CASE STUDY – EVIDENCE

Based on the interviews with staff, it appears that there are varying levels of preparedness and communication
regarding the introduction of the new machine. Here are some key points from each interviewee:
1. John Swinney, Machine Operator:
• Received information about the new machine three months ago.
• Given a copy of the instruction manual.
• Brief run-through by installation personnel.
• Indicates a learning curve over the three months.
2. Mary Lacey, Team Leader:
• Team Leaders received a full briefing from Senior Management and the supplying company.
• Informed about the machine's operation and safety features.
• Surprised by the need to reorganize the department for the new machine.
3. Dan Evans, Machine Operator:
• Relied on John Swinney's knowledge and guidance.
• Used the manual and received instructions from a colleague.
• Only had to use the accident book once, suggesting a relatively smooth transition.
4. Duncan O’Conner, Department Manager:
• Informed staff about the new machine before its arrival.
• Provided a run-through of safety features.
• Unforeseen need to reorganize the room upon the machine's arrival.
• Created a notice on the Noticeboard on Monday.
Observations and Recommendations:
• There seems to be variability in the depth of information provided to different staff members.
• The surprise reorganization required may have caused disruptions and could have been communicated
earlier.
• John Swinney and Dan Evans adopting a peer-to-peer learning approach could be effective but may not
cover all safety aspects.
• The Noticeboard notice created by the Department Manager is a positive step, but ongoing
communication and updates may be necessary.
• Consideration should be given to conducting refresher training sessions or providing additional
resources for continued learning.
Overall, communication and preparation for the introduction of the new machine can be improved to ensure a
smooth transition and enhanced safety awareness among all staff members.
CASE STUDY - Outline
Participation & Consultation Procedure Audit Checklist
1. Documentation:
• Is the Participation & Consultation Procedure clearly documented and accessible?
• Does it include information on the process for introducing new machinery and safety measures?
2. Communication Channels:
• Are communication channels defined for informing employees about changes in the department?
• Is there evidence of communication related to the recent introduction of the new machine?
3. Employee Involvement:
• Are there mechanisms in place for employees to express their views on changes?
• Is there evidence of employee involvement in the decision-making process related to the
machine introduction?
4. Noticeboards:
• Are the noticeboards strategically located for maximum visibility?
• Do the noticeboards contain information about the new machine, reorganization, and safety
measures?
5. Training and Information Dissemination:
• Is there evidence of training provided to employees regarding the new safety measures?
• Have employees been adequately informed about the implications of the reorganization?
6. Feedback Mechanism:
• Is there a feedback mechanism for employees to provide input or raise concerns?
• Is there evidence of any feedback received regarding the recent changes?
7. Compliance with Procedure:
• Has the department adhered to the Participation & Consultation Procedure during the recent
changes?

Problems Identified from Evidence:

1. Limited Communication: There is evidence of surprise among employees regarding the need for
reorganization due to the introduction of the new machine, suggesting a potential breakdown in
communication.
2. Peer-to-Peer Learning: While peer-to-peer learning can be effective, reliance solely on colleague
guidance may result in knowledge gaps and inconsistencies in understanding safety measures.
 3. Noticeboard Utilization: The effectiveness of the noticeboards in conveying crucial information,
especially in a departmental reorganization, needs to be evaluated. The audit should examine if the
noticeboards have been utilized optimally.
4. Feedback Loop: The absence of clear evidence of a feedback mechanism or employee input regarding
the recent changes raises concerns about the effectiveness of the consultation process.

Audit Report - Nonconformance:

Nonconformance Identified: Limited Communication and Consultation
Description: The evidence obtained during the audit indicates a lack of comprehensive communication and
consultation with employees regarding the recent introduction of the new machine and the resulting
reorganization. This nonconformance raises concerns about the effectiveness of the Participation &
Consultation Procedure in facilitating transparent communication and involving employees in decision-making
processes. Improvement in communication channels, feedback mechanisms, and noticeboard utilization is
recommended to address this nonconformance.
CASE STUDY – PROCEDURE
Introduction and Scope:
• Is the purpose of the procedure clear and aligned with the communication of pertinent information to
employees and external parties?
• Does the scope explicitly include employees, contractors, and visitors?
Responsibilities:
• Is it clear that the Managing Director is responsible for implementing the procedure?
Procedure: a) Documentation of Employee Involvement:
• Is there evidence that arrangements for employee involvement and consultation are documented?
• Are external interested parties, including contractors and visitors, informed?
b) Employee Involvement:
• Are employees involved in the development and review of policies and procedures?
• Is there evidence of consultation when changes affecting workplace health and safety occur?
• Is there representation of employees on health and safety matters?
• Are employees informed about their OH&S representatives and specific management appointee?
c) Encouragement of Participation:
• Is there a documented process for encouraging participation in good OH&S practices?
• Is there evidence of consultation and communication regarding OH&S policy and objectives?
d) Communication of Changes:
• Is there a process for communicating health and safety changes?
• Are toolbox talks and Department Noticeboards used for communicating changes?
Documentation: a) Training Records:
• Is there a training record for each member of staff?
• Do training records provide evidence of OH&S training?
b) Noticeboard Announcements:
• Are noticeboard announcements titled and dated?
• Are noticeboard announcements retained for at least one year?
Problems Identified from Evidence:

