloves are needed when there is a risk of damaging your hands or getting a chemical on them. Gloves differ in design, material and thickness. The correct glove should be chosen for the job after taking into account the possible risks. There are many different types of glove, from lighter material gloves which would be suitable if you are doing brickwork to heavier gloves that could be coated in different substances to give resistance to chemicals.

You must also think about if you are going to need gloves that will protect your hands from cuts if you are doing a job and you are handling something that is sharp. Gloves will only have a certain lifespan as they will degrade through ware and tare or through contact with a chemical substance. Gloves must fit the user well as not to hinder his ability to work well and also his dexterity which could make him more likely to drop something.

Safety boots- Most building sites will require you to always wear safety boots. Safety boots have a steel toe cap and a very tough sole. This will give the wearer protection from falling objects and also from standing on nails and other things. They also provide a sole with plenty of grip to help prevent slips. You can also get wellington boots that have steel toe caps which also keep your feet dry.

– Respiratory protective equipment (RPE)

Respiratory protective equipment is used to prevent a worker from breathing in dust or fumes that may be hazardous. There are various types but the most commonly used type of RPE is a dust mask. These are light weight and comfortable and easy to fit. However, they will not offer any protection from toxic dust or fumes. Most dust masks are only effective for a short period and then they need replacing. Respirators have removable filters, which can be replaced.

You can get different filters which do different jobs, some protect the user from toxic dust and some protect the user from fumes. Also you can get respirators which cover the whole face which provide more protection. If you are working in an area with low oxygen you should choose breathing apparatus with an air supply. You must ensure that the dust mask is correct for the job and provides the appropriate protection. You also must ensure that the mask is a good fit to the person who is wearing it. A poor fit will result in a poor seal allowing dust and fumes to get in.

– Local exhaust ventilation (LEV).

Exposure to dust and to fumes can be harmful to people’s health. It can cause asthma, lung scaring and cancer. Therefore local exhaust ventilation systems are put in place to extract the airborne dust and fumes. There are different types of LEV and care must be taken to choose the most effective type for a particular job or machine.

Most LEV systems simply suck the dust and fumes out of the air before they reach a worker. Some of them will also have a hood fitted which will help contain the dust and fumes as they are being sucked away. Water can stop dust from taking to the air in the first place, on some tools you can fit a water supply, such as a grinder where the blade is kept wet while you are cutting to keep the dust down. Sometimes just opening windows and doors will allow the dust to escape and clear the air. .

Criteria 1.5: State how the health and safety control equipment relevant to the work should be used in accordance with the given instructions.

Collective protective measures should be installed and used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training. This will help prevent something like a Harris fence from blowing down in a wind because it wasn’t properly secured. The signage would have to be put up correctly to avoid a mistake being made so this would have to be done by someone who knows all the correct information.

PPE should be in good condition and be well looked after by the user. The correct PPE should be chosen and correctly worn for each job, also you should ensure the PPE is compatible eg. Does the hard hat stop you from being able to wear your ear defenders? The PPE that is worn should be decided after thinking about the possible hazards.

RPE used should be suitable to the job at hand, the user needs to think about if they need protection from toxic dust, fumes or if there will be a short supply in oxygen. Choosing the right mask is the first step and making sure it is a correct fit is the second. Fit testing is the best way to make sure a mask fits you properly, this should be carried out by someone who is qualified. Facial hair could stop you being able to get a tight seal and causing contaminated air to seep in. You should regularly replace filters on your mask and always check the correct filter for the job is fitted. You should store your mask in a clean, dust free area.

LEV that is needed will vary depending on the task that you are doing. If you are sweeping a room indoors opening the doors and windows will allow most of the dust to escape. If you are using a grinder to cut a block or a piece of slate you could pour water on to it or add a water supply to keep the dust down. You could also do it outside. If you worked in joinery you could get a reputable LEV supplier to advise you on the best LEV system to ventilate your machines. Employees should be knowledgeable in how to use LEV.

Criteria 1.6: State which types of health, safety and welfare legislation, notices and warning signs are relevant to the occupational area and associated equipment.

The Health and safety Law poster should be posted up somewhere, this could be in the site office, with the name of the trained first aider on it. There will be signage in green which are information signs. Such as a first aid sign.

Blue signs tell people what they must do while on site. It could be information on what type of PPE must be worn.

Red signs are probation signs telling people things they must not do, this could be no smoking signs or a no entry except to authorised personal sign.

Yellow signs are warning signs. They warn people of dangers that they need to be aware off. This could be a sign warning you of overhead cables or a sign warning you that there is heavy plant machinery operating on site.

There will be signs on machinery and power tools saying what items of PPE need to be worn while operating them. Signs will be on the packaging of harmful substances stating what PPE should be worn and what precautions should take place when using them.

There will also be COSHH signs on the bottle or packaging of many different substances. These will tell the user what precautions they need to take while handling the substance or what they have to do if there is a chemical spill and how to neutralize it.

Criteria 1.7: State why health, safety and welfare legislation, notices and warning signs are relevant to the occupational area. They are there to protect the work force from hazards and the dangers by informing people that these hazards and dangers exist, keeping people safe. They are also relevant because the signs inform people of what safety measures they need to take eg. PPE. Health and safety procedures and locations of things like the first aid office are and also the name of the trained first aider on signs.

Criteria 1.8: State how to comply with control measures that have been identified by risk assessments and safe systems of work.

The information and control measures that have been identified by risk assessments will be made available to everyone to read. You can read the mission statement which is that plan of action or you could be told verbally. You must follow these orders and work in the way that is instructed. Also there is information on machinery and tools, which will instruct you on how to work in a safe manner. COSHH signs on substances must also be followed to work in a safe way.

Criteria 2.2: List typical hazards associated with the work environment and occupational area in relation to resources, substances, asbestos, equipment, obstructions, storage, services and work activities.

Resources can become a hazard if they are improperly stacked. Materials such as bricks and blocks must be stacked in a safe and stable way, eg. Not too high. Care must be taken when moving resources. MHO (manual handling operations) need to be implied properly to make sure all lifting is done safely.

