Mayson Machining Ltd Safety Inspection - Coursework Example

MAYSON MACHINING LTD SAFETY INSPECTION Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date Introduction Mayson Machining Ltd is located in Windsor, Ontario. The company runs a machine shop that manufactures interior vehicle parts. As a result of the fire outbreak witnessed at the Mayson Machining Ltd, conducting an investigation into the cause of the accidental fire was imperative. In Ontario, Canada, the Fire Marshall is responsible for conducting investigations into the factors that led to the disaster that resulted in losses worth $1.8 million (CBCNEWS, 2014). The occurrence of the accidental fire formed resulted in a need to conduct a safety inspection and compile a report on the findings of the study. The first part of the report provides a theoretical background of the Internal Responsibility System (IRS). In the second section, the report provides generalised information regarding the Health and Safety Law in Ontario, Canada. Thirdly, the report covers the identified hazards and controls for the selected worksite including material handling and machine guarding. Finally, the report covers the investigations of the incident. Internal Responsibility System (IRS) Internal Responsibility System (IRS) entails the underlying philosophy of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) in Ontario, Canada (Ministry of Labour, 2015). It focuses majorly on the enforcement efforts of the Ministry of Labour. The system provides the architecture of an organisation. It assigns accountabilities and responsibilities to all the parties of the organisation including employees, supervisors and employers. There are three main responsibilities that the system assigns to the workers. Firstly, the system dictates that all workers, supervisors and employees should consider health and safety as a direct responsibility. By so saying, the stakeholders of a workplace should demonstrate due diligence besides having a legal liability to guarantee health and safety at the workplace. The system also requires the unions, safety officer, certified members and the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) to have a contributed responsibility (Ministry of Labour, 2015). As a result, they should not bear the legal liability for their role performance except in situations involving their duties as workers and supervisors. The IRS also dictates that all the staffs of an organisation have to abide by the regulations and provisions of the OHSA as well as engaging in the active enforcement of the provisions across the Board. Achieving an effective IRS necessitates ascertaining that all the parties at the workplace comply with the stated statutory duties. As a result, the realisation of an effective IRS starts with communicating to all the workers, employer and employees at the workplace about their legal duty and liability to ascertain health and safety (Ministry of Labour, 2015). An evidence of an effective IRS is a situation whereby the parties report a contravention of the OHSA or a hazard to the supervisor or employee upon detecting the contravention or hazard. This enables the employer or supervisor to implement the necessary safety measures to deal with the reported hazard or contravention. The other keys to a successful IRS include ensuring that all the parties at the workplace have a genuine wish to prevent illnesses and accidents. Moreover, all the parties should accept that there are causes for illnesses and accidents that they can reduce or eliminate. The parties should also believe that it is possible to reduce risks on a continuous basis so as to increase the duration between the occurrence of successive illnesses and accidents at the workplace. Everyone should also consider health and safety to be a significant part in the execution of duties and responsibilities at the workplace. The parties should not consider health and safety to be an extra obligation. Instead, they should integrate health and safety in their execution of duties at the workplace. An effective IRS also requires all parties to gain a clear and precise understanding of his/her responsibilities at the workplace. The parties should also understand their capabilities towards meeting the health and safety objectives of the organisation. After identifying their potential, the ability of the parties to estimate when they will be able to achieve the objectives is the other indicator of an effective IRS (Plummer et al. 2009). An effective IRS should also be capable of assessing what the individual employee or employer has done to ascertain health and safety at the workplace. All the party members should also understand their capabilities, skills and limitations to enable them to understand their potential in executing their responsibilities at the workplace (Plummer et al. 2009). The ability of individuals to avoid conflicts in their endeavour to reduce risk also indicates that the organisation has implemented an effective IRS. Moreover, an effective IRS also requires that each member should extend beyond mere compliance to health and safety rules. Apart from complying with the rules, they should endeavour to reduce risk and enhance work processes. An effective IRS also requires an individual to cooperate with another employee to reduce risk in the event that the person is incapable of reducing the risk. The individual should also collaborate with other employees to improve the work processes and reduce risk. The success of an IRS also requires all parties to have an in-depth understanding of the system including the necessary steps that are performance indicators of the system. Most importantly, the individual should also believe in the system to enable him/her to abide by the stated rules and regulations. Finally, an effective IRS should instil courage and confidence into the parties to enable them handle reprisals positively instead of fearing them. An organisation that implements a successful IRS enjoys several benefits associated with the system. For instance, the existence of a successful IRS allocates the