Introduction
On 13th April 2006, an upset occurred at Fosters Australia Limited. A 58 year old member of staff by the name of Cuu Huynh was crushed involving a handrail and a machine door operated pneumatically. This machine takes bottles from pallets prior to their filling. Mr. Cuu Huynh died six days later in hospital.
This accident happened at foster Australia limited’s Abbotsford brewery plant. Fosters Australia limited was fined $1.125 million on 5th august 2008, under segment 21 of the act pertaining to occupation health and safety. This was the biggest fee to ever happen in Victoria. Proceeds from beer sales all over the world were high until recently (Kirk, 2003, pp, 42).
Background
Foster Australia limited is a giant brewery company in the world. The corporation has established 20 plants based in diverse countries. It produces fosters lager, which is the, biggest Australian beer taken by significant proportions across the world. Fosters lager is brewed in nine countries.
Statistics expose that over 100 million cases of fosters larger is taken every year. Fosters lager is available in over 150 countries making it the third largest distributing product (Geoffrey & Nickolas, 1994, pp, 167). It provides service to many citizens of Australia both in a direct and circumlocutory mode. Industries in Australia provide service to a large fraction of the populace (Christine, 1992, pp, 222).
Contributing factors
One contributing factor was when the operators were cleaning the machines or clearing jams. They were supposed to maintain production, so the depalletisers were not stopped. The other factors were mainly on the B1B depalletiser. One was the handrail design section behind the door could result in crushing as an operator can easily get trapped as a result of the clearance.
This is adjacent to the ends of the doors. Also on the depalletiser, the hazardous area were not audibly or visibly indicated, most importantly, the opening of the doors. The other factor was the definition or signing of the emergency stops of the machine was not done in a suitable way.
Another contributing factor was that an operator could be trapped due to spaces created by the unguarded chain sprockets. Workers standing on adjacent steel plates not interlocked were avoiding the aluminum tread plates that stopped the depalletiser from operating when interlocked on contact (Victorian government reporting service, 2008, pp, 4).
Accident
On 13th April 2006, at the foster Australia limited’s Abbotsford brewery premises in the operating area of B1B depalletiser, one of the photo electric sensor was not working as it had a cracked reflector. Mr. Huynh was inspecting and cleaning the reflector when he got caught between the depalletiser’s opening left door and the adjacent handrail. His neck got stuck between the heavy steel doors. The door then failed, this made him lose consciousness (Victorian government reporting service, 2008, pp, 4).
Aftermath
He was discovered by a colleague and was taken to hospital. At the hospital, he is said to have suffered serious neck injuries. He passed on seven days later as his death was caused by asphyxiation. This incident brought panic among the workers who felt their existence was endangered. The death of Mr. Huynh was a grand loss to the family who lost a husband and a father. Foster Australia was charged $1.125 million under section 21 of the occupation health and safety act (Minter, 2008, pp, 1).
Conclusion
The fine forced on foster Australia was the biggest ever in Victoria. The accident could have been stopped from happening as it only involved adhering to the occupation health and safety stipulations. Foster Australia limited was given a lenient fine considering that the company makes significant proceeds. Acquiescence with the employment health and protection regulations is the only way to reduce and control the injuries and deaths likely to take place at work.
Analysis of contributing factors
Hazard administration is an indispensable process in an industry or plant. It involves identification, evaluating, controlling, lastly monitoring and reviewing the hazards over time (Ewing, 2000, pp, 7).
Identification
Stopping the depalletiser should be identified through walk through or site survey. The handrail design behind the door could also be noticed through site survey. The absence of the indicators on the depalletiser should be pointed out through the workers complaints. The classification of the emergency stops on the machine should be noticed by the preservation department who regularly service the machines. Unguarded chain sprockets are identified via walk through by the occupation health and safety officers (Wells, 2004, pp, 6).
Evaluation
Failure to stop the depalletiser is a bodily hazard as the operator can get trapped in to the machine and suffers body injuries. Poor handrail blueprint is a physical hazard as it results in accidental entrapment of the operators. This might cause body injuries. Absence of indicators on the depalletiser is a physical hazard, thus may also cause body injuries.
