You are on page 1of 4

Maria Cecille S.

Garcia
BSChE 3
1. A new worker was killed as he cleaned behind a hamburger stove at a fast food
restaurant. An investigation into his death revealed that the underside of the cable
connected to the hamburger cooker had worn away exposing a 12-mm length of
one live conductor. The worker died after touching the worn cable with cord.
During the investigation another cable attached to the adjacent cooker was found to
be worn.

Identify the hazards in this article.


- Electric Hazard
- Safety Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard
- Temperature Hazard
- Physical Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard (effects of shift work or him being a new
employee)

List factors that may have contributed to this incident.


- The 12 mm live conductor
- The another worn cable found
- The stress he get from his work
- Improper Workstation
- Extreme heat he get from the stove
- Limited light at the underside of the stove

List control measures that may have prevented this incident.


- A pre-checking of the stove before cleaning
- Proper uniform in cleaning a stove (like rubber gloves)
- Proper lighting of the whole workstation
- A perfectly conditioned worker
- A good ventilation in the workstation

Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 50-50 judgment where both the worker and the
management are at fault, for they both have their own flaws and
contribution to how the accident happened.

Describe your reactions to this case study.


- I guess the accident wouldnt happen at first if the machine is in a
perfectly good condition where, no live wires are exposed. And if
they tried to repair it before and didnt notice what happen then, it
would be better if the employee was informed before he deals with
that stove, so that he would have a clue of what is the condition of
the stove and what he should look into. And also for the worker who
was trained and I guess, provided a complete uniform for the job,
should have a sense of what he is doing and what precautionary
measure he should do if he saw a live wire. And if he at least saw
any faulty machinery at work or something that makes him

uncomfortable in any way, he should have said it to the


management for proper actions. And maybe a day to day check up
is needed before the work starts.
2. An employee had his leg amputated as a result of his leg being caught in the cutting
blades of an unguarded machine. At the time of the incident the worker was
attempting to clear a blockage that had caused the machine to stop.

Identify the hazards in this article.


- Safety Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard
- Temperature Hazard
- Physical Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard

List factors that may have contributed to this incident.


- The unguarded machine
- No signage (lockout-tagout)
- Work stress
- Confined space
- The temperature inside the machinery
- Manual handling procedure

List control measures that may have prevented this incident.


- If the machine is guarded or at least has a lackout-tagout sign
- Perfectly conditioned worker
- Proper handling of the machinery
- Proper cleaning procedure
- If they think of another way on cleaning the machine to lessen the
hazard

Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- The worker who cleaned the machine, for he didnt follow the
proper procedure in cleaning a machine particularly one with
cutting blades.

Describe your reactions to this case study.


- For me, the person/cleaner was trained or briefed before he cleans
machine or entering a confine space. But I guess, he ignore the
proper procedure and just cleans it without putting up a
sign(lockout-tagout) or even asking someone to guard it for him
before entering the machine. And also the machine is considered as
a confined space where anyone who enters it should be
knowledgeable enough to know what are the dos and donts. And
also before he enters the machine, he should have thought of a way
to clean it a different way where the possible hazard will lessen.

3. A leading car manufacturer pleaded not guilty to charges arising from an industrial
accident in which a teenager's arm was ripped off. Investigations revealed that the
new worker was not informed of the risk associated with the conveyor belt, which
severed his arm.
The 19-year-old worker had only been at work for three days. He had lost his glove
from his right hand behind the conveyor belt and reached in to retrieve it. Previous
inspections before the incident identified risks associated with the machine. The
manufacturer faced $25, 000 in fines for not providing and maintaining machine
guards. The company provided safety training only during induction - a video and
pamphlets.

Identify the hazards in this article.


- Physical Hazard
- Safety Hazard
- Work Associated Hazard
- Ergonomic Hazard

List factors that may have contributed to this incident.


- A new worker and might not be used to the job
- Lack of training from the management (the video and pamphlet is
not enough it should be hand in hand or in contact with the
machine itself)
- Inappropriate or lack of proper uniform
- Manual Handling Procedure

List control measures that may have prevented this incident.


- A proper training with the machine itself
- Appropriate Uniform with some extras like gloves
- The worker should have think of another way on how to retrieve his
gloves back without risking his arm
- The management should have informed the worker beforehand of
the possible rixk he might face.

Explain who you think would be held responsible for this incident.
- For me, I have a 75-25 judgment for the management and the
worker. Because each of them has their own obligations on how
things to be done and should be done.

Describe your reactions to this case study.


- For this case, I would say that the management is the one to
blamed on how the accident happened, because first, they only
gave a video and a pamphlet for the training of their employees
where they should have not done, for they should let the worker
train with the machine itself so that they would have the feel on
how to handle it. Second, they should have informed the worker

beforehand on what are the possible risks or hazards he will be


facing with operating the machine/conveyor belt. And lastly, the
management should have provided some extra uniforms (like
gloves) in case of such situation emerge. But the worker is at fault
too, for he didnt think of any way or ask the management on how
he should handle the situation he have faced, and did his means
right away, resulting to an unfortunate incident.