The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Posted: January 1st, 2023

The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Based on your examination of key requirements in OSHA, choose and analyze one of the following two cases assigned in your studies for this unit: National Realty and Construction Company, Inc. v. OSHRC. Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc. Focus on aligning OSHA guidelines with case assertions, evidence, and findings. Address the following elements in your assignment: Analyze the primary legal principle defined by the court in your chosen case.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court. Evaluate the ways in which a company did not follow OSHA workplace safety guidelines. Analyze how your chosen OSHA-related case would impact HR practice. Evaluate the ways in which a company can mitigate risk. Your paper should be 2–3 pages in length. Cite examples and use your course readings and any relevant research to support your perspective. Remember to use proper APA format for all citations and references. Review the OSHA Analysis Scoring Guide before submitting this assignment to ensure that you have thoroughly addressed the grading criteria

The selected case is National Realty and Construction Company, Inc. v. OSHRC. In this case, a worker died when riding the running board of a front-end loader. According to the OSHA review commission, the company had violated the general duty clause and thus was fined (Jung, 2015). However, the court ruled that there was no evidence to show if the safety policy of the company failed to meet the required standards.

The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court

The primary legal principle in the selected case was the connotation of “free from recognized hazards” (Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1970). Organizations are supposed to ensure that the work environment is free from any recognized hazard. However, according to the court, the term “free from recognized hazards” does not include the unpreventable hazards. The ruling of the court was that the evidence significantly supported that the hazard of employees riding on the equipment was recognizable under § 654(a)(1) and had a likelihood of causing significant physical harm or death. However, this hazard was unpreventable,and thus under § 654(a)(1), only the preventable hazards are required to be eliminated.The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Ways the Company did not Adhere to OSHA Workplace Safety Guidelines

The company breached its general duty by having a worker to ride on a moving loader. According to the OSHA safety guidelines, employers are supposed to provide a workplace environment free from any significant recognizable hazard and adhere to the rules, regulations, and standards stipulated in the OSHAct (Brenson, 2017). In this case, the supervisor should have ensured that no employee gets to ride on a moving loader.The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Secondly, the company did not assess the workplace conditions to ensure that they confirmed to the appropriate OSHA standards. According to the details of the case, the supervisor has witnessed workers riding on a moving loader several times and warned them. This should have prompted the company to examine the workplace conditions and also the conduct of the workers and implement the necessary preventative measures to prevent such conduct as riding on a loader on the motion(Brenson, 2017). This could include implementing reporting policies for any employee riding on the loaders and policies that obligate drivers to authorize any worker regardless of their position to get off any moving loader.The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Impact of the OSHA-Related Case on the HR Practice

Among the key priorities of the human resource management is to protect workers from workplace hazards such as standing or riding on a loader machine. Therefore, HR should focus on implementing policies that restrict or reduce workers putting themselves at risk when handling such as hazardous machines within the workplace (Park, 2018). For example, the HR could implement policies that obligate drivers of the loader machines to ride alone or policies obligating supervisors to oversee the movement of the loader machines to ensure that no employee gets to ride on a moving loader.

Moreover, HR should also implement educational programs aimed to train workers on how to operate the loader machines and the appropriate safety measure to prevent harm to self and others. The HR managers should also continually update themselves with the OSHA new rules and regulations to ensure that the company does not violate them (Yohay, 2015).The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Ways the Company can Mitigate the Risk

The risk of workers riding on a moving loader can be mitigated by educating all the organizational workers on the dangers associated with riding a moving loader and implementing policies that mandate the drivers to drive loaders alone. Additionally, the company should ensure that the front loaders are well maintained and serviced regularly to prevent any malfunctioning that can cause an accident. The risk management department in the company also needs to regularly assess the risk of the accident occurring and implement the necessary measures to prevent or minimize the risk. The drivers of the loading machines and the workers operating them should be trained regarding the necessary skills and competency to operate them and the safety precautions (Park, 2018). Moreover, the employees need to be supervised always when operating the machines by a designated supervisor to ensure that workers do not violate the set rules and regulations. The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.

Finally, the organization must assess the organizational practices of using hazardous machines like the front loader and consider investing in less risky machines. The Primary Legal Principle Defined by the Court.