Substances such as cement, lime and other chemicals and solvents can damage skin causing burns, dermatitis and other skin problems. Some chemicals and solvents could potentially present a fire risk so must be stored in a suitable way.

Asbestos is found in lots of older buildings. It is at its most dangerous when it is disturbed. The fibres are inhaled and can cause severe damage to the lungs and death. When discovered asbestos should only be removed by a licensed contractor.

Equipment can cause hazards if used improperly. Cutting tools and saws can be dangerous because you could cut of a finger or something worse. Some equipment can be loud enough to damage your ears. Some tools which produce a lot of vibration such as a breaker can cause white finger.

Obstructions are a hazard because people can trip over them, also if they are blocking a fire escape it could be dangerous.

If things are not stored correctly they could be unstable and fall over and hurt someone. Also certain materials must be stored under specific condition. Some materials present a fire risk.

Care must be taken not to damage any services. If you are digging and you hit a gas or electric main it could be potentially dangerous. They should have warning tape above them but this is not always the case. Also if you are improperly trained you could be electrocuted if you attempt electrical work.

Some work activities present a risk such as climbing ladders and work on a roof or scaffold. Also when machinery such as diggers are on site you must be careful.

Criteria 2.3: List the current Health and Safety Executive top ten safety risks.

Fall off ladder
Fall through roof
Lifting operations
Struck by plant
Overturning plant fall from scaffold
Fall through an internal void
Asphyxiation poisoning
Crushed by falling excavation
MEWP crushing entrapment

Criteria 2.4: List the current Health and Safety Executive top five health risks.

Exposure to asbestos
Exposure to silica
Manual handling
Exposure to excessive noise
Exposure to excessive vibration

Criteria 2.5: State how changing circumstances within the workplace could cause hazards.

If things change and not everyone is aware of these changes then people could get injured. For example if a hand rail is removed on a scaffold someone could fall off. A newly dug trench could become a hazard if someone who didn’t know it was there went near it then they could fall in, this could become more dangerous if metal pegs have been driven into the ground.

Criteria 2.6: State the methods used for reporting changed circumstances, hazards and incidents in the workplace.

Reporting change in circumstances and hazards can be done at a tool box talk, or you could bring them up as soon as they arise to the site manager and to the other workers. Incidents at work including injury and death should be reported. There are regulations in place (RIDDOR) making sure these things are reported. Accidents should be recorded in the accident book with information about the incident, where it took place and the date. If an accident causes someone to have an injury leaving them unable to work for more than three days they must inform the HSE.

Criteria 3.6: State the organisational policies and procedures for health, safety and welfare, in relation to:

– Dealing with accidents and emergencies associated with the work and environment The HSE try to reduce the number of accidents and emergencies that occur in the work place. They also tell people what types of injury should be reported and how to report them.

– Methods of receiving or sourcing information
The HSE has a website that is very informative for both employers and employees on many things such as a COSHH and MHO. You can also request advice from them. You could also read the Health And Safety At Work Act (HASAWA 1974).

– Reporting
The HSE has regulations set in place called the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). These regs make sure that everything is properly reported.

– Stopping work
The HSE sends inspectors onto sites and he is able to make people stop work while something that could be a hazard is made safe again.

– Evacuation
The HSE can send inspector on site and if he is not happy with what he sees he is able to close down the site by providing a prohibition notice. He will tell them how to make the site safe and what needs to be done to get it up and running again safely.

– Fire risks and safe exit procedures
Employers must carry out a fire safety risk assessment and keep it up to date. They also need to ensure that adequate and appropriate fire safety measures are in place to minimise the risk of injury or loss of life in the event of a fire.

– Consultation and feedback.
Tool box talks are carried out so that people can give instructions to others and also for people to give feedback on possible hazards such as a scaffolding has being altered.

Criteria 3.7: State the appropriate types of fire extinguishers relevant to the work.

Water, Dry powder, Foam and CO2.

Criteria 3.8: State how and when the different types of fire extinguishers are used in accordance with legislation and official guidance.

Not all fire extinguishers are suitable for putting out all types of fire.
For example if you spray water on an electric fire it could make it a lot worse. Below is a list of what types of extinguisher is suitable for what type of fire.

Water – Paper , Wood, Textiles, Fabric
Dry powder – Paper, wood textiles and fabric. Flammable liquids. Flammable gases. Oils and fats. Electrical hazard. Foam

– Paper, wood textiles and fabric. Flammable gases. Oils and fats. CO2 – Flammable liquids. Flammable gases. Oils and fats. Electrical hazard.

You must make sure when using a CO2 extinguisher in a confined space that you have sufficient fresh air. You could use breathing apparatus to make sure you are safe.

Criteria 4.2: State how personal behaviour demonstrates responsibility for general workplace health, safety and welfare, in relation to:

– Recognising when to stop work in the face of serious and imminent danger to self and/or others How you behave when you or someone else is in danger is very important. If a scaffold has become unstable in a high wind then you should be responsible and safe by stopping work until the scaffolding is secure.

– Contributing to discussions and providing feedback
Contributing to discussions and providing feedback by pointing out hazards and potential risks will demonstrate you are able to spot risks and help make the workplace safe.

– Reporting changed circumstances and incidents in the workplace Reporting changed circumstances can prevent an accident from happening because someone wasn’t aware. Legislations are in place to ensure that incidents are reported to the HSE. Making sure these are done demonstrates responsibility.

– Complying with the environmental requirements of the workplace Making sure things such as streams aren’t polluted and making sure waste is correctly disposed of is very important.

Criteria 4.3: Give examples of how the behaviour and actions of individuals could affect others within the workplace.

Your behaviour could have negative effects on others. Working in an unsafe way may directly harm someone such as dropping a brick, or not putting barriers around a hole in the ground. You behaviour could also have a positive effect on your fellow workers for example you could discover a fire and help to ensure everyone is evacuated safely. Also your feedback at a toolbox talk could stop an accident from taking place.

Criteria 5.2: State how security arrangements are implemented in relation to:

The workplace: Is surrounded by fencing stopping anyone from wandering onto the site. There will also be lockable storage areas.

