Employees Who Ignore Safety Rules

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

From time to time we come across an employer who asks for advice about an employee in their
workplace who will not follow safety rules.  You may in fact have one or more in your
workplace.  So what can you do?  Are you still liable if something happens to them?

We often find that these employees are fairly senior members of the team and often very good at
what they do. 

However, as a business owner or organisational safety manager these type of employees can
cause sleepless nights and stress.  In addition they can 'infect' the rest of the employees with a
poor attitude to safety - in particular younger employees.

Employees do have a responsibility to comply with safety rules and not endanger themselves or
others, but  ultimately the employer should be in a position to show that safety requirements are
in place, taken seriously and enforced. 

What to do....

You need to ask yourself a few questions firstly, which may include:

 Do you have a disciplinary policy for your organistion?

 Does it mention failure to adhere to safety rules and the ramifications?
 Has the employee been made aware of this policy and have they signed it?
 Are safety procedures in place and communicated?
 Can you demonstrate (and prove) that the particular employee in question
has been advised of the safety requirements for certain activities
 Have you provided appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and
trained the employee on its use? 

Consider these things before taking action, because it could come back to bite you if you have
failed in your workplace safety requirements to suitably instruct, train, provide information or
safety equipment to employees.

I have all of that but they still don't follow the rules....

We would recommend a number of verbal warnings (depending on the seriousness of the breach)
which should be noted. 

If non compliance continues then formal written warning/s.

Remember if something happens YOUR business or organisation will be held accountable. 

The key issue is that you need to show ongoing, diligent enforcement of safety standards.

As a last resort you may have to consider employment termination, and should consider seeking
legal advice before this.  Remember you may need to have documented records of the breaches
and warning/s provided.

How EasyOHS can help:

1) By using the EasyOHS safety induction process you can demonstrate clear evidence of a
safety induction being provided, including an assessment and sign off

2) EasyOHS has a comprehensive Safe Work Procedure system which includes the ability to

print a training and sign off sheet

3) EasyOHS has the ability to record safety instructions given to employees (and retained in their
staff information records)

Disregarding Safety Will Cost You Twice (And So Much

More)
Safety is mandated by law. And breaking the law comes with huge consequences (and HUGE
fines). Last month will go down in history as the month that the Federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) issued its third largest fine following a major violation of US
safety regulations by a company.

A Deadly Explosion
Following the deadly explosion at their Port Wentworth factory which claimed the lives of 13
employees as well as injured 40 others, Imperial Sugar Company and two of its affiliates now
face charges as well as a penalty of almost $9 million for their violation of safety standards and
regulations in two of their jobsites. In both their plants in Port Wentworth, Georgia and
Gramercy, Louisiana were found large accumulations of combustible sugar dust. This volatile
and explosive material was present not only in their workrooms where most of their employees
were present, but also on most of the equipment they operated.

108 Willful Violations and that’s not all of it

OSHA’s site investigations also revealed that there was total negligence and disregard for
employee safety on the part of Imperial Sugar since the company very well knew of the
hazardous conditions in their facilities. Despite these issues, the company did not do anything to
alleviate the danger nor did they, at the very least, take on safety measures for the welfare of
their employees. Thus, the company has been cited with 108 instances of willful violations
related to the combustible dust hazard, which includes failing to clean up dust and not using
appropriate equipment or safeguards where combustible dust is present. Other OSHA citations
against the company include 10 citations for other willful violations, 100 citations for serious
violations and four citations for other-than-serious safety and health violations.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

Safety programs are important as much as they are a law in this country. It is stated in the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 that employers are responsible for providing a safe
and healthy workplace for their employees. And yes, we don’t say “safety first” for nothing. The
laws are there as a check and federal agencies such as the Department of Labor and OSHA are
here as a balance. As responsible businessmen and employers, it is our duty to abide by these
rules and standards as well as to look out for the safety and health of our employees in order to
achieve a safer work environment. Not knowing the rules is never an excuse, and we know this
because ignorance had cost many companies in more ways than one.

On the topic of violations and fines, you can view an earlier blog entry entitled “Top 10 OSHA
Fines for Small Companies” here in our site.

Don’t be fined and you’ll be just fine. Stay safe!

Related Links: STARK & STARK Home

Home > Why Do Workers Ignore Safety Rules?

Why Do Workers Ignore Safety Rules?

U.S. workers are ignoring important safety procedures, which put them at risk for workplace injuries,
according to the results of a survey on safety professionals conducted by Kimberly-Clark Professional.
 