responsibility of safety and health to all parties in the organisation. Each party has the responsibility of maintaining his/her individual health and safety as well as that of others at the workplace. Some of the benefits of the system encompass establishing responsibility among all the systems of the organisation. The system also develops and promotes a safety culture among the workers, supervisors and employers of the organisation. Thirdly, a successful IRS promotes best practice among the parties since each individual is responsible for maintaining health and safety in executing the assigned roles and responsibilities. Moreover, the system helps in developing self-reliance since each of the members considers safety and health to be an individual responsibility rather than a responsibility of the management or other selected individuals at the workplace. Finally, a successful IRS ascertains compliance to the safety and health rules and regulations on the part of the employees, employers and supervisors (CCOHS, 2016). Health and Safety Law The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) provide the tools and the legal framework necessary for ascertaining workplace safety and health. It outlines the duties and rights of the employees, employers and supervisors at the workplace. The Act also provides the procedures that are necessary in the handling of workplace hazards besides providing law enforcement in the event that the organisation and its parties are unable or fails to comply with the safety and health rules and regulations. The Ministry of Labour established the Act in 1979; followed by the incorporation of certain changes in 1999 and the subsequent years in response to the evolution of safety legislation and occupational health since the first enactment of the Act. Ever since the enactment of the Act and the associated changes, occupational health and safety in the Ontario workplaces has undergone positive changes. The Act and its associated changes have also reinforced the IRS. Workplace structures such as joint safety and health committees have also witnessed substantial reinforcement from the Act. According to the Act, it is the primary responsibility of the employees, employer and supervisors at the organisation to ascertain safety and health at the workplace. The Act also dictates that it is the responsibility of all parties in the workplace to ensure that they abide with all the health and safety requirements. The Act also requires all the workplace parties to promote safety and health in the workplace. The Act also requires all parties to ascertain that the organisation complies with the statutory requirements stated by the Act. The Act also outlines the respective responsibilities and roles of all the parties. In essence, it is proper to state that the Act is the foundation of the IRS. The ministry of Labour in Ontario heightens the significance of the Act and its rules and regulations towards ensuring a healthier and safer workplace environment in the firms. The provincial and federal legislation implemented the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS) that requires the suppliers of hazardous materials used in the organisations to provide safety and health information regarding the products as one of the product’s conditions (Ministry of Labour, 2008). The WHMIS requires employers to obtain safety and health information regarding the hazardous materials used in the workplace as well as avail the materials to employees. The Hazardous Product Act assigns duties on the suppliers that import or sell hazardous chemicals for use in Canadian workplaces to avail material safety data sheets and labels to customers. WHMIS also encompasses the Controlled products regulation introduced in 1988 under the Hazardous products Act (Ministry of Labour, 2015). The regulation provides the definition of a controlled product besides detailing the supplier information such as material safety data and the label. In Ontario, there are two main pieces of provincial legislation. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) is the first peace that assigns the responsibility of obtaining material safety label data sheets and labels of hazardous chemicals to the employers at the workplaces. The Ontario Regulation 644/88 (currently known as the R.R.O 1990 and the Regulation 860), the WHMIS Regulations detail the duties of the employer with regard to material safety data sheets, labels and worker education. The model regulation forms the basis of the WHMIS regulation. Administration and Training During the safety inspection exercise, Mayson Machining Ltd did not have a department for health and safety. Despite the discouraging news, the employer had availed a pocket handbook containing the Ontario OH&S to all the employees of the company. Moreover, the company did not have a safety panel guideline or bulletin board hanged on the wall to provide safety and health information and updates to the employees. Moreover, the company did not have any workplace violence or workplace harassment policies. Moreover, there was no poster that detailed the procedure for dealing with accident and injury fatalities. The company had a safety committee that required all the employees to have the required understanding about WHMIS. The committee also checks the company equipment besides ascertaining that the workers who work in hazardous areas have the necessary understanding of the safety measures associated with handling forklifts and cranes. In the delivery of safety and health training, the employer hires qualified trainers from Yale University. Worksite-Specific Hazard Identification and Controls Materials Handling In the material-handling section, I found out that the company lacked a safety catch for all the hosting hooks for the cranes. The finding contravened the set standards that required the company to install a safety catch for all the hosting hooks so as to prevent fatalities that can emanate from the safety lapse. The company had not locked out all the control switches for the cranes. The finding was against the requirements of section 