The general public: Will not be able to get access onto the site as it will be secured with fencing. Also there are signs put up to inform the public that they are not allowed to enter.

Site personnel:

Resources: Will be locked away in containers so they cannot be stolen.

Assessment method – Written Questions Essay

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster Essay

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster Essay.

1. An example of cost to the stakeholders by Massey actions is first of all, putting their life at risk. Employees risk their lives every day by making the decision to go into the mines without being provided safe environment. Yes, the employees knew what the safety problems were, but had to overlook them in order to keep their jobs and provide for their families. A second example of cost is how the employees had to put their health at risk. Investigators found that the mines did not have enough ventilation to provide with clean and fresh air.

The ventilation system was supposed to remove coal dust and other dangerous gases.

None these safety processes were taken place. When autopsies were performed to the victims, medical evidence showed that 71 percent of the victims showed clinical signs of black lung disease. The black lung disease can be caused by breathing in airborne coal dust environments. An example of the benefit to stakeholders was that Massey provided many jobs to the community.

The second example is that the company of Massey was very generous to the community. By providing scholarships, partnered local schools and provided emergency support when natural disasters occurred.

2. The Massey energy behaved ethically in the virtual method because they had good values and characters by providing their community with support. Examples are, scholarships, helping schools, and helping the community when natural disasters occurred. They were unethical in the utilitarian method because to save cost and produce more they over looked the benefits in investing in safety measures. At many times the employees would complain to the managers about the safety and the employees were intimidated and put back to work as if their safety did not matter, since all they cared about was producing coal which meant dollars. Massey was very unethical in the rights method. This was their biggest problem of all, respecting basic human rights by putting the employee’s lives in danger in exchange economic power. Massey was unethical in the justice method because although they provided well-paying job it was not enough to offset the danger they were put through. In one year Massey increase their revenue from 1.2 billion to 2.7 billion in one year.

3. We believe that the Upper Big Branch disaster was caused by the company itself by not following the proper safety procedures. They cheated MSHA by providing false records of accidents. They also cheated by letting the companies’ managers know that inspectors were on the way to inspect, which is a violation of the law. By not following safety procedures like using the proper ventilation fans many chemical fumes stayed in the air and when the machine sparked it caused the explosion by killing the miners.

4. It is simple to reduce chances of disasters by following mine safety. MSHA provides safety inspections four times a year without notice. This will help the company see what they need to work on and what is being done right. Also congress established the U.S Bureau of Mines which conducts research on health and safety for the miners. Also the Coal Act which was established in 1969 will protect miners by charging penalties to companies that do not follow the law. They act also compensates the miners that were disabled by the black lung disease. The companies proper procedures to have a safe working place is by having managers have monthly safety meetings to make sure that everyone is following protocol. All companies should have a union so their employees can be protected from unfair treatment or being intimidated to express when they feel their life is at stake by being in an unsafe situation.

The Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster Essay

Provide displays in schools Essay

Provide displays in schools Essay.

1.4 Describe the requirements and procedures for carrying out a risk assessment for displays.

Health and safety regulations must be observed whilst putting up any displays for the safety of both staff and children in the setting.

Display boards must be securely attached to the wall by using screws to ensure safety and stability and must not be obstructing exits, light switches or sockets, fire exit signs or exposed wires of any sort.

If a ladder is needed to reach the top of the board, it must be flat on the floor with no wobble and another member of staff to hold it in position.

It would be advantageous to display work during lunch time or before or after school if the display board is in a high traffic area i.e. a corridor where children walk frequently and in high numbers. This will minimise the risk of the person using the ladder being involved in an accident. Desks and chairs should never be used to climb on.

A wall stapler is the best way to attach work to the wall. Pins and clips can and will fall or be knocked off on to the floor where they could be stood on or picked up by children. Similarly, any kind of tape would be unfit for use as they do not hold any objects of weight securely or practically.

All work to be displayed should be put somewhere safe and out of the way of people walking past whilst it is being put up. It would be preferable to have another member of staff to assist in handing things to you and to check that things are safe and finally, that they look presentable and neat.

Ladders, staple guns, scissors, rolls of paper, blu tac, pens and any other equipment used must be put away promptly and securely. Ladders must be stowed away somewhere safe where they cannot be tripped over or children climb on them. All other equipment should be returned to class or the correct place that it is usually stored.

Provide displays in schools Essay

The KBR Swindon Essay

The KBR Swindon Essay.

INTRODUCTION

The KBR Swindon warehouse facility is responsible for the receipt, storage, maintenance and out-loading of equipment in support of KBR global contracts. It is also the long-term storage and logistic facility for UK KBR based projects. The Warehouse Manager has overall Health and Safety responsibility for all the projects working out of this facility. The Swindon Safety Management System is based on ‘BS OHSAS 18001:2007’ certification. As part of KBR Management System review, the Swindon Warehouse completes quarterly Project Status Review (PSR) to feed information in to the overall KBR management system review.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this report is to ensure that all projects working in this facility are in compliance with the KBR Health and Safety management system and is meeting legal requirements. This report will also provide an opportunity to review the effective communication and cooperation between different projects sharing one facility and identify the effectiveness of the management system, conclusions, recommendations and an action plan if improvements are required.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of this audit is to review the policies, objectives and management system of the KBR Swindon warehouse facility for the safe receipt, storage and maintenance of equipment. This will entail reviewing the implementations of risk assessments, communications between the management and the workforce which includes compliance with current legislation, KBR Instructions and Procedures, various safety meetings and the KBR Safety Policy.

The documentation that will be used in the audit will include:

The warehouse Health and Safety plan to ensure that there is management commitment to health and safety in the warehouse.

Emergency procedures to ensure suitable and sufficient procedures are in place in case of an emergency.

Minutes of meetings to review whether Health and Safety concerns are being discussed and review the outcome and corrective actions.

Accident records to assess whether there are any trends and significant near miss incidents.

Risk assessments to ensure that all risks has been assessed and that mitigation measures put in place is suitable and sufficient to control the risk as low as reasonably practicable.

Method statements to ensure that the tasks are being conducted in a safe manner.