1. Limited Evidence of Documentation: While the procedure outlines the need for documentation, the audit
should examine the extent and effectiveness of the actual documentation regarding employee involvement and
consultation.

2. Clarity on OH&S Representatives: Clarity is needed on how employees are informed about their OH&S
representatives and specific management appointees, as this information is critical for effective communication.

3. Evaluation of Participation Process: The audit should assess the effectiveness of the process for encouraging
participation in OH&S practices and how this aligns with the organization's objectives.

4. Toolbox Talks and Noticeboards: The audit should evaluate the frequency, content, and effectiveness of toolbox
talks and noticeboard announcements in communicating health and safety changes.

Audit Report - Nonconformance:

Nonconformance Identified: Limited Documentation and Clarity in OH&S Communication

Description: The evidence obtained during the audit suggests a potential nonconformance with the Participation &
Consultation Procedure. There is a need for improved documentation regarding employee involvement and
consultation. Additionally, clarity is required on how employees are informed about their OH&S representatives and
specific management appointees. The audit recommends enhancements in these areas to ensure effective participation
and communication in health and safety matters.
Given the tragic incident at the Imperial Sugar refinery, an internal auditor would likely focus on various questions,
procedures, and policies to assess and enhance safety measures. Here are some key aspects an internal auditor might
consider:

1. Dust Control Policy and Procedures:

• Questions:

• Is there a documented policy addressing the control and mitigation of combustible dust in the
facility?

• Are procedures in place to regularly inspect and clean areas prone to dust accumulation?

• Procedures:

• Dust control measures during production processes.

• Regular cleaning schedules and methods for dust-prone areas.

• Employee training on the importance of dust control.

• Policy:

• Clearly defined policy on controlling combustible dust.

• Procedures for reporting and addressing any observed dust-related issues.

2. Hazardous Materials Handling and Storage:

• Questions:

• Are there documented procedures for the safe handling and storage of hazardous materials,
including sugar?

• Is there an inventory control system to monitor the quantities of combustible materials?

• Procedures:

• Guidelines for the safe handling and storage of sugar and other hazardous materials.

• Regular inventory checks and reconciliation procedures.

• Policy:

• Policy on the safe storage, handling, and monitoring of hazardous materials.

• Emergency response procedures in case of spills or releases.

3. Safety Training and Communication:

• Questions:

• Are employees adequately trained on safety measures, especially regarding combustible dust?

• Is there effective communication of safety procedures throughout the organization?

• Procedures:

• Regular safety training sessions for all employees.

• Clear communication channels for disseminating safety-related information.

 • Policy:

• Safety training policy outlining the frequency and content of training.

• Policies ensuring effective communication of safety-related information.

4. Emergency Response and Evacuation:

• Questions:

• Are there well-defined emergency response procedures in the event of a fire or explosion?

• Is there a clear evacuation plan, and have employees been trained on it?

• Procedures:

• Detailed emergency response procedures, including fire drills.

• Evacuation routes and assembly points clearly marked and communicated.

• Policy:

• Emergency response policy outlining roles, responsibilities, and procedures.

• Evacuation policy ensuring a systematic and safe evacuation process.

5. Audit and Inspection Protocols:

• Questions:

• How often are safety audits and inspections conducted?

• Is there a documented process for addressing and correcting issues identified during audits?

• Procedures:

• Regular schedules for safety audits and inspections.

• Corrective action procedures in case of identified issues.

• Policy:

• Safety audit policy outlining the frequency and scope of audits.

• Policies for addressing and correcting issues identified during audits.

6. Communication with Regulatory Authorities:

• Questions:

• How is communication maintained with regulatory authorities regarding safety compliance?

• Are there established procedures for reporting incidents to relevant authorities?

• Procedures:

• Regular communication channels with regulatory authorities.

• Protocols for reporting incidents, including timelines and documentation.

• Policy:

• Policies outlining communication procedures with regulatory authorities.

 • Incident reporting policy ensuring timely and accurate reporting.

An internal auditor would likely use these questions, procedures, and policies to assess the effectiveness of safety
measures, identify areas for improvement, and ensure compliance with relevant regulations and industry best practices.