Great Deal! Get Instant $10 FREE in Account on First Order + 10% Cashback on Every Order Order Now

Hoang Tuan Minh XXXXXXXXXX) XXXXXXXXXX25 February, 2018 Answer these 2 questions below Remember in your answer, you should state: -The legal Issue(s) -The principle(s) citing legislation and/or...

1 answer below »
uary, 2018
Answer these 2 questions below
Remember in your answer, you should state:
-The legal Issue(s)
-The principle(s) citing legislation and/or relevant case law
-0ffer a conclusion to the scenario.
(Length- 2000 words XXXXXXXXXXwords each question)
· Please use a relevant law cases in AUSTRALIA only as a reference or evidence or example to support the argument for each question.
· Minimum of 8 References.
Question 1
Work Health and Safety Scenario-15 marks
A safety inspector was ca
ying out an inspection at a local hotel.
He noted that a ga
age disposal machine which was located in the kitchen, did not
have a safety guard installed.
This meant an operator could insert their arm into the machine.
The inspector instructs the business owner – Scott, to ensure that the machine remains
“out of service” until a safety guard is installed.
Scott immediately tells Geoff, a pantry hand, to put an “out of service tag” on the machine
and notifies the maintenance manager to isolate the electricity (so the blade will not
work) until a guard is installed.
The maintenance department electronically isolates the machine but do not get round
to putting a guard on.
They don’t see it as a priority as “no one has ever been hurt by the machine before”.
In the meantime, the “out of service tag” gets really dirty and is removed for cleaning.
This means that an electrician who is doing some general testing, doesn’t see any
sign, and therefore reconnects the machine.
Two weeks later Pete finds the machine is blocked.
He had been away on holidays and was not aware that the machine was out of
He sticks a spoon into it, when the spoon
eaks he tries to grab onto it, but instead his
hand is severely cut by the machine.
Refer to the employer’s duty of care and with specific reference to factors to be
considered discuss whether a
each of the employer’s duty of care has occu
(12 marks)
Has anybody else
eached their duty of care?
(3 marks)
Question 2
Workers Compensation and Discrimination, Bullying and Harassment Scenario-15 marks
Wendy sees a job advertisement for a “casual bar attendant” in the local newspaper.
She gets the job.
Not long afterwards her supervisor, Bob, finds out that she has a hearing impairment. On
occasions this has meant that she has misheard a customer order (especially when the
music volume is high).
Bob calls her into the office and gets very angry, he believes that having to ask
customers to repeat themselves is bad customer service.
He taps her on the top of her head and says “you better get it into your thick head I don’t
like mistakes around here”.
After each shift from then on Bob emba
asses Wendy in front of co-workers and
lames any inconsistencies when he counts the till at the end of the night on her.
Wendy has been to her doctor, she is anxious and depressed.
Her doctor recommends she find a new job.
Do you consider discrimination has taken place? (8 marks)
What else can she do? (7 marks)
Marking Ru
    Rating scale
sentence or two clearly
identifies the issues
eing discussed
    Issues-The legal issues
are clearly identified
    Evidence-Principles of
law are applied,
statutory and case law
are cited and the
elevance is stated
structured and logic
flows well with minimal
English language
ors, including
spelling, grammar and
sentence structure
acknowledgement of
documentation and use
of bibliographic
A minimum of eight
Answered Same Day Mar 14, 2020


Arun answered on Mar 14 2020
135 Votes
Safety and Discrimination Assignments
Q1. Answe
The safety inspector after ca
ying out the inspection found a ga
age disposal machine not installed safety guard. Out of any mishap, safety inspector instructed to isolate the machine electronically and paste a machine out of service tag. The business owner, Scott placed out of machine tag and isolated the machine electronically, but did not place a guard on the machine. Later, a person Pete, who was unaware of machine not working, accidently cut his hand. The question is whether the employer duty of care is violated in this regard, and whether other people are also responsible for this accident are probed.
The analysis starts with a case that reveals an office is ro
ed and the negative repercussions of this act on a lady prompted her to file a lawsuit against the employer for
each of duty of care. She said that ro
ery could not have taken place if there would be alarm system, time delay safe, signs showing no cash in the office. The lady charged that the employer did not ensure that employee must not be working alone in the office and there was no security consultants hired by employer to judge the security parameter. The honourable judge found that the lady was saying rightly and therefore, the Judge declared a
each of duty of care. The court ordered the employer to pay $800000 to the plaintiff. This case reveals that the consequences of not following the duty of care towards employees may be a significant threat for the organization.
The second case is Kandis v State Transport Authority (1984).
The most common laws consider that an injury taken place to the workers is due to
eech of the contract, negligence by employer and
eech of the statutory duty that is prescribed by the workplace health and safety act 1995. The duty of care demands from the employer that he or she should provide a safer system at work place, offer a safe system and safe equipments and plants. The employer duty of care also demands that safety of the work premises owned by employer and premises owned by others must be ensured by the employer. The employer is responsible for the instruction to the new employees as well as offering proper coordination and supervision to the existing employees. The duty of care is also non-delegable therefore; an employer cannot say that due to lack of reasonable care offered by other employees or workers, accident took place in the workplace. The case of TNT Australia Pty Ltd and Ors v. Christie reveals that employer cannot transfer the ownership of negligence of care to other party. The court held that the TNT and the agency hired the Christie, plaintiff, were both responsible to compensate the damages.
Now the questions come that whether the accident took place to Pete could have been averted. For these factors such as foreseeability, preventability, reasonableness is analysed. Foreseeability refers that the accidents or risk factor is foreseen before and employer is aware of this risk. The forseeability factor analysis clearly reveals that the employer Scott was instructed by the safety engineer about the possible harms by the machine in the absence of safety guard, but Scott did not consider it as a serious matter. Though, he had cut the electricity and pasted the notice out of service, but he could not replace the out of service tag when it got dirty. Therefore, this factor suggests that the accident was foreseeable but due to ignorance factor by the employer, this risk can true. The second factor is preventability that considers the options available for the employer to mitigate the threat. There are three options suggested by the safety officer such as installing a safety guard, cutting electricity to the machine and pasting a notice board. But the employer Scott only did pasting a notice and cutting supply of electricity. The reasonableness demands that an employer should act reasonably. But, in this case the act of the employer is not justified as reasonable. The...

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here