Training records to ensure that all employees and visitors are aware of the Health and Safety arrangements.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANISATION

The building is a large 240,000ft2 open-plan warehouse containing two-storey offices on the North end of the warehouse. The warehouse also has 2 integral two-storey offices, welfare and canteen units. The warehouse is a rented facility and the Warehouse Manager has regular meetings with the landlord representative to deal with issues regarding the fabric of the buildings, services and surrounding hard standing within the tenanted estate. The occupancy of the warehouse consists of six KBR staff including the warehouse manager.

Approximately five agency employees are used dependant on the activities scheduled for the week. Main work patterns for the warehouse staff are to move the equipment in to the testing area, test the equipment, clean and fix any defective equipment to ensure the readiness for deployment. The main risks to the warehouse staff include forklift truck operations, manual handling and mechanical hazards working with power tools.

In addition, the offices at the warehouse are used as a call centre which is completely separate from the work being conducted in the storage facility. This is a secure access area and is set up in an open-plan office environment with approximately 30 desks. This call centre is manned 24 hours a day and will always have a minimum of 2 occupants. However, occupancy could increase to 30 for training days, interviews and meetings. The main risks to the call centre operators are Work Related Upper Limb Disorders as a result of poor ergonomics and lone working hazards.

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT

There is no Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or Environmental Agency (EA) censures or improvement notices placed on the site by the HSE or EA. Pertinent hazards addressed by risk assessments at this facility are categorised below.

There is a duty on the Warehouse manager to ensure that adequate arrangements are in place for work equipment as described in The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). A lot of different types of machinery will be used in the warehouse area which the warehouse manager will need to ensure complies with the PUWER before they are commissioned for use. Regulations 4 to 10 sets out the management duties of PUWER covering the selection of suitable equipment, maintenance, inspection, specific risks, information, instructions and training.

Seeing as the equipment has been bought second hand, it will need to be inspected by a competent person, producing a risk assessment and providing information, instruction and training to all warehouse staff on the use of the machinery. Regulations 11 to 24 of PUWER cover guarding of dangerous parts of work equipment, the provision of appropriate stop and emergency stop controls, stability, suitable and sufficient lighting and suitable warning markings or devices. The inspection of machinery will identify dangerous parts of the equipment and the warehouse manager will need to ensure that the guards are fitted to the machines before the machines are commissioned.

The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER) apply in relation to all work activities undertaken by KBR where lifting equipment and operations as defined by the regulations are used. This legislation expands on the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and complements the requirements of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). KBR has a duty under these regulations in situations where lifting equipment is used by employees at work, to ensure that the lifting equipment and associated lifting operations are carried out safely. In addition, persons who have any control of lifting operations, or who supervise or manage the use of lifting equipment also have a duty under the Regulations, but only to the extent of their control. LOLER requires the Warehouse manager to conduct a risk assessment on the forklift trucks which will be used inside the warehouse and the measures needed to eliminate or control the risks.

Regulation 6 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and its supporting Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) provides the warehouse manager with general requirements about ventilation of the warehouse and equipment used to ventilate the warehouse.

Regulation 7 of The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) requires the warehouse manager to prevent or control the exposure of employees to substances hazardous to their health. Compliance with this Regulation is particularly important as incident reports from the warehouse has indicated a near miss incident where an employee took receipt of a delivery and spilled a chemical due to poorly packaged bottles.

If any of the risk assessments identifies that personal protection is required, then the Warehouse manager will need to ensure that personal protection equipment (PPE) is provided in accordance with the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. The Warehouse manager needs to ensure that a stock of PPE is available for visitors and employees who do not have the right PPE when entering the warehouse.

The Warehouse manager also has a duty under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) to conduct a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment and to ensure that Fire safety arrangements are in place to elimination or reduction of risks from dangerous substances. The warehouse manager faces the challenge to manage both the warehouse and the call centre employees during an emergency.

Under the same regulations the Warehouse manager should ensure means are available for fire-fighting and fire detection and that there are adequate emergency routes and exits from the warehouse. KBR will have generally assessed fire evacuation routes, means of detection and raising the alarm at all of its sites. Details of these arrangements are usually contained in the fire risk assessments kept at each site. KBR managers are required to do the following to maintain fire prevention measures:

Ensure that a suitable fire risk assessment is in place.

Ensure that any actions arising from external inspections are acted upon in an appropriate and timely manner. Often this will mean monitoring improvements to be carried out by the client, and in all cases will require the addition of information to local health, safety and environmental plans.

Carry out regular housekeeping checks to ensure that items are not being stored inappropriately, especially near hot or electrical equipment, that escape routes are not blocked and that fire safety equipment has not been interfered with.

Ensure employees do not increase the fire risk at an office or similar by using faulty electrical goods, smoking in a non-designated area or storing refuse inappropriately.

Ensure that records are completed whenever there have been any checks or maintenance of fire safety equipment/fixtures using Fire Equipment Inspection Sheet.

Ensure fire prevention measures are communicated to staff, contractors and visitors.

The Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (HSCER) requires the Warehouse manager to consult employees on the information required about risks to their health and safety and preventative measures in place.

All management and staff in a working environment need to follow the KBR FIRST AID guidance as a minimum standard in order to ensure the health, safety and welfare of KBR employees and other persons who may be affected by our undertakings. First Aid at work covers the initial management of any injury or illness suffered at work. First Aid can save lives and prevent minor injuries becoming major ones. Under the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (as amended 2009), all workplaces must make provisions for first aid, to be readily available at appropriate times.

The Control of ASBESTOS Regulations 2012 requires KBR to prevent the exposure of its employees to asbestos so far as is reasonably practicable. To achieve this KBR must ensure perform suitable and sufficient assessments in accordance with HSG 264 Asbestos: the survey guide that determines whether asbestos is present on the premises. This was arranged by the premises’ owner prior to KBR occupying the premises and Asbestos areas were identified within the warehouse. KBR must ensure that the warehouse’s owner:

• Determines the risk from the asbestos.

• Prepares a written plan identifying the area of the premises concerned and the measures necessary for managing the asbestos risk.

• Implement the measure in the plan.

• Record the measures taken to implement the plan.