Undefining of crisis stops on the machines is a physical hazard. It may result in injury of the body parts as the machines might injure the operator. The unguarded chain sprockets are a physical hazard. It creates spaces that the operator could be trapped. This can result in to bodily injuries (Wells, 2004, pp, 6).
Control
Failure to stop the depalletiser can be controlled by use of the behavioral control methodologies. Here, the workers acquire impetus and educated on the significance of practicing fine working habits. Thus, the workers are advised to stop the depalletiser before undertaking any inspection or cleaning.
Poor handrail design can be controlled using the engineering control method. Handrail is redesigned and built in such a way to reduce the chances of the operators getting trapped in it. Absence of indicators on the depalletiser is controlled by behavioral control. The indicators are installed, and operators are advised to adhere to the indicators.
The definition of emergency stops is controlled using the engineering method of control. The emergency stops on the machines are defined and the workers trained on how to operate them. Unguarded chain sprockets are controlled by restraint and isolation. This is a method of isolation of a hazard at the work place. It does involve the building of a barrier around the unguarded chain sprockets. This will help the workers keep distance from the exposed chain sprockets (Victorian Work Cover Authority, 1995, pp, 8).
Monitoring and review
All the hazards mentioned above can be controlled by conducting a planned chain of observation. This helps to recognize whether the control measures put in place are well-organized. Monitoring of the control measures will help keep the hazards at bay. If the control measures are not efficient, an assessment of the same measures is done. This incident could have been avoided by Foster Australia Limited complying with the job-related health and safety procedures.
Recommendations
The accident at the Fosters Australia Limited requires the stipulation of certain measures thus preventing the accident. The first thing is to instruct the workers on the significance of good working habits. Thus, they would be stopping the depatelliser before inspecting or cleaning it.
For the handrail, it would be redesigned to put off the entrapment of the workers in between the doors and the handrail. On the depatellisers, indicators would be installed to show when the door is opening. Emergency stops would be designed on the machines to stop them incase of an accident or emergency. A barrier would be constructed around the chain sprockets to protect workers from contact.
Verdict
The decree was fair as Foster Australia limited had to pay for their carelessness. It was fair to the family of Mr. Cuu Huynh and the public as impartiality had finally prevailed.
The castigation inform of penalty fines is not appropriate for this company. The management should have at least issued penitentiary terms because their carelessness resulted in the fatality of an employee. According to the company’s pecuniary situation, the fine was too little as the company makes huge amounts in profit (Victorian government reporting service, 2008, pp, 9)
Ethical and moral issues
The first just and moral issues involved in this incident are death of Mr. Huynh. Accidents are also ethical issues involved in this instance. Other ethical and moral issues are injuries, harassment and work over load. Justice and ethical issues are prevailing at the employment place both unenthusiastically and positively (Ferrell, Ferrell & Fraedrich 2006, pp, 11
List of References
AFN thought for food 2008, Foster’s receives record fine for fatal safety breaches. AFN thought for food. Web.
Christine, I 1992, Asians in Australia: the dynamics of migration and settlement, Volume 1992, Part 2. Pasir Panjan. Singapore. Institute of Southeast Asian, pp 222.
Ewing, W 2000, Lead hazard evaluation and control in buildings. Miami. ASTM International, pp 7.
Ferrell, O, Ferrell, L &Fraedrich, J 2006, Business ethics: ethical decision making and cases. Ohio, Cengage Learning, pp, 11.
Geoffrey, J & Nickolas, M 1994, Adding value: brands and marketing in food and drink. New York. Routledge, pp 167.
Kirk, D 2003, Selling sin: the marketing of socially unacceptable products Westport. Davidson. Greenwood Publishing Group, pp 42.
Minter, E 2008, Record fine for brewery fatality. Minter Ellison. Web.
Victorian Work Cover Authority 1995, introducing the plant safety package .melbourne.Victorian Work Cover Authority, pp, 8.
Victorian government reporting service 2008, County court sentencing. Melbourne. Victorian government reporting service, pp, 1-11.
Wells, G 2004, Hazard identification and risk assessment. Warwickshire. UK. IChemE, pp 6.