The safety professionals were attending the 2008 National Safety Council Congress, and Kimberley-Clark
Professional took the occasion to conduct its third annual survey on safety procedures compliance by
American workers.
 
The results showed that 89 percent of the respondents reported having observed failure by workers to
wear their personal protective equipment (PPE) at work, in areas where the equipment was required.
 
The general manager of Kimberly-Clark Professional's safety business group said it was "disheartening"
to find workers continuing to take unnecessary chances with their personal safety by not wearing
protective equipment when performing hazardous tasks. This year's finding was an unacceptable level of
noncompliance with safety procedures in the workplace.
 
In fact, the level of noncompliance has been increasing. In the organization's first survey in 2006, the
rate of noncompliance reported by respondents was 85 percent; in 2007, this rate rose to 87 percent,
and now it is 89 percent.
 
Not surprisingly, with the high noncompliance level, at least a third of respondents cited the failure to
comply with safety procedures as the main workplace safety issue in their companies.
 
At the second rank was the issue of inadequate management support and/or inadequate resources to
support health and safety functions (27 percent). This was followed by under-reporting of injuries and
illnesses suffered in the workplace (14 percent), training complexities on a multilingual, multicultural
workforce (7 percent) and rising compensation costs to workers (5 percent).
 
Is the worsening economy an underlying factor?
 
The worsening state of the economy may partly explain the continued non-compliance. More than a
third (34 percent) of the respondents cited the economy for having reduced their firms' ability to
allocate budgets for safety resources and worker training programs. But 59 percent did not blame the
economy.
 
Among the 34 percent who said the economy had affected their safety programs, further probing
showed that:

 63 percent said their firms had less money for education

  and training
 42 percent said personnel assigned to take care of safety training functions were reduced
 33 percent said management had to prioritize business imperatives over safety concerns.

Injuries at the workplace cost American companies at least $50 billion a year.
 
Safety Tip:
Make sure the PPE in your company is one that workers want to wear. Workers may want their PPE to
be more comfortable, or even more stylish in design

. Construction Accidents due to Disregard of Safety Measures

Construction workers do one of the most dangerous jobs out there. In the U.S., there are 150,000
construction site accidents per year. Many construction accidents are the result of poorly
maintained equipment or disregard of safety measures. Responsible owners and contractors
know the rules and take the time to educate their workforce.

Hundreds of safety measures exist on construction sites, and they are in place for a reason.
Disregarding safety measures leads to injuries and fatal construction accidents. Some contractors
ignore safety measures in order to cut construction costs or get a job done more quickly. In the
end if a worker is injured or killed it can end up costing a lot more than the original safety
measure would have.

Construction work has one of the highest worker injury rates in the country. Top causes are
unsafe equipment, work methods or site conditions, not using proper safety equipment, or lack of
training. Some contractors and owners use loopholes in the law or their contracts to perpetuate
unsafe conditions. Hiding safety violations from inspectors is negligent, illegal and dangerous.

Lack of training contributes to many construction accidents. It is unsafe for employees who are
improperly trained to work on a construction site. Forklift accidents can be caused by lack of
instruction to drivers. Even experienced employees can be affected by lack of training for new
employees. Improperly trained co-workers put their lives in danger as well.

Scaffolding collapses are another serious type of construction accident. Sadly, most collapses can
be prevented by taking proper safety precautions. By instructing employees in proper, safe
assembly and weight limits, you can avoid injuries to your employees.

Many other types of construction accidents result from a disregard for safety measures. They
include:

 Roof falls and collapses

 Crane accidents
 Elevator shaft falls
 Floor collapses
 Electrocution
 Accidents caused by unsafe tools
 Defective conveyor belts
 Dangerous hoists
 Heavy equipment
 Failure to provide proper safety gear

It is the employer's or supervisor's responsibility to make sure that all safety precautions are
taken at a construction site. This includes maintenance of the dangerous tools, vehicles, and
equipment used at the site. Defective or poorly maintained equipment can cause even the most
experienced workers to have an accident. When machinery is improperly modified, it is an even
bigger hazard. It is the employer's responsibility to keep all equipment in good working order.

As an employer, you are under an obligation to provide a safe work environment. When you're
tempted to cut corners, know that the cost could be someone's life. Saving money or shaving
time off a construction project is not worth the risk of a potentially fatal accident.

