KHOA KINH TẾ & QUẢN LÝ NGUỒN NHÂN LỰC

BỘ MÔN KINH TẾ NGUỒN NHÂN LỰC

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

 THÔNG TIN GIẢNG VIÊN GIẢNG DẠY

Họ và tên :

Văn phòng Khoa :

Website : https://khoaquanlynguonnhanluc.neu.edu.vn/

Điện thoại :

Email :
 KẾ HOẠCH GIẢNG DẠY
Trong đó
Tổng số
STT Nội dung Bài tập, thảo luận,
tiết Lý thuyết
kiểm tra
1 Chương 01 3 2 1
2 Chương 02 6 4 2
3 Chương 03 6 4 2
4 Chương 04 6 4 2
5 Chương 05 3 2 1
6 Chương 06 6 4 2
7 Chương 07 3 2 1
8 Chương 08 6 4 2
9 Chương 09 6 4 2
Cộng 45 30 15
• Hình thức kiểm tra giữa kỳ : Kiểm tra tự luận/ Thuyết trình nhóm
• Thời điểm kiểm tra giữa kỳ :
 PHƯƠNG PHÁP ĐÁNH GIÁ HỌC PHẦN
• Hình thức thi : Trắc nghiệm hoặc tự luận
• Điểm đánh giá của giảng viên : 10% (theo Quy định chung của Nhà trường)
• Điểm kiểm tra : 30% (01 lần kiểm tra/ Thuyết trình nhóm)
• Điều kiện dự thi kết thúc học phần: Thời lượng sinh viên phải có mặt trên lớp là
80% thời gian toàn học phần.
• Điểm thi hết học phần : 60% (Bài thi tự luận)

• Công thức tính điểm học phần

(Điểm đánh (Điểm kiểm (Điểm thi cuối
Điểm học phần = giá + tra + kỳ
x 0,1) x 0,3) x 0,6)
CHAPTER
6 Product Safety & Liability
 CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

Consumer product safety law has become a core element

of consumer protection law.
Yet many general consumer affairs regulators still lack
capacity and jurisdiction, especially for pre-market
powers, limiting capacity to exercise even post-market
regulatory powers and to engage in proliferating cross-
border standard-setting networks.
 CONTENT

 Product Liability and the Law

 Developing a product safety program
 Evaluating the product safety program
 Role of the safety and Health professional
 Quality Management and product safety
 Product safety program record Keeping
 User Feedback collection and analysis
 Product Literature and safety
 Product recalls and safety professionals
 Product Liability and the Law

Prior to 1916, consumers and employees

used products and machines at their own
risk.
If injured while using a manufacturer’s
product, a person had no legal recourse.
Finally, in 1916, the concept of negligent
manufacture was established in the law.
Since then, the concepts of breach of
warranty and strict liability in tort have
also been added to the body of law
relating to product safety and product
liability.
 Reasons for accident investigations

Determine the cause so that

future accidents can be prevented
Fulfill any applicable legal
and/or regulatory requirements
Determine the cost of the
accident
Determine compliance with
applicable safety regulations
Provide information for
processing workers’
compensation claims
 History of Product Liability Law

Product liability law is relatively new. In fact, until 1960,

manufacturers were not held liable unless they produced
flagrantly dangerous products.

The concept of nonliability, established in the courts of

England in 1842, persisted in the law in this country until the
turn of the century.

