NEBOSH

KNOW – WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

PRINCIPLES (UK)

UNIT DN1:
For: NEBOSH Level 6 National Diploma for Occupational Health and Safety
Management Professionals

PAPER 1 OF 2
Guidance to learners

There are two question papers for this assessment. This paper (Paper 1 of 2) contains questions
based on a fictitious scenario (100 available marks).

All the tasks and activities in all parts of the assessment are mandatory.

You will have 4 weeks (20 working days) to complete both papers of the assessment.
Please refer to your registration confirmation email for the upload deadline.
Please note that NEBOSH will be unable to accept your assessment once the deadline has passed.
You must use the answer template for Paper 1.

This assessment is not invigilated, and you are free to use any learning resources to which you have
access, eg your course notes, or the HSE website, etc.

By submitting this completed assessment for marking, you are declaring it is entirely your own work.
Knowingly claiming work to be your own when it is someone else’s work is malpractice, which carries
severe penalties. This means that you must not collaborate with or copy work from others. Neither
should you ‘cut and paste’ blocks of text from the Internet or other sources.

DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 1 of 7

Scenario-based questions
The assessment begins with a scenario to set the scene. You will then need to complete a series of
tasks based on this scenario. Each task will consist of one or more questions. Your responses to
most of these tasks should wholly, or partly, draw on relevant information from the scenario. The
task will clearly state the extent to which this is required.
The marks available are shown in brackets to the right of each question, or part of each question.
This will help guide you to the amount of information required in your response. In general, one mark
is given for each correct technical point that is clearly demonstrated. Avoid writing too little as this
will make it difficult for the Examiner to award marks. Single word answers or lists are unlikely to
gain marks as this would not normally be enough to show understanding or a connection with the
scenario.

Please attempt ALL tasks.

SCENARIO

You are a newly appointed health and safety advisor for an organisation called ‘PrintUp’. PrintUp has
been in operation since 1995 and has excelled in providing a high-quality printing service for
organisations. PrintUp produces a wide range of products including advertising posters, leaflets,
newsletters, food packaging, and books.

PrintUp operate in a two-storey building. The printing department is where most of the printing,
cutting, binding, and packaging takes place. This is also known as the ‘shopfloor’.

There are 120 workers at PrintUp, with 52 of them working on the shopfloor in different shift patterns.

On joining PrintUp in 2016, the chief executive officer (CEO) recruited a new senior management
team (SMT) comprising a senior accounting manager, a senior engineering manager and a senior
marketing manager.

PrintUp used to have an excellent safety record. More recently, they have seen an increase in
incidents, and in the last two years, two workers have suffered serious injuries. In addition to this,
over the last 12 months, there has been a 10% increase in reportable injuries and a 25% increase in
lost working days. However, near miss reports have decreased from fifteen to five reported
incidents.

The CEO is concerned about how these recent accidents on the shopfloor will be viewed by potential
and existing customers. You are also concerned by these trends, and you decide to investigate.
You start by comparing PrintUp’s accident rates with those at similar types of organisations. Your
analysis shows that they are similar. However, PrintUp’s statistics still concern you, so you decide to
investigate further.

First, you look at the findings of the internal accident investigations of the two accidents that resulted
in serious injuries. Both accidents happened on the shopfloor, although they were unrelated events.
The brief investigations concluded that there was a ‘lack of care’ by the workers.

The first accident involved a forklift truck (FLT) carrying multiple large boxes. The driver failed to
slow down even though there was a worker using the pedestrian crossing. As a result, the FLT
collided with the worker, crushing their leg. The investigation concluded that the driver was at fault
as they were driving too fast.

The most recent accident involved a 17-year-old apprentice. They were instructed by another
apprentice and a new worker on how to use a manually-operated die cutting and creasing machine.
These machines cut shapes into paper or card by pressing it between two large plates. Operators
manually feed and remove the paper or card, but the operation of the plates is automated. The top
DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 2 of 7
plate is brought down to meet the fixed bottom plate, cutting or creasing the paper in the process; the
plates then part and the cycle begins again. The cycle is repeated automatically every four seconds.
The maximum gap between the two plates is 1.1 metres and each plate is 1.7 metres x 1 metre. On
this occasion, the 17-year-old apprentice had to reach into the centre of the plates to remove and
place the products to be creased.

The 17-year-old apprentice was left on their own to finish the task. The fabric safety glove, worn by
the apprentice, fell into the press. They tried to reach the glove during the four seconds that the
plates are open, but the plates closed on the worker’s arm and shoulder, resulting in a severe
crushing injury. The investigation concluded that the apprentice was at fault for trying to retrieve the
glove.