These measures should include adequate means for:

• Monitoring the condition of any asbestos or suspected asbestos.

• Maintaining the asbestos or its safe removal.

• Providing information identifying the location and condition of identified asbestos to any person likely to disturb it and making this information available to the emergency services.

The Control of NOISE at Work Regulations 2005 will need to be considered for a backup generator placed inside the warehouse where Warehouse staff will be working during their normal working day. The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 places the following duties on to the Warehouse manager:

• Carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk to the health and safety of employees who are liable to noise exposure at or above any Lower Exposure Action Levels.

• Record the significant findings of the assessment and ensure that it is reviewed regularly and revised as required.

• Record any measurements taken.

• Ensure that the risk assessment has been carried out by a competent person.

• Reduce noise exposure to as low as is reasonably practicable, by means of organisational and technical measures other than personal hearing protectors, where any employee is likely to be exposed above any Upper Exposure Action Levels.

• Hearing protection is to be available on request for any employee exposed above the lower exposure action value, and must be provided to any employee exposed at or above the upper exposure action level.

• Designated areas where employees are likely to be exposed to or above the upper action level as hearing protection zones.

• Ensure that no employee enters designated hearing protection zones unless they are wearing ear protectors.

• Provide employees with information, training and instruction about risks, control measures, hearing protection and safe working practices.

Warehouse staff will be conducting manual handling activities during their normal working day so the warehouse manager will need to ensure compliance with the MANUAL HANDLING Operation Regulations 1992. The Warehouse manager need to ensure a suitable and sufficient assessments of all such manual handling operations are undertaken and have taken into account all foreseeable risks.

In addition to the legal environment in the warehouse, the Warehouse manager needs to ensure compliance with The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 to minimise to eliminate or reduce possible eyesight or musculoskeletal disorders due to the effects of continual display screen equipment use.

REVIEW OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The KBR Swindon Safety Management System is based on ‘BS OHSAS 18001:2007’ Standard and follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology.

DESCRIPTION

The general requirement of the Planning stage is to define and document the scope of the management system. This information is captured in the KBR Corporate HS&E Policy which is a global document and is written in a very general and broad manner in an effort to comply with all possible projects on a global level. The management system has a process in place for hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls covered in various work methods. The HS&E Risk Assessment work method provides guidance on the specific duty placed upon KBR to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of all risks to the health and safety of employees and others, arising at or from a work activity. The “Identification and Evaluation of HSE Legislative and Other Requirements” process map identifies relevant HSE legislative requirements applicable and is recorded in the HSE Requirements Register.

The KBR Swindon HS&E Plan contains an organisation charts which clearly identifies roles, responsibilities and accountability for everyone working at the warehouse. KBR needs to ensure that everyone working in the warehouse is competent and experienced for the work that they are doing. The KBR Swindon Training Strategy contains a Training matrix to ensure appropriate level of competence at different levels of authority. The HS&E Management system is available to all employees on the KBR intranet and regularly reviewed, updated and communicated via the intranet.

KBR operates a three-tiered emergency response procedure whereby all projects and locations will ensure a Local Emergency Response Plan (LERP) is in place to manage low level emergencies. The KBR warehouse can then escalate the emergency to a Level 2 Incident Commander if it is deemed necessary and the Level 2 Incident Commander can escalate to a Level 3 global status in severed circumstances.

KBR operates an integrated management system so the “Audit Management System” process required by the Quality Management System is used to conduct audits to determine the effectiveness of the controls in place.

Health and Safety performance is measured using incident and accident statistics and completing monthly project reviews. Each project is set a target, usually a 10% reduction from the previous year’s incident rate, and is monitored against this target. This information is then discussed in a management review meeting on a quarterly basis.

The KBR Swindon Essay

School Bus Safety Essay

School Bus Safety Essay.

According to the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, since 1996, an estimated 1, 387 crashes were school-transportation related. This indicates that despite increased education, harsher laws for DWIs and similar crimes, and new slogans splayed on billboards and television ads such as dont drink and drive and buckle up, these have largely fallen on deaf ears. A popular cartoon, The Simpsons illustrates this point best with Otto, the bus driver, often neglecting stop signs, driving wildly, and even having his license revoked. Current vehicle accidents could easily be avoided even if you have Otto as your bus driver, especially incidents relating to school-transportation if emergency procedures were followed and implemented.

Thus, when we examine the topic of Emergency Procedures, What do All School Bus Riders Need to Know? we must first look at emergency bus evacuations drills, secondly how to use emergency equipment, and lastly, what to do in the event that a bus driver is incapacitated.

Recently at my high school due to new Texas Legislation entitled School Bus Emergency Evacuation Training amending Sec.

34.0021, we had a school-wide training session for both teachers and students regarding emergency procedures. This effectively ensured that during necessary evacuation drills, the entire student body and faculty would be able to leave and enter school buses in an orderly manner. All school bus riders were required to do two different drills once we left the school. The first drill consisted of the first half of the bus leaving through the double-doors next to the bus driver and the second half of the bus sitting and scooting out the emergency exit.

The second drill entailed all persons on the bus sitting and scooting from the rear emergency exit with necessary assistance to those hindered by crutches or other impediments. Although these drills may have seemed repetitive and downright unnecessary, tragic accidents such as the one that occurred on September 21, 1989 have been avoided. In Alton, Texas, a Coca-Cola delivery truck collided with a school bus over a bridge resulting in the total blockage of the front door and only one rear emergency exit. On a bus with 81 students, 21 died from drowning and three received major injuries. Unfortunately, laws set in place in 1989 did not mandate more emergency doors, but todays generation seems to take these and other precautions for granted.

In addition to more emergency doors and a limited occupancy on the bus, knowledge of where safety equipment is located and how to use it is also vital to emergency situations. According to an article titled Key Safety Equipment Required on School Buses, among the necessary components of a working school bus are emergency exits, special mirrors, and unlisted were the school radio and fire extinguisher. During the before-mentioned bus drill at my high school, the bus driver showed all of us how to open the above hatch of the school bus to evacuate if the bus was ever on its side, how to open the side windows located in the middle of the bus, and where safety equipment such as her transistor radio and fire extinguisher were in cases of fire. This knowledge is necessary to saving time and lives in crises like the tragedy that occurred in 1989 to even a simple fire from fuel combustion.