52 of the Regulation. According to the section, a company should only use a crane in raising, lowering and supporting a worker only if the worker is standing on a platform. Moreover, it is imperative that the crane should have adequate safety devices to prevent the falling of the load and the platform in the event of the failure of the normal support for the platform. The investigation also identified that there was spillage on the old machines. The Regulation defines “spillage” as the spillage of molten material that may endanger the safety and health of workers in the workplace. Section 87.3, subsection (2) requires the employer to use engineering controls to the greatest extent possible to prevent spillage under the workplace circumstances. The fact that there was spillage on the floor of the company premises implies that the employer had violated the regulation. The section also requires the employer to use other controls to prevent spillage in the event that the use of engineering controls is difficult. Moreover, the company had not blocked some parts to prevent the movement of other parts such as wood and other products. The finding violated the section 72 of the Act that requires the employer to block elevated machinery, equipment and materials to prevent them from falling or moving. The investigation also revealed that not all the workers were wearing eye protection following their exposure to hazards. The finding violated section 81 of the Regulation that requires the employer to avail eye protection that is appropriate for all circumstances for its utility by employees when they interact with eye hazards. The investigation also identified matts dipped into oil spillage and left close to the machines. The finding violated section 102 of the regulation that requires the employer to ensure that the gallery or mezzanine area has a solid floor or height of at least 1.05 metres to prevent metal spillage from the gallery or mezzanine area. The investigation also revealed the positioning of certain parts in an unsecured manner and in the wrong place. The finding violated section 58 of the Regulation that requires the employer to attend to all powered equipment apart from when forks, blades and other parts are in a lowered position or under firm support. Machine Guarding Based on the findings of the study, the machines used by Mayson encompass gundrills, boaring mills, Vertical 5-Axis, modern Vertical 3-Axis, and welding section, saw cutting section, grinding section, fork lifts and roof cranes. However, the layout of the machines revealed poor safety ground planning, four emergency exits and three overhead doors. Some of the hazards identified by the investigation include a scratch on the door’s window of the grinding section. Secondly, the “exit” and “fire extinguisher” signs were not visible since they were hidden behind the CNC machines. The finding violated section 120 of the Regulation that requires the employer to position the exit and other emergency signs at an open place that is easily visible and accessible from the hazardous room. Moreover, there were open containers of flammable liquid in violation of section 23 of the Regulation that requires employers to place a spring-loaded cap on all containers having a flammable liquid. The investigation also revealed an expired fire extinguisher examination in violation of the regulation that requires monthly inspections of the fire extinguishers. Unorganised workplace was the other hazard identified during the investigation. This violated the Act that assigns the responsibility of workplace health and safety to all the parties in the workplace. Therefore, unorganised workplace indicated that the workers were irresponsible towards maintaining safety and health at the workplace. The lunch rooms also had exposed electrical panels. In fact, some electrical panels were close to water leakage in the machine shop. The storage strategy adopted by the company was also dangerous, dusty, dirty and unorganised. The employer had also failed to centre the unlabelled and uncovered work rest plates on the grinders in violation of section 29 of the Regulation. The Section requires the employer to mark the grinding wheels with the maximum speed that the employees can use them. Moreover, the investigation revealed that the grinding room was dusty, small and unorganised. In fact, there was a single ventilation point in the grinding room. The finding violates section 65 of the Regulation that requires the employer to position collectors in an open space or a room designed for housing dust-collecting equipment to prevent the accumulation of dust. Behind the CNC machine, the investigation also identified some painting alongside a flammable liquid container in violation of section 2 of the Regulation that requires employers to store flammable liquids in rooms equipped with spark resistant floors and explosion venting corridors. The investigation also found a ladder placed next to a fixed ladder on the back of a machine containing old parts. The finding violated section 73 of the Regulation that requires the employer to place a portable ladder on a firm footing where it can endanger the safety of the workers. The investigation also identified two wires hanging across a hallway; one covered by a mat and the other uncovered. The finding was a violation of section 44.1 that requires employers to protect portable electrical tools using a ground fault interrupter when used in wet places or outdoors. The was no guarding present for all the 6 horizontal gund rills in violation of section 45 of the Regulation that requires employers to use precautions and safeguards in lifting, carrying and moving of all materials, articles or things. Finally, the investigation identified the absence of guarding for the rambaudi and Skoda machines in violation of section 45 of the Regulation. Incident/Accident Investigation An incident refers to any unplanned event that yields an injury. A dangerous occurrence is an event that causes injury even though it has not occurred. An incident investigation refers to an analysis or account