Scribd
Upload
8 views

Document 2

Uploaded by

Muhammad Zeeshan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views

Document 2

Uploaded by

Muhammad Zeeshan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Question 2

1. Absence of Incident Records:

By choosing not to keep an accident/incident book, the GM


dismissed it as unnecessary, which weakens both effective health
and safety management and accountability.

2. Neglectful Approach to Near Misses:

Near misses were not considered serious or worth


documenting by GM, creating a culture of overlooking risks.

3. Restricted Access to Training:

Due to the GM's hectic schedule, new employees received


health and safety training only when the GM was free, resulting in
inconsistent training and possible knowledge gaps.

4. :Limited Support for Safety Initiatives:

The GM prioritized aesthetics over safety by refusing to


replace the rooftop glass panels, neglecting to address known
risks effectively.

5. Neglecting to Involve Workers:


The receptionist mentioned that the GM seldom interacted
with staff, missing chances to address safety concerns, which
lowered trust and morale.

6. Unwillingness to Assume Safety Responsibilities:

The GM's lack of engagement in health and safety, combined


with transferring full responsibility to the new HSM, reflected weak
commitment to safety leadership.

7. Lack of Robust Contractor Selection Procedures:

The GM admitted hiring unqualified contractors, neglecting


safety checks, which compromised the rooftop glass installation.

8.Reluctance to Conduct Risk Assessments:


By initially neglecting risk assessments, the GM delayed
identifying and addressing hazards, such as the weak rooftop
glass, which created unsafe conditions.

9. Inefficient Communication of Safety Protocols:

The GM believed he was ignorant of safety and health rules, so


he failed to record accidents or near-misses in a "incident book."
Consequently, there was a lack of openness and a challenge in
communicating health and safety meetings to the employees.
10. Inadequate Safety Induction Scheduling:

Safety inductions were held only when the GM was available,


causing inconsistent understanding of safety protocols and
potential confusion during incidents.

11. Dismissal of Worker Safety Input:

The GM damaged the staff's confidence by dismissing their


suggestions about the glass installation and the need for effective
risk controls, which led to a breakdown in trust.

12. A Lack of Proactive Safety Management:

The GM allowed dangers to persist in the workplace because he


did not take proactive steps to reduce risks on a daily basis and
only considered them after an incident had happened.

13. Excluding Health and Safety from Decision-Making:

The GM's focus on the hotel's appearance and beauty


overshadowed the health and safety of all staff and visitors,
compromising the establishment's overall safety regulations.

14. Poor Understanding of Health and Safety


Responsibilities:

The GM, aware of his lack of competence in managing the health


and safety of the entire organization, did not take steps to
improve or actively manage hazards.

15. Inadequate System for Tracking Safety Performance:

The GM did not establish a system for tracking and reviewing


health and safety performance, which resulted in missed chances
to identify trends and areas for improvement.

16. Insufficient Support for Developing a Safety Culture:

A negative safety culture resulted from the GM's disinterest in


safety discussions and contempt for incident reporting, which
made employees less likely to report hazards or accidents.

You might also like