Safety Risk Case Study

Safety Statement:

Having carried out the relevant risk assessment and hazard identification processes under Section 20 of the Safety, Health & Welfare Act 2005 a company is now fit to draft a written Safety Statement which must outline the hazards and risks present within said workplace and processes outlined on how to deal with them. Standard Safety Statements often include;

• Emergency Plans

• Identification of Hazards/ Risks to employees as laid out in the Risk Assessment/ Hazard Identification process

• Duties of employees regarding Safety, Health & Welfare

• Names of those responsible for safety matters (Often Supervisors/ Managers)

• Procedures for dealing with all eventualities

Such statements should be presented in a clear and concise

The plaintiff this case (Mr McGann) sustained a serious injury to his eye while hammering nails through timber framing into a contract wall when a piece of a nail flew back into his eye seriously injuring him as he was not wearing the necessary safety glasses. There was debate over whether safety glasses had been provided by the employer and whether necessary training had been provided. Due to the lack of evidence the court sided with take the plaintiffs evidence that no safety gear had been provided. The court stated that the lack of safety gear provided was a breach in the employers duty of care and that the injury was reasonable foreseeable. There had also been a failure to enforce and monitor the employees wearing safety glasses. The court also found the plaintiff to be contributory negligent as he failed to take note of the safety signs in his work place stating that the wearing of safety wear is

The case itself looks at casual supermarket demonstrators whose terms and conditions describe them as independent contractors responsible for their own taxes. When looking at the case in greater detail the Supreme Court judge decided to look at the entirety of the work being carried out and not just what was stated in their respective contracts. It was deemed that said demonstrators were carrying out their duties under a contract of service and not as an independent contractor as implied in the contract. The fact that said individuals were not required to provide the necessary equipment and/or financial investment to ensure the businesses successful implementation it was deemed that they were technically an employee of the company and not independent contractors as Henry Denny & Sons were claiming entitling them to employee rights within the