of an incident that uses information obtained from a thorough examination of the associated causes and the contributing factors. Following the fire accident that occurred at Mayson Machining Ltd in November 2014, an investigation into the cause of the fire by the Ontario Fire Marshall was imperative. The results of the investigation revealed that the fire incident was accidental and it resulted to losses worth $1.8 million. The fire started from the east side of the premises. The company employs approximately 70 workers that deal with the manufacture of interior vehicle parts. Following the incident, I decided to conduct a safety inspection in the workplace. Canada has witnessed a significant number of fatalities arising from workplace accidents. For instance, on February 2 2016, two employees died and were found buried under a lumber in New Westminster, British Columbia. Prior to the accident, the employer had violated the workplace safety and health regulations for two 2.5 years (OHS, 2016). In another incident, the OHSA in Alberta investigated a workplace accident where a construction worker had died following the collapse of a sewer trench on April 28, 2015. In 2014, Alberta recorded 25 farming fatalities. Out of the fatalities, machine-associated accidents accounted for nine fatalities. In the fatalities, the machines caught the victims, the mechanical farm equipment crushed or struck the victims, the victims fell from the equipment, or they collided with other objects while operating the equipment. In Saskatchewan, a conductor died at a rail yard on April 9, 2015 after succumbing from fatal injuries on the job. Two masons also died in another incident following the collapse of a mast climber on March 27 in West Toronto. At the time of the incident, a construction project was underway. It is evident that there are several workplace accidents that result to the loss of lives in Canada. The occurrence of the accidents emanates from the failure of the employer to comply with the regulations and rules associated with workplace health and safety (OHS, 2016). The occurrence of accidents in the workplace has resulted in significant losses on the part of the employers. The fire accident that occurred at the Mayson Machining Ltd resulted in losses worth $1.8 million. According to the research conducted by the International Labour Organisation (ILO), financial losses from the occurrence of accident fatalities at the workplace were approximately 4% of the global GDP in 2002. The figure translated into losses worth $1,250 billion. Both the direct and indirect losses caused by occupational diseases and work accidents accounted for the figure (Lebeau & Duguay, 2013). While investigating the fire incident at the company, a camera was the most important tool for taking photographs on the state of the different areas of the company. The photography session involved taking photographs on the general area of the company including the specific accident scene. I also took photographs from various sides and angles of the premises including both isolation and close up shots. I approached some of the employees of the organisation to direct me to areas that posed safety and health hazards in the workplace. At the end of the photography session, I created a photo log that contained all the photos for the sections of the premise that posed a threat to the safety and health of the employees at the organisation. The interview also performed a central role in gathering relevant information from the employees of the organisation. Interviewing the executives of the company also enabled the identification of the areas of discrepancy with regard to workplace health and safety. Conclusion Even though the investigation conducted by the Ontario Fire Marshal about the cause of the accidental fire that occurred at the Mayson Machining Ltd did not provide any conclusive results, the safety inspection has revealed a number of violations of the health and safety standards by the company. The inspection revealed that the company performed poorly especially in the guarding of machines and handling of materials. Some of the violations in the safety measures associated with material handling encompass the absence of a safety catch on the hosting hooks of the cranes. The existing spillage that dominated the area and the failure of the employer to block some parts to prevent their movement are some of the other lapses in the handling of materials. The violations associated with machine guarding include a scratch on the door’s window of the grinding station and hidden fire extinguisher and exit signs. The findings heightened the essence of implementing the necessary workplace health and safety measures on the part of the organisation to guarantee compliance with the requirements of the Regulation. References Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). (2016). ‘OSH Answers Fact Sheets’. Retrieved from: https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/legisl/irs.html CBCNEWS. (2014). ‘Mayson Machining Ltd. Fire accidental caused $1.8 million damage’. Retrieved from: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/mayson-machining-ltd-fire-accidental-caused-1-8m-damage-1.2841812 Lebeau, M., & Duguay, P. (2013). The Costs of Occupational Injuries: A Review of Literature’. Studies and Research Projects. Ministry of Labour. (2008). ‘WHMIS and the Employer’. Retrieved from: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/whmis/whmis_4c.php Ministry of Labour. (2015). ‘The Internal Responsibility System’. Retrieved from: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/ohsa/ohsag_irs.php Ministry of Labour. (2015). ‘The WHMIS Legislation’. Retrieved from: http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/whmis/whmis_2.php OHS. (2016). ‘Workplace Accident-Fatality’. Canada’s Occupational Health and Safety Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.ohscanada.com/keyword/workplace-accident-fatality/ Plummer, I.A., Strahlendorf, P.W., & Holliday, M.G. (2009). ‘The internal Responsibility System (IRS)’. The Ontario Ministry of Labour. Read More