Introduction In this report an in depth analysis was undertaken to identify the SSHE principles conducted on the findings and relevance from case ‘Inspector Petar Ankucic v Drake Personnel Limited, t/as Drake  NSWIRComm 157’ on the 25th of November 1997. A brief introduction to the cases established the defendant Drake Personnel Limited liable for the injuries sustained by labourer employee Michael Stephen Douglas whom was carrying our duties at Warman Industrial a specialist designer and manufacturer of slurry pumps. The employee was contracted to perform packing duties and the role of a general store person. Douglas was a holidaying resident from the United Kingdom and was employed by Drake Personnel in various companies performing …show more content…
The key issue established was the labourer acquired for the position did not meet the experience or qualification needed to perform these duties. A period of approximately two to three weeks had passed while during this period the employer did not engage into the relevant training required to perform the duties instead turned a blind eye to the safety and welfare of its employee. A match between previous experience and required duties was not correctly established which eventually concluded in a severe injury. The employer was aware of duties required to be performed at the workplace but had indicated to its employee that the array of duties would be of similar nature to his expertise of forklift operation, understandable the employee was bound by his position to not refuse work and carry out his required obligation to received a weekly wage although he was incapable of the required skills needed. (Saluzinsky, …show more content…
Another aspect of formal training that was not provided was the identification of surrounding dangers involved with the operation of the saw or the manual removal of the sawdust from the housing saw cabinet. Due to the saw recently being installed in the factory premises no identification was address regarding the use of the saw. The saw was factory fitted with sawdust extractor vents to eliminate the periodic manual removal although this system was not installed at the Warman workplace. Drake Personnel has failed to enforce a cease work action to not operating woodworking machinery at the Warman workplace until formal training or instruction was provided to Douglas. The training would ensure a detailed understanding of the machinery and its operation, the correct use of the machinery and the required actions to be performed as use of the machinery on a daily basis. (Wales,
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
...e Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1994), and the employer can be held vicariously liable under the standards of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), so she should prevail in her case against her employer.
The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty.
Pursuant to section 561 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act), the Prosecution counsel seeks an appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland, from the decision of the Industrial Magistrates Court given on 11/10/2017.
They’re a lot of cattle anyway.” This reflects negatively on the neglect and passivity of factory owners and inspectors because of their unwillingness to protect the safety and wellbeing of factory owners.Within the same document, it Mr. H.F.J Porter mentioned that “There are only two or three factories in the city where fire drills are in use. In some of them where I have installed the system myself, the owners have discontinued it.” This is yet again another example of how neglectful factory regulators can be to employees and that they pay little attention to their health just to earn money in an easier but cruel way. Employees on the other hand, form unions to rebel against poor conditions, low pay, and long work hours. The employees also went on strike. They knew that they needed to prevent themselves and other employees from falling into the trap of harsh conditions of factories. The owners eventually raised their pay and shortened hours, but did not improve the working conditions of the
Mr. Darcy Adair was an employee for 13 years at Forensic Psychiatric Institute of BC. He worked as a Forensic Security Officer. The case is about his return to his employment after leaving his position for disability for a year in 2014. Mr. Adair was seeking proper accommodation so he could be treated equally in terms of job status and earnings just before he left the position in 2014.
Thus, the defendant was charged with negligence by making its employee work unreasonably long work hours when the manager knew his employee, Matt, might be risking his and others' life in danger by driving back home from work after his long shift.
This legislation does not prevent dismissals from occurring but only allows the employee to challenge their dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 is the legislation that covers the basis for Alfie’s case. In his case, he seeks to prove that his dismissal was unfair and unwarranted. Thereby seeking redress from his employee. Many aspects of his case are pertinent to the Acts as the facts indicate.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
During the inquiry, the supervisor produced, written maintenance records that were in satisfactory order. Although at some point, a co-worker backed up the claim of the injured worker, he believed that the table saw was not safe for use. Despite reliable maintenance documentation of the equipment, however, it is determined the table saw’s safety guard is poorly designed. Therefore, the design, layout left little protection for the users of the equipment. The company disregarded options that they could take in order to provide a safe environment for their employees. The injured employee definite, that he followed all the company 's safety procedures in which he trained to anticipate when working with machinery. In addition, other workers felt the equipment that, the company use was hazardous due to the safety guard poorly designed and
During the nineteenth and early twentieth century if a worker was a victim of workplace accident there was no compensation or requirement of the employer to support rehabilitation. Employers were not responsible for injured workers or accidents that happened in the workplace. The main legal doctrine of Assumption of Risk governed workplace hazards, which required workers to assume and accept all the risks affiliated with their occupation (Share, 2012). In the 1900 's many diseases and injuries resulted due to unsafe or hazardous working condition. "The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital reported in 1889 that many workers were being hurt on the job and condemned the state of working conditions in several industries" (CPHA, 2012). However, the federal government at the time did not act on the results of the commission report. In 1914, the province of Ontario introduced legislation where, "workers would be eligible for guaranteed no-fault benefits from a system that was wholly funded by employers. In exchange, employers were freed from legal liability" (CPHA, 2012). This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and