Despite the helpful insight and help my bus driver was able to provide during the emergency training and drill session with where safety equipment was located and how to use it, sometimes she may be unable to help in an emergency event. In an article titled Emergency Evacuation Training School Activity Trips, in the event that the bus driver is incapacitated, school patrol members should direct activities that the bus driver would normally do such as using the transistor radio and calling for help, assisting other students through emergency exits, and directing the use of safety equipment. During these situations, being cool, calm, and collected is key to a speedy evacuation, but this can only be accomplished if everyone knows how to call for assistance and how to use safety equipment.

So, even if Otto from The Simpsons is your bus driver, keep in mind that bus evacuation drills using the sit and scoot method, knowledge of how to use safety equipment, and being able to take over when your bus driver is incapacitated will go a long way in preventing future disasters. Potentially, 1, 387 deaths could have been avoided if all bus riders had been properly informed. Thus, if all of us work together in implementing new legislation for emergency procedures, education about bus safety will work, there will be less DWIs, and slogans such as dont drink and drive and buckle up wont be corny, theyll finally be listened to.

Key Safety Equipment Required on School Buses. School Bus Information Council. 2003 23 Jan. 2008.

Szuberla, Charles. Seat Belts on School Buses in New York State. State Education Department. Nov. 1998.

23 Jan. 2008 .

Trump, Ken. School Bus Security & School Transportation Crisis Planning. National School Safety andSecurity Services. 2007. 23 Jan. 2008.

School Bus Safety Essay

Loose objects in a vehicle Essay

Loose objects in a vehicle Essay.

The potential dangers of loose objects in vehicles are strongly associated with Newton’s First Law of Motion, inertia.

Inertia is when an object in motion tries to stay in motion, and an object at rest tries to remain at rest, unless the object is acted upon by an outside force.

For example, say a car is traveling along a straight road.

Loose objects in the auto are “acted upon” by the body, seats, or some other part of the vehicle (whatever is touching a loose object), whenever the whole thing accelerates.

The two most important things related to this are:

1. “Velocity” is a concept that includes both the speed and the direction of motion

2. “Acceleration” exists whenever there is any change in a velocity

Let us first return to the straight road, and magically do two things:

1) Stop the car instantly.

2) Turn the car so that if faces left, also instantly.

What happens to all the loose objects inside the car? They are still going to obey the First Law of Motion, and try to continue going down the straight road.

However, since the car is now both stopped and facing left, the right wall of the car is in everything’s way. At that moment everything flies towards the right wall, and the loose objects crash hard against it. Also, the driver and the passenger(s) would also smash into the right wall.

If the car was extremely heavy, or was traveling at a considerable speed, then the force of the crash would be greater. This is because of Newton’s second law, F=ma, the larger the acceleration or mass, the greater the force. This makes it obvious that loose objects in vehicles is dangerous and should be placed in compartments provided.

The whole point of this is that when an auto merely follows the curve of the road towards the left, a less drastic version of the same thing happens: the right wall of the vehicle gets in the way of every loose object’s natural tendency to keep going straight. When each object comes to rest against that wall, then it begins experiencing acceleration towards it own left. At the end of the curve, when the auto goes straight again, everything in it will have finished accelerating towards the left, so the various objects will lay loosely once more.

JP17: Avoiding or reducing the effect of a collision

In a collision, an object experiences a force for a given amount of time which results in its mass undergoing a change in velocity (i.e. which results in a momentum change).

Technologies have greatly improved our ability to avoid or reduce the effect of a motor vehicle collision. Many are now considered to be standard features. Others optional extras, and some are only found in the most luxurious cars. The main focus in reducing the effect of a collision if to reduce the force the person feels during a collision. To do this, you need to maximize the distance over which the person comes to rest. This is derived from the formula Fd=k (where k is a constant value of kinetic energy). This means that force and stopping distance are inversely proportional to each other. It is known that the force (F) is the final value that determines the extent of the collision both on the vehicle and its occupants. Crumple zones, seatbelts and air bags are three examples of technology that are based upon this concept, and Newton’s first law of motion, “the object in motion continues to move with a speed that is constant in magnitude and direction.”

A car’s crumple zones do the real work of increasing the stopping distance, thus softening the blow. Crumple zones are areas in the front and rear of a car that collapse relatively easily. Instead of the entire car coming to an abrupt stop when it hits an obstacle, it absorbs some of the impact force by flattening, like an empty soda can. The car’s cabin is much sturdier, so it does not crumple around the passengers. It continues moving briefly, crushing the front of the car against the obstacle. Of course, crumple zones will only protect the person if he or she is secured to the seat by the seatbelt.

A seatbelt’s job is to spread the stopping force across sturdier parts of your body in order to minimize damage. A typical seatbelt consists of a lap belt, which rests over the pelvis, and a shoulder belt, which extends across the chest. The two belt sections are tightly secured to the frame of the car in order to hold passengers in their seats.

When the belt is worn correctly, it will apply most of the stopping force to the rib cage and the pelvis, which are relatively sturdy parts of the body. Since the belts extend across a wide section of the body, the force isn’t concentrated in a small area, so it can’t do as much damage. Additionally, the seatbelt webbing is made of more flexible material than the dashboard or windshield. It stretches a little bit, which means the stop isn’t quite so abrupt.

An air bag is an inflation system made of a thin, nylon fabric folded into the steering wheel or dashboard or, for side airbags, the seat or door. The air bag has a sensor that tells the bag to inflate. The mechanical switch is flipped when there is a mass shift that closes an electrical contact, telling the sensors that a crash has just occurred.

The air bag system ignites a solid propellant, which burns rapidly to create a large volume of nitrogen gas to inflate the bag. The bag then literally explodes from its storage site. A split second later, the gas quickly disappears through tiny holes in the bag, thus deflating the bag so the driver or passenger can move.

Loose objects in a vehicle Essay

Case Study: BP Texas Refinery Essay

Case Study: BP Texas Refinery Essay.

