Safe Work Environment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Safe Work Environment - Essay ExampleThe main question is whether or not the untidy state of the office in connection with the moving of desks and filing cabinets was much(prenominal) that it was a breach of the employers statutory duty to provide a unassailable and healthy workplace. Assuming consequently that a work system was devised in which employees were supervised and competent regarding working around the boxes, and there was a reasonable explanation for the untidy state of the office, the employer is not in breach of the statutory and common legal philosophy duty to provide a safe and healthy workplace. The main question is whether or not it was jolly mulish to move the boxes from the work area and whether or not it was reasonable to expect for workers to assume almost responsibility for their own safety given the state of the office at the time (Smith v Scott Bowyers 1986). The employer post also expect employees to exercise some degree of common sense in situations where an obvious risk of infection exists (OReilly v National Rail 1966). ... n that crowd would play a practical charade on Juliana and it would appear that the hurt suffered by Juliana was a result of the practical joke and not as a result of the untidy state of the office. It is not known whether or not James was predisposed to vie practical jokes on the profession. For example it was held in Smith v Crossley Brothers (1951) that where employers were unaware of the fact that an employee was a practical joker they cannot be vicariously liable for the harm caused by a practical joker on the job. In such circumstances the practical joke cannot be predicted nor can it be prevented. Moreover, in such a case, the employee is said to be off on a frolic of his own and not performing in the course of his or her employment (Smith v Crossley Brothers, 1951). Had James played a practical joke in the course of performing a duty, the employer would be vicariously liable for James behaviou r and the resulting injury to Juliana (Harrison v Michelin Tyre Co. 1985). If he is known to be a practical joker on the job and the employer did nothing to stop or prevent James playing practical jokes, they may be vicariously liable for the injuries to Juliana (Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1957). It was held in Hudson that when an employer is aware that an employee by his or her behaviour poses a root of danger to other employees, the common law duty of care to provide a healthy and safe workplace requires the employer to remove that source of danger (Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 1957). It therefore follows that now that the employer is aware of James behaviour and there is a reasonable belief that James may repeat this behaviour, the employer may crowd out James (Albernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson 1974). The onus is on the employer to prove that the