On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the company’s employees, seriously injured his hand while pushing a large piece of wood through a table saw in the production shop. There is now a dispute over who is to blame for the accident, the company or the employee.
The injured employee claims that he followed all the company’s safety procedures and that the company is at fault because it did not guarantee that the machine was as safe as possible for use. The company shop manager, David Donald, asserts that the machine was in safe condition, because if it hadn’t been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have informed him.
The foreman, Harry Hiller, insists that the machine was maintained satisfactorily; he has produced the written maintenance records. The foreman also claims that prior to the accident he saw the employee “joking, laughing and goofing around” with his co-workers.
A co-worker supports the claim of the injured employee, insisting that despite regular maintenance on the table saw, it was not safe because the safety guard was poorly designed and didn’t function well. The co-worker claims that shop workers informed the foreman about the issues with the safety guard.
A health and safety report determined and reported that the safety guard was poorly designed to protect operators in a number of circumstances.
(Adapted: AF, 2011)
Format
Write a short paper (no more than 5 double-spaced pages/1,250 words, excluding the cover page and references) that critically analyzes the ideas or position presented in the case reading. The major headings of your paper should include the following:
Introduction
Explanation of the Issue or Problem
Analysis of the Information
Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions or Solutions
Personal or Summarized Conclusions and Proposed Decisions
Conclusion