Get Instant Help From 5000+ Experts For

Writing Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing:Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

Add File

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

Guaranteed Higher Grade!

PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3

13 Pages / 3,158 Words Published On: 16-01-2020

Provide researched and appropriately referenced responses in the approved IRAC format to the below Case Study.

Case Study

This Case Study follows Assessment 1 and relates to the same business and key staff. Rattle Engineering has won a contract with a Prime Contractor to the Department of Defence. As a subcontractor to an existing prime contractor to defence, Rattle Engineering receives job taskings from both the prime contractor and directly from the Department of Defence. The business extended on the scope of engineering works they previously undertook, and now undertake Non-Destructive Testing (NDT), import components, manufacture components as well as test and repair components.

Currently the business employs 40 staff and are in the process of recruiting an additional 10 more. They have not as yet engaged any specialist contractors to support this defence related work which now takes up 80% of their business. While the Department of Defence have offered some “on base” facilities for the company to use, which is known as government furnished premises, at this time they only undertake work in their existing engineering facility at Banyo, Brisbane, Queensland and transport components between the Department of Defence Base and their factory. Refer to Attachment 1 for key company roles.

Case Study Element 1

Last Monday, Mr Bill Bolt, the factory foremen was in the process of advertising for the employment two additional staff and preparing the job lists for the current weeks work, as well as planning the following weeks work. On the Friday prior, the Chief Engineer advised him that it appeared that they were not going to meet their first deadline which was due in two weeks. Furthermore, that he wasn’t looking forward to advising the Managing Director of this fact, however, they were both meeting next Tuesday at the Defence Force Base with the Prime Contractor and were hoping they would be able to secure an extension without any penalty. He tasked Bill to finalise the process of recruiting two more staff as soon as possible.

As Bill Bolt was preparing the work plan, he reflected how all the new safety systems were costing him time on his production line. In particular, this related to one of the new machines that now required two staff to manually feed material in, due to the nature of the safety guard. Previously, it had been a one person job task because the old machine did not have the hindrance of this type of improved safety guard.

At that point, he decided he would remove the safety guard, and that this would allow the machine operator to manage the processing of the material and the welder he had re-tasked to assist the machine operator, could return to the welding line. Taking this option just maybe, they could meet their production target and not incur a penalty. It would only be for two weeks since one of the positions he was recruiting was for the worker that assisted the Machine Operator. Achieving the production outcome would impress the Chief Engineer and the Managing Director.

The Machine Operator, Dave Dingle, didn’t mind this change to his machine. Being a long- term employee, he had always preferred the old machine anyway, and he too was frustrated with these new safety procedures. The Welder didn’t mind, because he didn’t like being a labourer and preferred to just undertake welding tasks. Bill Bolt also knew the new safety manager was away on a course this week.

On Tuesday morning, Dave Dingle, the Machine Operator, arrived at work after a big night of activities. On Monday nights he played touch football and last night he also stayed on after the game for some alcoholic drinks. As a result he had far too many alcoholic beverages.

As he placed the material into the machine on his own, he reflected just how loud the machine was on his large headache. Feeding the material into the machine, with his left hand he rubbed his sore head and his right hand was then suddenly pinched in the machine, crushing two fingers and amputating another two. He appreciated that the emergency stop bump button was right beside his knee as he stopped the machine and screamed out for help.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legality of removing the guard on the machine.

Case Study Element 2

When Bill Bolt heard the incident, he directed that no-body stop work and no-one was to call an ambulance until he checked out the situation (he wanted to put the machine guard back on before the authorities saw it had been removed). When he arrived at the machine the First Aid Officer was attending to Dave Dingle. He ignored Bill’s direction and phoned the Ambulance.

As Bill Bolt was still putting the guard back on, the Ambulance Paramedics arrived at the factory. Bill directed them not to enter the premises until he sorted a couple of things out. The First Aid Officer saw this and screamed out to them advising what the injuries were and the declining health state of the injured Dave Dingle. As Bill Bolt was the person in control of the workplace at that time, he had refused permission for the Ambulance Paramedics (Authorised persons) to enter the premises.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the authority of Ambulance Paramedics in this situation.

Case Element 3

Because the First Aid Officer had called the Ambulance using the emergency number triple zero (000), Workplace Health and Safety Queensland (WHSQ) were automatically notified.