Introduction

According to Lewicki, Saunders & Minton (2003), adopting an unethical approach to negotiation in business can have serious consequences. A recent explosion at the British Petroleum (BP) Texas refinery on 24 March, 2005 reiterated this and demonstrated the effect of an unethical approach to negotiation with the death of 15 contract workers.

Ethical behaviour refers to the standards of conduct such as honesty, fairness, responsibility and trust. (Lewicki et al 2003) These standards are broadly applied and determine whether a course of action is right or wrong in a given situation.

(Lewicki et al 2003) According to Es (1955), advocates of the ‘absolutist’ position hold a rigid view of what is right and wrong. In contrast, a ‘relativist’ approach would suggest ethical behaviour be contingent in nature, therefore having no set definition of what is right and wrong.

History is fraught with examples of unethical behaviour, from Nazi Germany of 1945 to recent atrocities in the Balkans and Rwanda. However, in those instances there was no negotiation involved.

There are also numerous examples of unethical behaviour adopted in negotiation that have occurred in modern society. These have ranged from large scale unethical business issues such as the recent BP Texas refinery’s failure on safety provisions; Patrick’s wharf workers incident and the Hardie’s asbestos compensation dispute; to smaller everyday unscrupulous business dealings.

Research into ethics and negotiation is primarily focused towards examining the standard of truth. (Lewicki et al 2003) Attempting to define ‘truth’ raises a number of controversial issues. For example, ‘what constitutes a lie?’ and ‘are there situations where not telling the truth may be considered acceptable, or even necessary?’ (Lewicki et al 2003: pp.167)

The inherent competitive nature of most negotiating situations would suggest a certain degree of deceptive behaviour was a necessary component of negotiating. (Friedman & Shapiro 1995) Thus ethical negotiation becomes a question of distinguishing those behaviours which are deemed acceptable from those which are unacceptable. Negotiators need to be aware of the implications of their behaviour as failure to adhere to established ethical conventions may ultimately result in undesirable consequences. (Es, 1955)

Ethics in Negotiation

Given that information is a major source of power in negotiation it is not difficult to understand why negotiators may be attracted to deceptive behaviours. Ultimately the party who acquires information of the highest quality or uses it more persuasively will have a significant advantage over their opponent. (Lewicki et al 2003) By engaging in deceptive behaviour negotiators can manipulate information to the advantage of their own self-interest. (Es, 1955) For example negotiators often present inaccurate or misleading information in an attempt to alter their opponent’s perceptions, preferences and priorities. (Lewicki et. al. 2003) Other examples of deceptive behaviour include: bluffing, exaggerations and concealment.

Lack of responsibility for ones actions is a significant concern with respect to unethical behaviour in negotiations. (Byrnes, 1987) It is quite often the case that negotiators will attempt to justify their use of unethical behaviour by shifting the focus to the other party. For example a negotiator may perceive the other side to have adopted a competitive approach, therefore the use of unethical tactics is justified in their minds as a necessary defence mechanism. Other self-serving rationalisations include: the belief that the end justifies the means, it was unavoidable and the behaviour was appropriate to the situation. (Lewicki et. al. 2003)

Given the fact that most negotiations tend to incorporate elements of distributive bargaining it is generally accepted that some information will be concealed and exaggerated offers made. (Friedman & Shapiro 1995) Even the most cooperative of negotiators will be reluctant to facilitate a completely trusting and honest negotiating environment. Negotiators need to find a suitable medium which communicates their integrity while maintaining a safe bargaining position. (Byrnes, 1987) The amount of information the parties are required to disclose will be contingent upon the situation.

Unethical behaviour in negotiations can lead to both positive and negative outcomes. (Lewicki et. al., 2003) However, incentives for deception often create a serious moral tension resulting in unethical negotiators displaying signs of post negotiation guilt and discomfort. (Byrnes, 1987) By failing to adhere to established ethical conventions in negotiations, a party may find itself gaining an unfavorable reputation in the eyes of its constituencies, the opposition and affected publics. (Lewicki et. al., 2003) According to Byrnes (1987), this can in turn affect future relations between the parties as well as setting up a negative sentiment for future disputes and negotiations.

Case study: BP Texas Refinery

A recent accident at the BP Texas refinery provides us with an example of the potential ramifications of adopting an unethical stance in negotiation. According to Laredo Morning Times (2005), despite numerous criticisms by the American Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of willfully violating safety rules and regulations, several fines and previous incidents which highlighted the plant’s safety inadequacies, BP maintained its hard line stance on workplace safety negotiations. It was a decision which ultimately cost 15 contract workers their lives.

The Texas City explosion was the eighth time this decade a fatal accident had been reported at a BP-owned plant – and the third fatal accident in Texas City alone. Thus, this recent fatal accident again raises debate over the issue of ‘money versus morality’ and questions whether BP (given its recent poor track record, as described by Olsen (2005)) acted ethically when addressing safety concerns in negotiations with their workers.

From a financial perspective, the Texas refinery is, according to Klinger (2005), BP’s biggest and the third-largest in the US. It processes 460,000 barrels of crude oil a day, enough to supply 3 per cent of America’s petrol demand. However, from a safety perspective, an analysis of industry statistics, news accounts and accident reports shows that, BP leads the U.S. refining industry in deaths over the past decade, with 22 fatalities since 1995 – more than a quarter of those killed in refineries across America. Furthermore, compared to the company’s major U.S.-based peer, Exxon Mobil Corp, than 10 times as many people have died in BP refineries. (Jordan, 2005)

The Texas City plant’s long history of safety problems failed to awaken company’s management into making safety issues their primary focus. Despite, their valiant attempts in several previous workplace negotiations with BP, the union had been unable secure to better working conditions and reparations to work equipment.

In the weeks before the accident at Texas City, the oil giant’s dismal record landed BP on an internal federal watch list of companies ‘indifferent’ to their legal obligations to protect employee safety because of a fatal explosion in Texas City in September 2004 that killed two pipe fitters and injured a third, when pressurized, superheated water was released from a 12-inch check valve. (Laredo Morning Times, 2005) The incident resulted in a $109,500 OSHA fine, including seven serious violations and a willful citation for failing to relieve trapped pressure within a pipe.

