Order this Assignment Now: £235
(b) The workers do not feel that they have been properly consulted on the organisational changes.
KNOW - WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY PRINCIPLES UNIT DN1 / DI1:
For: NEBOSH Level 6 Diploma for Occupational Health and Safety Management Professionals & Interview Preparation
PAPER 1 OF 2 PAPER 2 AVAILABLE
Worker reactions at SP changed noticeably once uncertainty about the proposed shifts, pay arrangements and personal commitments began circulating among colleagues. By the time the consultation meeting took place, participation was already being shaped by group behaviour, perceptions that decisions were predetermined and competing individual interests. Academia Support UK provides the complete scenario-based answer to this DN1 / DI1 consultation question , examining peer group pressure, tokenism and conflicts through the specific behaviours described at SP.
SCENARIO
Spirandi Plastics For the past five years you have been the health, safety, environment and wellbeing (HSEW) manager for Spirandi Plastics (SP), a small plastics manufacturing organisation. SP operates from a single factory unit on an industrial estate shared with other manufacturing organisations. Production hours are 08:00 - 16:00, Monday to Friday, and office hours are 09:00 - 17:00.
GET FULL ANSWER HERE
The industrial estate is busy during the working day, but it becomes almost deserted after 18:00 and when SP is closed. The estate becomes very dark at night as there is no street lighting on the long estate road.
SP have been manufacturing industrial plastics for 20 years. Their annual output of plastic is currently about 1000 tonnes, with on-site warehousing capable of storing up to 100 tonnes at any one time.
SP employs eight production workers (five full-time and three part-time) and four office workers (three full-time and one part-time). There are also three sales advisers, who spend most of their time travelling nationally, each of them returning to the factory once a month. Day-to-day management is provided by an office manager, a production manager, and two production supervisors. SP is led by two directors: one responsible for finance, and one for operations and sales. The financial director (FD) is known for a cautious, value-for-money approach, whereas the operations and sales director (OSD) is willing to take risks, including with regulatory compliance. The directors prefer informal daily verbal updates from you, rather than lengthy inspection reports or meetings with agendas. When you can, you speak with whichever director is available.
Current operations The production manager is responsible for creating product formulations and overseeing production runs. They have 15 years of experience working in the plastics industry. Decisions about chemical use, product formulation, and process changes have relied on internal experience and discussions within the management team, rather than external technical advice.
One of your earliest interventions as the HSEW manager involved replacing a solvent that had recently been classified as a potential carcinogen. Your replacement was more expensive but less hazardous, and is widely regarded within the industry as a ‘green solvent’ due to its lower risk to health, and minimal environmental impact. You considered these impacts acceptable when compared to the benefits the new solvent would bring for health and the environment.
A new contract and a second building The OSD has recently secured a major contract with a new client. To fulfil it, SP must double its annual output of the existing product and introduce a second plastic. The production process for the second plastic will not work with the new solvent; it needs the older, more hazardous solvent. The client has agreed to purchase 200 tonnes per year of this second plastic.
To cope with the extra production, the directors decide to lease a building next door to use as a warehouse for finished products and for additional office space. This building had previously operated as a vehicle workshop, carrying out mechanical and bodywork repairs, and has been vacant for approximately 12 months. The roadway in front of the buildings is used by pedestrians and vehicles accessing the industrial estate.
The FLT is designed for indoor use. It is old and has no modern safety features such as a flashing beacon, reversing sounder, or driver’s mirrors. It also has no rollover protection, such as a protective cab roof. Production workers operate the FLT when required and park it in the factory overnight for charging. However, due to its age, not everyone likes driving it because of its heavy steering and the way the controls sometimes shake violently.
Initial management discussion The directors call an urgent management meeting to discuss the new contract. They announce that storage will immediately move into the new warehouse. The production manager is given responsibility for overseeing the physical transfer of materials, purchasing new stock of raw materials, and developing the revised production process.
The new warehouse still contains ventilation ducting, compressed-air lines, and floor drainage from its previous use. The building owner had an environmental survey carried out on the building, but has not given the report to you. You decide to request this report instead of conducting your own environmental survey. The OSD thinks that the building is ideal for storage and it can be used immediately without any modifications being necessary. The FD is not sure that it is ideal, but if modifications are needed, they want to limit spending to only essential refurbishment.
