Brief Overview of the Organizational Responsibilities for managing WHS
The case is about the deadly incident that happened on a construction site. Two men died in the incident that was probably the result of the negligence of the state government and the department. The Public Works Department was working with the external company as its usual work practice at the on-site water storage facility. The deadly incident happened when the underlying structure failed to support the roof being concreted. The whole structure collapsed, and it caused serious concerns for the department and the state government. According to WHS regulations, a systematic approach is necessary to manage work efficiently. Here, the Public Works Department of the state government failed to properly monitor and administer the work to ensure public health and safety. The following headings have covered different aspects arising out of the case.
Duty of Care of Stakeholders and PCBUs
The health and safety of workers are the priority under the WHS Act that states every person should ensure this responsibility if he is undertaking a business. It involves the safety of every person who is influenced by the activities of the business. The central tenet of the duty of care is to provide such an environment and facilities providing safety. It includes the work environment, plant and machinery, operations, processes, and systems of the business, training, and supervision. These entire activities should provide a safe and secure working environment for everyone that might be affected or is affected by business activities. This is what the duty of care of stakeholders is (Farr et al., 2019).
How the State Government failed to manage the general WHS risks
Concerning the case, the authorities concerned, including the State Government, failed to fulfil their responsibilities and obligations. It should have appointed a representative on the site that ensures the timely and routine safety of the processes there. It has the right to inspect projects, but it left everything to the external company. Moreover, it did not ensure effective communication with the external company. This failure increased the level of WHS risks, and the deadly incident occurred (Lingard et al., 2018).
Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) or Toolbox Talks:
It is worth noting the possible role of SWMS or toolbox talks in preventing this incident. SWMS is the Safe Work Methods Statement that helps all persons involved in a project. It is essentially useful when high-risk construction projects are being carried out. The document is a comprehensive and detailed one because it includes every activity that is necessary for carrying out tasks. Mainly, it includes requires human resources or manpower and their skills. The project manager concerned on the site was trained and authorized, but there were no directions from the State Government on SWMS. It increased the complexity and severity of the problem, and workers fell into a serious situation. A project has daily communication and talks. In this context, the toolbox talks could have been very effective. The project has a lack of communication and coordination as the main reason that led to this deadly incident to happen. These measures, like the statement and talks, could remove the absence of this crucial problem about communication. It kept all concerned parties and team members connected with what had been happening on site. It was later revealed that a timely indication of mistakes or loopholes could have prevented the incident from happening (Safeworkaustralia, 2014).
The impact of the changes introduced by the Department of Public Works on WHS
Now the Department of Public Works has made some changes that will have affected WHS in the future. It is worth assessing its effectiveness. They can be effective in getting desired results, or they can add to the paperwork and bureaucratic activities to make the process burdensome.
One of these changes is related to systems change that is beneficial for WHS. It would involve everyone in the project, and therefore, it would ensure their safety as well. For safety, changes include a safety network, meetings on a regular basis, bringing in communication strategies, and review from management. These activities are likely to address the problem that is to remove obstacles for the safety of project members. Therefore, these introduced changes should be promoted and encouraged (Lingard et al., 2018).
Conclusion:
The case study review and assessment conclude that a project team manager has the responsibility to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all. In the given case study, a lack of safety and protection procedures and framework has led to a fatal incident costing two valuable lives. Effective communication and a regular meeting should be included along with the systems and safety approach to prohibit such events from happening. Moreover, the State Government should not free itself from supervision and overseeing activities. It would ensure the external company to be responsible for project management activities.
References
Farr, D., Laird, I., Lamm, F. & Bensemann, J., 2019. Talking, listening and acting: Developing a conceptual framework to explore ‘worker voice’ in decisions affecting health and safety outcomes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (Online), 44(1), pp.79-100.
Lingard, H. et al., 2018. Making the invisible visible. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(1), pp.39-61.
Safeworkaustralia, 2014. Safe Work Method Statement For High Risk Construction Work Information Sheet. [Online] Available at: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1703/information-sheet-safe-work-method-statement.pdf [Accessed 31 October 2020].