Disregard of safety measures is never OK. Blatant disregard for human life is never a good work
practice, or an excuse for getting a job done more quickly. Construction workers injured at work
may be entitled to compensation benefits and should discuss their claims with an experienced
Philadelphia personal injury lawyer as quickly as possible.
Workplace injuries are often disabling when your workplace is a construction site. Discuss all
circumstances leading up to your accident with a Philadelphia injury lawyer at your earliest
convenience and they will let you know if you have a case.

mployee’s Willful Disregard of Break Rule Caused His Injury, Tennessee

High Court Rules 

 
3/29/2012  By Susan R. Heylman 

A truck driver’s claim for workers’ compensation for injuries sustained in a vehicle accident was properly
denied because his willful violation of the employer’s safety rules about taking regular breaks from
driving was the cause of his accident and injuries, the Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled.

The employee, an over-the-road truck driver, picked up a load of freight in Tennessee with
instructions to deliver the load to a California destination—about 1,800 miles away—three days
later. While driving in New Mexico, the employee lost control of the truck and it overturned. He
sustained injuries to his head, neck, sternum, ribs, and right hand and knee.

The employer denied the employee’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits on the grounds
that the accident and resulting injuries were the direct result of his willful violation of driving
safety rules. Those rules included hours-of-service limitations that specifically required drivers to
take a 10-hour break after driving 11 hours.

The employee admitted that the employer had provided him with a copy of the hours-of-service
rule, that he had training on the rule, and that he was aware that his compliance with the rule was
mandatory. He further admitted that, when the accident occurred, he had driven more than 36
hours without taking the required 10-hour break and that he may have fallen asleep at the wheel.

The employee appealed the trial court’s ruling that he was barred from receiving workers’
compensation because he had willfully disregarded the employer’s safety rules.

The supreme court explained that in Tennessee, an employer must prove four elements to
establish a defense of willful failure or refusal to comply with safety rules:

*At the time of the injury the employer had in effect a policy requiring the employee’s
compliance with a particular safety regulation.

*The employer carried out strict, continuous and bona fide enforcement of the policy.
*The employee had actual knowledge of the policy, including a knowledge of the danger
involved in its violation, through training provided by the employer.

*The employee willfully and intentionally failed or refused to follow the established policy
requiring compliance with a particular safety regulation.

In evaluating whether an employee’s conduct was willful, a court had to consider whether there
was a plausible explanation for the employee’s failure or refusal to comply with the safety rule.
If the employee’s conduct did not include an element of perverseness, it was not willful, the
court said.

The court rejected the employee’s argument that the employer had failed to prove perverseness
because it had essentially required him to comply with the hours-of-service rule and—at the
same time—had imposed a delivery deadline that was impossible to meet if he complied with the
hours-of-service rule.

The trial court had found that the employee breached the rule because he thought he could get
away with it and that the employee’s testimony that he was forced into noncompliance with the
rule because of the delivery deadline was not credible, the court said. When the absence of a
credible explanation from the employee regarding his failure to take the requisite 10-hour break
was viewed in conjunction with the employer’s proof of its strong emphasis on compliance with
safety rules, it could not conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the employee willfully
and intentionally violated the hours-of-service rule, the court held. As the employee did not
dispute that his violation of the rule was the cause of his accident and injuries, the court affirmed
the denial of benefits.

Overlooking simple safety measures can produce tragic consequences, as one recent incident
highlighted.

A maintenance worker lost his life when a machine he was working on was activated while he
was still inside.

The 50-year-old employee suffered fatal head injuries while carrying out maintenance work on
the inside of a cut and crease machine, used to manufacture packaging, when it was switched on
by the operator.

At an earlier hearing, the firm pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health
and Safety at Work Act 1974 by putting workers at risk. It was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay
£76,150 in costs.

After the case, the investigating HSE inspector Eddy Tarn commented: "Both machine operators
and maintenance workers should be given adequate training. If a simple procedure for cutting the
power supply to the machine had been followed then [the employee's] death could have been
avoided."

early all of the safety professionals in a recently-released survey said that workers in their
organizations had at some point failed to wear the necessary safety equipment while on the job.

An exceedingly-high 98 percent of respondents who attended the recent American Society of

Safety Engineers (ASSE) show in Baltimore answered “yes” when asked if they had observed
workers not wearing safety equipment when they should have been, according to the survey,
which was conducted by Kimberly-Clark Professional.

To make matters worse, 30 percent of these respondents said this had happened on numerous
occasions. Given this, it’s not surprising that worker compliance with personal protective
equipment (PPE) protocols was cited as the top workplace safety issue by all survey respondents.

These findings are in keeping with results from surveys of safety professionals, conducted by
Kimberly-Clark Professional at the National Safety Council (NSC) Congress in 2008, 2007, and
2006. Those surveys also found high levels of noncompliance with PPE protocols – 89 percent in
2008, 87 percent in 2007 and 85 percent in 2006.