To meet production demands the directors announce that three additional full-time and two additional part-time production workers will be recruited. Production will move to two shifts, 06:00 - 14:00 and 14:00 - 22:00, Monday to Friday. The directors say that there will be a small increase in pay for those working the late shift.
You ask how the existing workers will be informed about the changes. The FD responds, “Don’t say too much yet – we can tell them more once we have hired the extra workers.” You comment that revised working hours could affect how people travel to work, particularly later in the evening. The directors reluctantly agree to announce the changes by letter, and the discussion quickly moves on.
You advise updating risk assessments before any changes are implemented. The OSD says that there is too much to organise in the coming weeks, and suggests completing any assessments once the new processes are in place. Instead, you decide to start creating some induction training for the new workers.
The meeting concludes. No-one other than the production manager takes notes during the meeting; their notes focus on operational matters. As people leave, the OSD comments, “This is a permanent change, so we just need to make it work.”
Proposed operating model The production manager decides to run small batches of each product. The manufacturing equipment can be used for both products, but must be thoroughly purged (cleared of all traces of residual material) to prevent cross-contamination between the two types of solvent.
You raise concerns with the production manager about re-introducing the original solvent. The production manager explains that the current safety documentation is “good enough”. Safety data sheets indicate that both substances are solvents, both are flammable, and neither should be ingested. The production manager suggests existing controls are adequate to cover both substances without significant change, citing production deadlines.
Aware of commercial pressure and conscious of limitations in your own chemical expertise, you decide to delay updating hazardous substance documentation, while focusing on other aspects of the change. You intend to review changeover and purging arrangements at another time.
The directors want the new arrangements operational within four weeks. The first shipment to the new client is due in six weeks. The letters state that workers allocated to the late shift will receive a higher hourly rate, and that additional workers will be recruited to help with the extra contract.
Managers notice workers are beginning to talk to each other during their breaks about the changes taking place. Several existing production workers, including supervisors, have family commitments. Some workers rely on public transport to travel to and from work. The managers mention to you that some workers appear uncertain about how the new shift pattern will affect them, although no formal concerns have been raised to management.
Addressing worker concerns You become more aware of worker concerns when a long-serving production worker stops you in a corridor and asks you if the plans are already finalised. You decide to arrange a meeting for the following week with all of the production workers, and you ask the supervisors to let their teams know. The notice does not include an agenda or any information about the proposed discussion. You invite the production manager to attend but they decline, saying that they need to focus on organising the new production arrangements.
In the days before the meeting, you notice that some workers appear to be less open and friendly with you than they are usually. A minor incident involving the FLT results in damaged stock near to the loading area. When you investigate, the production worker driving the FLT says that they have no idea how the incident occurred, and no-one else offers any information. You also notice that conversations between workers stop when you approach.
On the scheduled meeting day, turnout is lower than anticipated, and some workers arrive just as the meeting begins.
You start the discussion by clarifying that the objective of the meeting is to explore how the updated working arrangements could impact workers. One worker dominates the discussion and begins by asking about the new shifts and whether adjustments are possible. Another worker, in frustration, shouts “That’s what they always say. You’ve already decided what you’re going to do. Nothing ever changes. No-one listens.” As the meeting goes on, fewer workers speak. Some glance at their co-workers, but do not say anything.
You thank everyone for their input and explain that feedback will be passed on to the directors. In the weeks that follow, managers continue to hear informal discussions among the production workers and supervisors about the changes.
Preparing the new building As preparations begin for moving materials into the new warehouse, the OSD arranges for a local builder to attend the site. The OSD has previously used this builder for some work on their home, and recalls them being reliable and quick to complete jobs. During a brief discussion at the doorway of the new warehouse, the OSD explains that the main tasks involve removing redundant ducting and compressed air lines, clearing any remaining waste materials, and filling in floor drainage channels with concrete. Areas of damaged flooring should also be repaired. The builder is told that they can start work immediately.
You arrive at work the next morning to find that the door to the new warehouse is open. A van is parked inside near to the entrance, and two builders are clearing debris and dismantling pipework. Some tools and loose materials are scattered across the floor, including broken pieces of metal equipment and machinery near to the entrance, with sections of pipe leaning against the wall.