While reading this information on the accident report findings, you also find two ill-health reports. On
these reports both workers describe dry and itchy skin on their hands and wrists. You realise that
these are signs of occupational dermatitis.

Finally, you look at the near miss reports. One of the reported near misses particularly worries you.
While removing broken pallets from racking, workers were regularly lifted to a height of six metres in
an unsecured plastic box, balanced on the forks of a FLT. Three months ago, one of the workers
nearly fell from the plastic box while being lifted.

Meeting with the CEO

Concerned by your findings, you set up an urgent meeting with the CEO. The CEO listens to what
you have to say, but they raise their voice when giving you an explanation. They tell you that their
main goal is to invest any profit into increasing production efficiency and marketing. They also tell
you that there have been fewer new contracts over the last seven years. Organisations are spending
less money on printed advertising literature as they focus more on digital advertising. Food
manufacturers have also cut back on packaging, due to global rising costs and environmental
concerns. Consumers are just spending less money.

The CEO wants PrintUp to investigate the use of ‘environmentally friendly’ alternatives, such as eco-
friendly inks and recycled paper. They think that this will help their competitive edge, as many other
printing organisations are slow to move in this direction to show commitment to environmental
protection.

You tell the CEO that you want to see why accidents have increased. The CEO tells you that they
have always believed that accidents cannot be avoided. You tell the CEO that applying a safety
climate tool (SCT) will give a broad insight into PrintUp’s health and safety culture, and how workers
feel about safety. Based on what you find with the SCT, you plan to pilot a behavioural change
programme initiative. The CEO likes the idea of a behavioural change programme. They believe
that it will be easy to see which workers are to blame for unsafe behaviours, then they can be
disciplined. You try to explain that this is not the aim of the programme.

The CEO concludes the meeting and thinks that there is no need to waste time on an SCT or on a
piloted behavioural change programme. They would like the behavioural change programme to start
as soon as possible, as they believe it would improve the reputation of the organisation.

The behavioural change programme

For the first three weeks of the programme, you spend some time outlining its aims; this includes a
series of presentations to all workers. The CEO, the senior accounting manager, and two of the
supervisors are too busy to attend any of the presentations.

Many workers welcome the introduction of the programme. Some of the workers tell you that they
are looking forward to getting rewarded for their behaviour, while others say that accidents have
always been seen as normal in this type of industry. The newest supervisor expresses concern
about it taking time away from meeting deadlines.

DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 3 of 7

Following one of your presentations, two workers separately ask to speak to you in confidence. One
worker tells you that they were seriously injured six months ago, because of a non-work-related
accident, which means that they now need to use a wheelchair. They go on to say that they returned
to full-time work two months ago without a phased return to work. Their supervisor refused to allow
them to return to their usual job on the shopfloor, citing ‘safety concerns’. However, the worker was
assessed as medically fit to return to their previous job, but some modifications would be needed.
They tell you that they had been placed in the office and had been given administration tasks, with a
promise that they could return to their normal role within a few months. This has not happened.
They also find it difficult to open heavy doors around the site.

The second worker, who has worked for PrintUp for many years, tells you that many workers are not
following safety protocols. They say that it ‘never used to be like this’ and they have often seen
workers take short-cuts to save time. Workers are often on sick leave and the workload for others
has consequently increased. They admit they have felt too scared to report near misses.

After the presentation series is finished, you decide to develop the programme with some of the
workers from the shopfloor. Fifteen morning-shift workers from this department are randomly chosen
to be observers. These are a mix of new and long-term printing press workers, indoor vehicle
operators, and a supervisor. You arrange a one-day training session for the observers that explains
how to observe, give observation feedback, and measure worker behaviours and safety
performance. They then practise these skills. Due to production demands, only twelve of the fifteen
observers complete the scheduled training.

You set a target for all trained observers to complete at least two observations a week, using a five-
page checklist that you have devised. This checklist contains a range of safe behaviours on topics
such as wearing personal safety equipment, safe machinery operation and vehicle movement,
following procedures and safe material handling.

You set up a steering group made up of yourself and the fifteen observers. The supervisor is
selected to lead the group. The steering group will meet monthly to discuss the observation findings.

Two weeks later, three workers approach you and ask you how long this ‘programme’ is going to last.
They say that they do not like being watched by new workers. They tell you that the new workers are
not experienced enough to ‘tell them how to do their job’. They also ask you why the shopfloor is the
only department being ‘watched’. You thank them for their concerns and tell them that you will
discuss this at the first steering group meeting.