Since then, four landmark cases have established what is still

the foundation of product liability law in the United States.
 MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company
 In 1916, MacPherson bought a car
from Buick through a retail dealer.
 While driving a Buick Motor Company
car, MacPherson lost control and was
injured in the resulting accident.
 The cause of the accident was a
defective wheel.
This case established the
 The wheel was not made by Buick it concept of negligent
was bought from another manufacturer manufacture, which means that
 Buick Motor denied liability because the maker of a product can be
held liable for its performance
MacPherson had purchased the
from a safety and health
automobile from a dealer, rather than perspective.
directly from the defendant.
 Henningson v. Bloomfield Motors Inc
 In 1955, Henningson had purchased a new car
for his wife, who was subsequently involved in
an accident while driving it.
 The cause of the accident was a defective
steering system.
 Two different issues:
 (1) the car was damaged to such an extent that
negligent manufacture could not be proven and
 (2) Mrs. Henningson had no contractual This case established the
agreement with the manufacturer. concept of breach of warranty,
broadened the manufacturer’s
 The court ruled that an implied warranty liability to include people
existed for the performance of the car and that without contractual
it extended to persons other than those with an
actual contractual agreement with the agreements with the
manufacturer. manufacturer.
 Greenman v. Yuba Products Inc
 In 1955, Mr. Greenman received a power
tool that can be used as a saw, drill and a
lathe, as a Christmas gift from his wife.
 In 1957, he purchased the attachment to use
the tool as a lathe and he used this
attachment on several occasions with ease.
 However, on one such occasion, the
attachment flew from the machine and hit This case established the
him on the head, causing severe injuries. concepts of strict liability in tort
 and negligent design. A
The evidence did not support negligence or
any breach of warranties on the side of the manufacturer is strictly liable in
retailer. However, the Supreme Court of tort when an article he places on
California judged in favor of Greenman. the market, knowing that it is to
be used without inspection for
defects, proves to have a defect
that causes injury to a human
being."
 Van der Mark v. Ford Motor Company
Vandermark bought a new automobile
from Maywood, an authorized dealer of
Ford Motor.
6 weeks later, the car went off the
highway to the right and collided with a
light post.
Reason was a sudden failure of the car's
braking system. The court ruled that the doctrine
of strict liability applied to
Ford pointed out that the car passed
Maywood because it was in the
through two other authorized Ford business of selling cars.
dealers before it was sold to Maywood
and that Maywood removed the power
steering unit before selling the car to
Van Der Mark.
 What to Investigate?
The purpose of an accident
investigation is to collect facts. It is
not to find fault.

Fault finding can cause reticence

among witnesses who have valuable
information to share.
Causes of the accident should be the
primary focus.
The investigation should be guided
by the following words: who, what,
when, where, why, and how
 Investigate All Accidents

 Workplace fatality
 Lost time from the job or days
away from work
 Restricted ability to work
 Medical treatment
 First aid
 Near-miss incidents
 Typical Questions
What type of work was the injured
person doing?
Exactly what was the injured person
doing or trying to do at the time of the
accident?
Was the injured employee new to the
job?
Was the process, equipment, or
system involved new?
Where did the accident take place?
What was the condition of the
accident site at the time of the
accident?
 Common Causes of Accidents

Personal beliefs and feelings.

Decision to work unsafely.
Mismatch or overload.
Systems failures.
Traps.
Unsafe conditions.
And unsafe acts.
 Personal beliefs and feelings.

Individual did not believe the

accident would happen to him or
her.
Individual was working too fast,
showing off, or being a know-it-all.
Individual ignored the rules out of
contempt for authority and rules in
general.
Individual gave in to peer pressure.
Individual had personal problems
that clouded his or her judgment.
 Decision to work unsafely

Some people, for a variety of

reasons, feel it is in their best
interests or to their benefit to
work unsafely.

Hence, they make a conscious

decision to do so.
 Mismatch or overload

Individual is in poor physical condition,

individual is fatigued, or individual has a
high stress level.
Individual is mentally unfocused or
distracted.
The task required is too complex or difficult,
the task required is boring.
The physical environment is stressful (for
example, excessive noise, heat, dust, or
other factors).
The work in question is very demanding—
even for an individual in good physical
condition.
Individual has a negative attitude (for
 Systems failure
Errors that are not grossly negligent or
serious and willful.
Lack of a clear policy, rules,
regulations, and procedures.
Poor hiring procedures, inadequate
monitoring and inspections.
Failure to correct known hazards.
Insufficient training for employees.
Rules that are in place but are not
enforced; no rewarding or
reinforcement of safe behavior.
Inadequate tools and equipment
provided.
 Traps

Poor design of workstations and

processes can create traps that,
in turn, lead to unsafe behavior.

Example: defective equipment;

failure to provide, maintain, and
replace proper personal
protective equipment; failure to
train employees in the proper
use of their personal protective
equipment…
 Unsafe condition

Include: unsafe
condition created by
the person injured in
the accident; unsafe
condition created by a
fellow employee;
unsafe condition
created by a third
party; unsafe condition
created by
management…
Unsafe acts

Individual chooses
to ignore the rules;
people are involved
in horseplay or
fighting; individual
uses drugs or
alcohol; individual
uses unauthorized
tools or equipment…
 Who should investigate?