“Increasingly high noncompliance with PPE protocols is an alarming trend and a serious threat to
worker health and safety,” said Gina Tsiropoulos, manufacturing segment marketing manager for
Kimberly-Clark Professional. “Whether this is a result of economic conditions, a flawed
approach to safety programs, younger workers who are more inclined to take greater risks, or
some other reason, it’s essential that workers wear PPE when it is required.  PPE protects
workers against injury, but it will not work if workers fail to use it and use it properly.”

It’s no wonder then that three-quarters of respondents chose workplace accidents and injuries in
response to the question: “What is most likely to keep you up at night?”  Potential exposure
because of noncompliance with PPE protocols was second, at 13 percent, while fear of a global
pandemic and its impact on the workforce was a distant third, cited by only 8 percent of
respondents.

Most Challenging PPE

When it comes to compliance with PPE use protocols, eye protection was found to be the “most
challenging” PPE category, according to 42 percent of respondents, a disturbing though not
unexpected finding considering that nearly three out of five workers who experienced eye
injuries were found not to be wearing eye protection at the time of the accident, or were wearing
the wrong kind of eye protection for the job.[1]  Add to this the facts that about 2,000 U.S.
workers each day have a job-related eye injury that requires medical treatment,[2] and that
thousands are blinded each year from work-related eye injuries that could have been prevented
[3] and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear.

The next highest category for noncompliance was hearing protection, also disturbing since
occupational noise-induced hearing loss is 100 percent preventable when proper preventative
measures are implemented. It was followed by gloves and head protection.
While the reasons for PPE noncompliance was varied, the biggest complaint was that it was
“uncomfortable,” selected by 40 percent of respondents, followed by:

 Too hot
 Not available near the work task
 Poor fit
 Unattractive looking

When asked what they had done or intended to do to improve compliance levels, these safety
professionals’ top choice was to improve existing education and training programs.  This was
followed by:

 Increased monitoring of employees

 Purchasing more comfortable PPE
 Tying compliance to individual performance evaluations
 Purchasing more stylish PPE
 Developing incentive programs to encourage greater PPE compliance  

How can Suppliers Help?

The issue of PPE comfort came to the fore again when safety professionals were asked what
suppliers could do to improve their offerings.  The number one selection was to “provide more
comfortable PPE,” followed by:

 Providing more instruction on the proper use of PPE

 Reducing prices
 Providing greater size selection
 Offering more stylish PPE

PPE of the Future

When safety professionals were asked about their visions for the future of PPE, fit, comfort, and
style took precedence. Forty-two percent of respondents said they would like to see PPE that
automatically adjusts to fit different body types, hands, heads, faces, etc. Next was PPE with
customizable style and design options, so that workers could select PPE based on their own
individual tastes and safety requirements (32 percent).  This was followed by PPE designed with
integrated climate-control features, providing cooling or warmth as needed (15 percent).  

The impact of customization and style on PPE compliance was further underscored by the
response to another question.  When asked if customizable or individualized style and design
options would help increase PPE compliance, 87 percent of respondents said that it would.  

‘Toxic Towels’
  
Safety professionals were also asked about another area of concern – the potential health and
safety issues for workers posed by oil, grease, heavy metal residues, or toxic elements on re-
usable Rental Shop Towels. Sixty percent said they were disturbed by these hazards, with 20
percent of these respondents reporting they were “very concerned.”   

Worries about the risks to workers from “toxic towels” were the chief reason why safety
professionals said they would switch to disposable wiping solutions from re-usable rental shop
towels. What was the second most important reason for a potential change? A closed-loop
solution that converts used disposable wipers to energy and diverts them from landfills. Not
surprising, given the increased emphasis on environmental responsibility in manufacturing.

“Manufacturing facilities today are focused now more than ever before on conserving natural
resources and reducing waste,” said Tsiropoulos. “So a closed-loop solution for used wipers is a
very appealing option.”

Survey Methodology

The survey of 132 attendees at the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) show in
Baltimore, Md., was conducted via the Internet between June 9 and 13, 2010. All survey
respondents said they were responsible for purchasing, selecting, or influencing the purchase or
selection of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) or industrial wiping solutions. Ninety percent
were safety directors or managers, while the other 10 percent were industrial hygienists,
facilities, or general managers, or held other positions. They were employed in the following
fields: chemical/plastics manufacturing; construction/utilities; computer, electronics and
electrical product manufacturing; food processing; metal manufacturing; transpiration equipment
manufacturing or other fields.

For more information about Kimberly-Clark Professional, visit www.kcprofessional.com. 

Advertisement