The OSD confirms that they arranged for the work to be carried out, adding, “It is just a bit of tidying up so that we can start using the space.” You ask whether any documentation had been provided for the work being carried out. You list such things as risk assessments, evidence of competency or training, and insurance. The OSD replies, “It is nothing complicated - they know what they are doing.” You ask if the builders have been told about any hazards at SP, but the OSD says, “They will not be on site long enough to worry about that”, as they walk away to a meeting.
The incident Meanwhile, the production manager instructs a production worker to begin transferring pallets into the new warehouse. A large crate, containing various items of equipment intended for future use in production, also needs to be moved, as it is currently causing an obstruction in the factory. The production worker gets into the FLT and decides to move the crate first. The crate extends approximately 1.5 metres beyond each side of the FLT, restricting forward visibility. To compensate for this, the driver has to lean out of the cab to see beyond the sides of the load while manoeuvring. The driver pauses briefly at the exit onto the roadway before proceeding, adjusting their position to get a clearer view. As the FLT approaches the new warehouse, the door is already open. Assuming that this has been prepared for incoming materials, the driver continues inside, their attention focused on the left-hand side of the load. The area immediately inside the door is partially obscured by stacked materials and equipment. Moments after entering the building, the driver feels and hears a loud impact.
The FLT driver stops immediately and exits the cab. On the right-hand side of the load, one of the builders is lying on the ground, holding their leg. Tools and sections of removed pipework are scattered nearby. The other builder comes running over from the far side of the building. The FLT driver appears shaken and says, “I did not know anyone was in here; I could not see them”.
You and the two directors arrive shortly afterwards to find the injured builder, who explains that they had been working at the back of the van and were struck as the FLT passed them. As they fell, their ankle became trapped beneath the edge of the crate on the forks. You observe swelling around the ankle. No-one at the scene has first-aid training, so an ambulance is called.
While waiting, the driver of the FLT repeatedly says “I thought the door was open for me. I had no idea anyone was in here!”
The OSD comments that “These things can happen when people are not paying attention”, before moving on to discuss the next steps for preparing the new warehouse for use. Before the conversation ends, the OSD instructs you to handle the incident investigation carefully, noting that it is important that SP’s position is clearly defended.
Task 1: Organisational change
1
The increased production requirement resulted in significant change for the organisation.
Assess how well SP have managed this change against the key principles of managing organisational change.
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information from the scenario.
(16)
Task 2: Consultation
2
(a) Comment on how the following behavioural aspects may have affected the attempted consultation process at SP
(i) peer group pressure
(b) The workers do not feel that they have been properly consulted on the organisational changes.
Explain what you could have done differently to help ensure an effective consultation process for the changes.
Note: Your answer must relate directly to the scenario.
(2) (3) (3)
(16)
Task 3: Health and safety performance review
3
(a) What leading performance indicators should SP prioritise in their next health and safety management review?
You must justify EACH of the leading performance indicators.Notes: Your answer must be based on the scenario only.
(b) Explain how proactive monitoring of health and safety performance could have benefited SP during the changes.
Notes: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information from the scenario.
(8)
(10)
Task 4: Third-party management
4
Article 17 of the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO’s) Convention C155 requires two or more undertakings sharing a workplace to collaborate.
Which failures in collaboration between SP and the builders were significant in contributing to the FLT incident?
You must give reasons for your answer Note: Your answers must be based on the scenario only.
(12)
Task 5: Training priorities
5
In the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) guidance document ‘Health and safety training: a brief guide’ (INDG345), Step 2 is ‘Decide your training priorities’.
Following recent changes to operations, explain what SP’s training priorities should be.
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information from the scenario.
(17)
Task 6: Leadership style
6
Explain how the absence of an authentic leadership style has affected health and safety performance at SP.
Note: Your answer must be based on the scenario only.
(13)
End of assessment
For NEBOSH Learners & HSE Professionals DN1 & DI1 answers . Evidently AI-free, plagiarism-free, on time. 96%+ pass rate
Order this Assignment Now: £235
Email: care@academiasupport.co.uk
100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written, Tailored to your instructions