The supervisor of the

injured worker
conducts the
investigation.
Alternatively, a safety
and health professional
performs the job.
Some companies form
an investigative team.
Others bring in outside
specialists.
 Factors to Consider
Size of the company
Structure of the company’s safety and health
program
Type of accident
Seriousness of the accident
Technical complexity
Number of times that similar accidents have occurred
Company’s management philosophy
Company’s commitment to safety and health.
 Members of Investigation Team

Employees with knowledge of

the work in question
Member(s) of the safety
committee
Union representative
Employees with experience in
conducting accident
investigations
Outside expert(s)
Local government
representative
 Investigator’s Qualifications
Understand important role
of accident investigation
Have authority and
accountability
Have skills to evaluate the
incident
Ability to clearly
communicate details
 Interview Witnesses

Isolate the Accident Scene

Record All Evidence
Photograph or Videotape the
Scene.
Identify Witnesses
Interview Witnesses
Following Up an Accident
Investigation
 Isolate Accident Scene

The entire area surrounding such a

scene is typically blocked off by
barriers or heavy yellow tape.
Once emergency procedures have
been completed the accident scene
should be isolated until all
pertinent evidence has been
collected or observed and
recorded.
Only the injured worker should be
removed.
Security guard should be posted to
maintain the integrity of the
accident scene.
 Record Evidences
It is important to make a
permanent record of all
pertinent evidence as quickly as
possible.

Evidence can be recorded in a

variety of ways, including
written notes, sketches,
photography, videotape,
dictated observations, and
diagrams.

A good rule of thumb is if in

doubt, record it.
 Photograph or Videotape
Using a digital camera in
conjunction with a computer,
photographs of accident scenes
can be viewed immediately and
transmitted instantly to numerous
different locations.
Digital camera equipment is
especially useful when
photographs of accident scenes in
remote locations are needed.
Place a familiar object in the
photograph such as a ruler, coin,
or even the photographer’s finger.
The added object will help viewers
gain the right perspective on the
subject of the photograph.
 Identify Witnesses
In identifying witnesses, it is
important to compile a
witness list.
Names on the list should be
recorded in three
categories: (1) primary
witnesses, (2) secondary
witnesses, and (3) tertiary
witnesses.
When compiling the
witness list, ask employees
to provide names of all
three types of witnesses.
 Interview Witnesses

Every witness on the list should

be interviewed, preferably in the
following order: primary
witnesses first, secondary next,
and tertiary last.
After all witnesses have been
interviewed, it may be necessary
to reinterview witnesses for
clarification or corroboration.
Interviewing witnesses is
discussed in details in the next
part.
 Following Up an Accident Investigation

It is also important to follow up quickly once an accident

investigation has been completed.
Follow-up steps once an accident investigation is complete
include the following:
Write the accident report (explained later in this chapter)
Develop a plan for corrective action
Implement the corrective-action plan
Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions
Adjust as necessary to ensure the cause of the accident has been eliminated
Incorporate changes into standard operating procedures for continual
improvement of the workplace environment
 Interview Witnesses

When?
Immediacy is important.
Interviews should begin as soon
as the witness list has been
compiled and, once begun,
should proceed expeditiously.
Also, witnesses should be
interviewed individually and
separately, preferably before
they have talked to each other.
 Interview Witnesses
Where?
The best place to interview is at the
accident scene.
If this is not possible, interviews should
take place in a private setting elsewhere.
All distractions are removed, interruptions
are guarded against, and the witness is
not accompanied by other witnesses.
Select a neutral location in which
witnesses will feel comfortable.
All persons interviewed should be allowed
to relate their recollections without fear of
contradiction
 Interview Witnesses