The explosion happened in the ventilator stack that was being started up again following extensive maintenance. It resulted in 15 fatalities, while another 70 people were injured. In response to the incident, BP spokesman Hugh Depland insisted that BP makes safety a priority and that there have been “significant upgrades at Texas City” in recent years: “As a result of the previous incidents we’ve made a number of changes in safety – including increased safety reviews by all members of the leadership team, an enhanced safety team for all employees and creation of a full-time safety audit team.” (Olsen, 2005)

According to Laredo Morning Times (2005), the problem could have occurred because BP officials might have focused too much on individual worker safety that they missed problems with overall system safety. Whilst safety statistics may have improved because more workers were avoiding minor injuries, lurking problems, such as the outmoded ventilator stack that spewed liquid and gas before igniting, had been neglected.

A good company would have investigated all accidents, incidents and near misses and said, “We’ll fix what we find, and we’ll follow it to completion.” (Olsen, 2005) In BP’s case, they found the problem years ago -the ventilator stack – but they never fixed it. The fact that the Texas plant is BP’s biggest refinery, would lead to the assumption that it would have been receiving regular attention, but with such a poor safety record and constant fines, it’s obvious that the management is continuing to sweep the issue under the rug. The current searing oil prices on the US and global markets may have persuaded the management to adopt such an approach, purely in the interests of profitability but that doesn’t make it condonable. The matter is currently under further investigation by the OSHA.

The evidence presented by Olsen (2005) and Laredo Morning Times (2005) suggests that the repeated causes of accidents and deaths in BP refineries can be linked to a weak unionist movement within the workers at the refinery. According to Jordan (2005), plant workers were represented by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), and, as mentioned above, failed to improve safety conditions for the workers. Statistically, as verified by the evidence that Olsen (2005) and Laredo Morning Times (2005) presented, the number of accidents and deaths at BP refineries continued to climb in recent history, and the union was prepared to take a much bolder stance to finally rectify the situation.

Negotiation Tactics

A fierce negotiation between BP and its workers, which are mainly contractors, erupted at the Texas BP refinery several weeks before the fatal explosion occurred. According to Olsen (2005), the workers argued that they were working in an outdated temporary operating unit that had no warnings or evacuation procedures. Furthermore, as verified by Wheelwright (2003), the workers argued that their benefits as independent contractors do not cover compensation for workplace injuries. BP argued with the intention of satisfying the worker’s requests for better occupational health and safety measures, but according to Olsen (2005), seemed unwilling to spend too much time and resources to reinstall safety mechanisms and procedures from bottom up.

The union representing the contractors working for BP was aware of BP’s poor safety record, and played hardball tactics, delivering a ridiculously harsh opening stance. Furthermore, the union was collaborating and forming allegiance with a third party company that reviews and reports the safety procedures and industrial hazards of a workplace. The union threatened to force an inspection of the poorest sections of the plant, and to release the information to the media.

The union targeted the very heart of this sensitive issue, using the poor safety record as evidence that BP has, according to Laredo Morning Times (2005) gotten it wrong all along and that it was time to completely overhaul their safety measures. According to the facts that Laredo Morning Times (2005) and Olsen (2005) presented, such as the accusations of BP willfully violating safety rules and procedures, delaying fixing problems and hiding investigation reports of previous accidents, it can be argued that BP had a habit of finding quick solutions in order to satisfy workers and minimize disruption to the workplace. This was also evident in their negotiation tactics.

Pushed into the corner by the union’s harsh (but true) attacks, BP had no choice but to re-evaluate their stance on safety measures. This, according to Lewicki et. al. (2003) is one of the consequences of the hardball tactic that the union employed. BP resorted to using what Lewicki et. al. (2003) classifies as unethical forms of bargaining. According to Olsen (2005), there was an initial report informing BP of the dangers of the temporary operating unit. However, BP chose to conceal that information from the union.

The negotiators from BP waved off the allegations of hazardous work conditions as exaggerations on the workers’ behalf, and indicated that their reports showed no substantial evidence for any hazardous sites. Finally their closing offer was to achieve an increased safety review by all members of the leadership team by creating an enhanced safety team for all employees and by employing a full-time safety audit team. Unfortunately the establishment of these teams, according to Olsen (2005) and Laredo Morning Times (2005), was delayed and did not happen before the explosion that killed 15 people occurred.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As discussed in the earlier section on ethics, it can be argued that BP adopted an unethical approach to resolving the dispute. They were involved in many of the features of an unethical dissolution, including bluffing, exaggerations and concealment. BP was focused on simply achieving the short-term outcome of minimizing disruption and satisfying the workers, and by this they demonstrated a strong belief in the ends justifying the means. While it can be argued that the negotiators from BP achieved this goal, it can be clearly seen that because of the lack of urgency and value they placed on their workers’ lives, the true outcome of the negotiation was disastrous.

A recommendation extends from Byrnes’ (1987) work that was mentioned above. It involves achieving a positive sentiment when the parties sit down on the negotiation table. Repeated incidents of falsification and lies which cost lives will create an aura of distrust which will lead to a disruption in the work force as well as hardball tactics being employed by the opposing party in future negotiations. Employing one of Walton & McKersie’s (1965) key systems in negotiations called attitudinal structuring, which involves open and honest communications between parties and the sharing of safety reports and progress, can give the union confidence that BP will work to fix any hazardous environments in the workplace.

This understanding between the parties will also allow BP to target the aspects of occupational health and safety that the workers truly value (instead of reports by Olsen (2005) indicating that BP was spending all their time just saying “don’t strain your back” and “don’t get dirt in your eyes”). This will help achieve their goal of gaining worker support and reducing the disruption to the workforce. This recommendation, of course, hinges on BP’s willingness to spend the resources to develop these programs. However if BP’s true intentions are to improve their safety record and to decrease the number of accidents and deaths at their plants, establishing an honest and reliable means of communication to the workers is the first step toward correcting their flawed past.

Case Study: BP Texas Refinery Essay