Steering group meetings

Six of the observers do not attend the first steering group meeting, including the supervisor. You
learn that each observation is taking approximately 45 minutes to complete and is done during the
observer’s morning shifts. Observers who attend say that lots of concerning behaviour has been
identified. One example was where a group of workers were not using designated walkways. One of
these workers narrowly avoided a collision with a moving FLT. Observers tell you that they tried to
correct the behaviour, but one of the workers just said, “the supervisors do it, so why shouldn’t I?”
Another observer said that they had seen a shopfloor worker being lifted by an FLT to reach some
racking. They did not challenge this by giving observation feedback, as they thought that this issue
was already being dealt with.

A month later, the second steering group meeting has better attendance. During this meeting you
discuss a near miss that was observed. The observer saw an experienced worker attempting to
identify and repair an intermittent fault with one of the printing presses. Their hand was almost
trapped between the rollers of the printing press while trying to find the fault. The observer quickly
pressed the emergency stop button and told the experienced worker that they should switch off the
printing press and wait for maintenance to fix the fault. The observer then asked the worker to report
the fault and log the near miss. The worker responded by saying “what’s the point? The forms take
too long to fill in and nothing ever gets done anyway”. During the meeting, a disagreement then
starts between the supervisor and another observer. The supervisor says that the experienced
worker was right in trying to get the machine working again, rather than waiting for maintenance.
DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 4 of 7
The conversation quickly turns to a discussion of the checklist. An observer tells you that they made
notes on the checklist where they had observed safe behaviour. Feeling encouraged, you look at the
checklist but notice no feedback was given. You ask the observer why, and they tell you that they
thought ‘good’ behaviour did not need attention, only ‘bad’. They then say that they had given many
workers a stern warning when unsafe behaviour was observed. At the end of this meeting, you
collect all of the checklists to see if you can identify any trends in behaviours. The information is
limited, as many of the weekly observations over the past month have not been fully completed.

By the sixth month, you notice even fewer observations are being made. Some of the observers tell
you that their supervisors had said that there was not enough time to complete them due to other
deadlines. Others admitted that they did not like observing other workers, as they were their friends.
You decide to do some observations yourself. During these, you find many workers seem to be
working at a much slower rate. You notice that all these workers are wearing gloves and other items
of personal protective equipment that you know they would not normally wear. A worker approaches
you and tells you that they are glad to see you doing the observations, as some other observer had
been rude and domineering. The worker says that they have been removed from certain tasks
without knowing what they have done wrong.

During your feedback meeting with the CEO, they ask you to suspend the programme as it is
affecting production. Discouraged by this, you inform the observers to stop carrying out the
observations.

DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 5 of 7

Task 1: Behavioural safety

1 Comment on the possible reasons why the behavioural change programme

was not successful at PrintUp. (22)
Note: Your answers must be based on the scenario only.

Task 2: Societal factors

2 Discuss what societal factors may influence health and safety priorities at
PrintUp. (15)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 3: Culture

3 The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) safety culture maturity model
(SCMM) is described in Offshore Technology Report 2000/049. The SCMM is
a tool that puts the focus on improving behaviour and culture.

(a) (i) Explain why Level 1: Emerging of the SCMM best fits PrintUp prior
to the health and safety advisor’s appointment. (4)

(ii) Assuming that the behavioural change programme had been

successful, explain why PrintUp would fit Level 2: Managing of the
SCMM. (10)
Note: For both (a)(i) and (a)(ii) your answers must be based on the
scenario only.

(b) What would be the benefits for PrintUp using a safety climate tool (SCT)
to help improve the culture? (8)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario

Task 4: Accident investigation

4 (a) (i) How can multi-causality theories aid PrintUp with future accident
investigations? (6)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using
relevant information from the scenario.

(ii) Outline possible limitations of multi-causality theories in accident

investigation. (3)

(b) Further investigations revealed some previous near miss incidents that
had not been reported.

How can near miss reporting be improved at PrintUp? (11)

Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 6 of 7
Task 5: Civil claims

5 Two years later the apprentice decides to bring a negligence claim against
PrintUp. The CEO has asked you to help defend against this claim.

(a) Which legal defences may or may not be successful? In EACH case give
reasoning for your choice. (15)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

(b) The CEO at PrintUp receives legal advice that they should admit liability
early in the proceedings.

What would be the benefits if PrintUp had followed this advice? (6)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

DN1-0006-P1-ENG-QP-V1 Mar24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 7 of 7