How to Interview?
Listen to what is said, how it is
said, and what is not said.
Ask questions that will get the
information, phrase them in an
open-ended format.
Don’t lead witnesses with your
questions or influence them
Interrupt only if absolutely
necessary to seek clarification
on a critical point.
Question to Ask
 Reporting Accidents
An accident investigation
should culminate in a
comprehensive accident
report.
The purpose of the report
is to record the findings of
the accident investigation,
the cause or causes of the
accident, and
recommendations for
corrective action.
All injuries and illnesses are
supposed to be recorded,
regardless of severity.
 Why Some Accidents Are Not Reported
1. Red tape: Some people see the paperwork involved in
accident reporting as red tape and, therefore, don’t report
accidents just to avoid paper-work.
2. Ignorance: Not all managers and supervisors are as
knowledgeable as they should be about the reasons for accident
reporting.
3. Embarrassment: People do not report an accident because
they are embarrassed by their part in it.
4. Record-spoiling: Some accidents go unreported just to
preserve a safety record, such as the record for days worked
without an accident.
5. Fear of repercussions: the people involved are afraid of being
found at fault, being labeled accident prone, and being subjected
to other negative repercussions.
6. No feedback: those involved feel filing a report is a waste of
 10 Accident investigation Mistakes

1. Failing to investigate near

misses.
2. Taking ineffective corrective
action. Look for the root cause,
not the symptoms.
3. Allowing your biases to color
the results of the investigation.
4. Failing to investigate in a
timely manner
5. Failing to account for human
nature when conducting
interviews.
 10 Accident investigation Mistakes

6. Failing to learn investigation

techniques.
7. Allowing politics to enter into
an investigation.
8. Allowing your biases to color
the results of the investigation.
9. Allowing conflicting goals to
enter into an investigation.
10. Failing to account for the
effects of uncooperative people.
Problem Analysis
 Cause-Effect (Fish bone diagram)

Cause Cause

Effect

Cause Cause

• It is developed by Prof. Kaoru Ishikawa

• It connects “effect” and “cause(s)” systematically with line
• Clarification of relations between effect and cause(s)
46
 Two types of Fishbone diagram

1. Fishbone diagram for Management

◦ It is aimed for prevention of possible problem not yet occurred.
◦ It is also aimed to identify factor to be control. It does not need
to ask why-because question

2. Fishbone diagram for Problem Solving

– It is aimed to find root causes of problem already occurred
– It is developed based on data and information obtained from
Step 2
– Find root causes that are affecting the major contributing
factor(s)

47
 Steps of root cause analysis (1)

Put effect (= the major contributing factor) in the step 2 as ”head of

fish”; “Why (the contributing factor) happened?”
Draw heavy line from left to the effect on the center; ”Backbone of
fish”

Why (the contributing

factor) happened?
48
 Steps of root cause analysis (2)
Determine large category of cause according to your working
environment
◦ MSHEL group; Management, Software, Hardware, Environment
◦ 4M group; Man, Machine, Material, Method

Environment Human

Why (the contributing

factor) happened?
Hard (machine/equipment) Soft (System and methodology)

49
 Example of grouping of causes

Human: knowledge, skills health conditions, physical conditions etc.

Soft: system, methodologies, mechanism etc.
Hard: material, equipment, furniture, tools etc.
Environment: facility environment (water supply, electricity, smell, humidity
etc.), working environment (work space, accessibility of materials, arrangement
etc.)

50
 Steps of root cause analysis (3)
Seek possible causes for the effect (the primary cause)
Categorize the primary cause into category
Avoid to mention to things in terms of “recourse shortage”

Why (the contributing

Environment

factor) happened?
Human

Hard (machine/equipment)
Soft (System and methodology)

51
 Steps of root cause analysis (4)
Narrow down cause(s) of each primary cause (the secondary cause)
Avoid to mention to things in terms of “resource shortage”

Environment Human

Why (the contributing

factor) happened?
Hard (machine/equipment) Soft (System and methodology)

52
Examples

53
Examples

54
Examples

55
 Steps of root cause analysis (5)

Find out “root causes” by asking “Why it is happening?”

in enough time (recommended 5 times) for each possible
causes listed on primary branch, and branch them into
secondary, tertiary.

Human One Two

Why (the contributing factor)

Three
Make circle
on it!

happened?
This is
Root Four
cause
Five times!!

56
 What is Root Cause Analysis?
• A problem-solving method to identify underlying causes of key process challenges
• A tool for learning from observed bottlenecks and mitigating them in the future & learning from
successes and promoting best practices
• A learning process to determine what happened, why it happened, and what should be done to
improve it
• An iterative approach – both hypothesis generating and confirming

Why? Why? Why?

Root Causal Causal Key
causes factors factors Challenge

57
5 WHYs Technique
5 WHYs Technique
5 WHYs Example
5 WHYs Example
5 WHYs Example
End of chapter 5