About an hour after injured Dave Dingle was transported to hospital by the Ambulance Paramedics, two WHSQ Inspectors arrived at the Rattle Engineering front office. Bill Bolt met the Inspectors in the front office and advised that the Safety Manager was away on a course and both the Managing Director and the Chief Engineer were off site at a meeting. He further advised that it wasn’t convenient just now for them to be at the workshop and directed them to return the following week when the Safety Manager could take them through the factory. They insisted on entering and Bill Bolt directed them not to enter the factory.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the authority of WHSQ Inspectors in this situation.

Case Element 4

Randall Rattle, the Managing Director, notified the Prime Contractor and The Department of Defence of the Incident. He noted it was a requirement of the contract.

About a week later, Randall Rattle, as Managing Director, received a formal letter from the Department of Defence advising that they intended on undertaking a WHS Verification Activity on Rattle Engineering with particular regard to machine guarding, hazardous manual handling and emergency procedures.

Randall Rattle asked both the Safety Manager and his Lawyer to explain to him why and on what basis the Department of Defence was coming to his factory for this WHS Verification Activity, why were they interested? He did recall the term WHS Verification Activity in the contract.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legal principles under the WHS Act 2011 for this WHS Verification Activity.

Case Element 5

Mrs Ruby Rattle, the Chief Operating Officer, undertook a review of the incident and the rehabilitation process of Dave Dingle. In addition to providing a sustainable supply of materials to the Department of Defence, managing notifiable incidents and injury management was a performance measure under the contract. With the next contract performance review due soon, being only three months after the incident, she was not satisfied with Dave Dingle’s progress regarding his to return to work. Ruby Rattle formed the opinion that Dave Dingle was not actively participating in his return to work plan. She formed the opinion that the best course of action was to terminate Dave Dingle’s employment. This decision is primarily based on his inability to undertake his normal duties because of his injury and his less than positive attitude towards his rehabilitation.

Terminating Dave Dingle would allow the business to recruit a new machine operator to his position and improve the business performance required to meet contract key performance indicators (KPI’s). She prepared the termination notice to be served on Dave Dingle, giving him one month’s notice that he would no longer be employed at Rattle Engineering.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the legality of the decision of the Chief Operating Officer in this situation.

Case Element 6

The Senior Inspector of WHSQ investigating the Dave Dingle incident requested Mr Randall Rattle to produce a copy of the safe work procedure for the machine involved in the incident, a copy of the emergency procedures and the results of Rattle Engineering’s incident investigation. The incident investigation results are notes prepared by Mark Rattle, who is both Randall’s brother and the company’s in-house lawyer, which was discussed and provided to and at the request of Rattle Engineering’s external lawyer – 2 in1 Lawyers. The Chief Engineer advised him not to provide any of that documented material to the Senior Inspector of WHSQ, as he believed it was privileged business records.

Advise the Managing Director, using IRAC, on the release of all these documents, in this situation.

Download Sample Now

Earn back the money you have spent on the downloaded sample by uploading a unique assignment/study material/research material you have. After we assess the authenticity of the uploaded content, you will get 100% money back in your wallet within 7 days.

up arrow icon

Unique Document

Clipboard Icon

Under Evaluation


Get Money
into Your Wallet

Total 13 pages

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

My Assignment Help. (2020). PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3. Retrieved from

"PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3." My Assignment Help, 2020,

My Assignment Help (2020) PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3 [Online]. Available from:
[Accessed 06 June 2023].

My Assignment Help. 'PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3' (My Assignment Help, 2020) <> accessed 06 June 2023.

My Assignment Help. PUN301 Occupational Health And Safety Law And Policy3 [Internet]. My Assignment Help. 2020 [cited 06 June 2023]. Available from:

Stuck on Any Question

Our best expert will help you with the answer of your question with best explanation.


Writing Get your essay and assignment written from scratch by PhD expert

Rewriting: Paraphrase or rewrite your friend's essay with similar meaning at reduced cost

Editing: Proofread your work by experts and improve grade at Lowest cost

We will use e-mail only for:

arrow Communication regarding your orders

arrow To send you invoices, and other billing info

arrow To provide you with information of offers and other benefits

Phone no. Missing!

Enter phone no. to receive critical updates and urgent messages !

250 words
Error goes here

Error goes here

Files Missing!

Please upload all relevant files for quick & complete assistance.

5% Cashback

On APP - grab it while it lasts!

Download app now (or) Scan the QR code

*Offer eligible for first 3 orders ordered through app!

callback request mobile
Have any Query?
Subtraction Payment required!

Only one step away from your solution of order no.