NEBOSH

MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY

UNIT IG1:
For: NEBOSH International General Certificate in Occupational Health and Safety

Open Book Examination

Available for 24 hours

Guidance to learners

This is an open book examination. It is not invigilated, and you are free to use any learning
resources to which you have access, eg your course notes, or a 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.

The examination 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.

You are not expected to write more than 3 000 words in total.
Try to distribute your time and word count proportionately across all tasks.
It is recommended that you use the answer template.
Please attempt ALL tasks.

IG1-0039-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Jun24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 1 of 5

SCENARIO

The organisation
A local, well-established restaurant in a small village is managed by the owner. There are five full-
time and six part-time workers. The kitchen is run by full-time workers: a head chef and two kitchen
workers. The restaurant is open from 17:00 until 23:00 for customers, however, the workers start at
15:00 and finish just after midnight. Food is always prepared and cooked on the day of service.

The part-time workers are usually students, and this has increased the turnover of workers over the
past two years. The restaurant is constantly advertising for additional workers. Some of the workers
have recently immigrated into the country from non-native-speaking countries.

New workers are told to job shadow and observe another worker for one shift, as the restaurant is
usually busy. They are also given a handbook that is printed in one language. This gives
comprehensive instructions on what to do in the event of a fire. The handbook also states that the
owner will co-ordinate with the fire and rescue service if a fire occurs. Workers are also told to
provide their own personal protective equipment (PPE).

The restaurant is fully equipped with cooking appliances, and two large sink areas. The kitchen also
has two refrigerators, that are leased. There are fire doors in the kitchen and the main restaurant
dining area.

For nearly two weeks, the head chef had been complaining to the owner about a leaking refrigerator
in the kitchen. The owner did not think that it was necessary to respond immediately to the head
chef's complaint. They told the head chef that they would report the leaking refrigerator to the leasing
company when they had time. The leak had been getting worse and water from the refrigerator had
spilled all over the kitchen floor. For the past two weeks a ‘wet floor’ sign had been displayed;
however, several workers still slipped on the floor, but no injuries had occurred. These near misses
were all documented in the accident book, but the leaking refrigerator was yet to be documented in
the equipment fault logbook.

One Friday, before work was about to start, the owner carried out a quick team briefing with all
workers. As a kitchen worker had phoned in sick, the owner explained that they would cover the
absence in the kitchen. One of the full-time restaurant workers was asked to deputise for the owner’s
other responsibilities in the restaurant that evening. The full-time worker was concerned about
deputising, as it was something they had not done before. The owner explained that the restaurant
was fully booked that evening, and that customers without a booking might still arrive at the
restaurant requesting a table. The owner told the workers that they did not want to turn customers
away, and advised the workers to give realistic waiting times to the customers. The owner suggested
that, if customer wait times increased, the workers should put out some extra tables and ensure
customers were served quickly.

The accident
At 20:00 during this busy Friday evening service, all of the restaurant’s tables were occupied and
there was a queue of four families waiting to be seated. Orders were coming through to the kitchen
quickly, and the kitchen workers were having difficulty keeping up with them. Customers at three
separate tables were complaining that they had been waiting for over an hour for their main meal to
be served.

The head chef started to cook some rice in a pot of boiling water, but was then called away to
another part of the kitchen. Kitchen Worker A noticed that the water in the pot of rice was boiling
over. They immediately grabbed the pot and took it to the sink to drain the water from the rice.
Without noticing that there was some water from the leaking refrigerator on the floor, they slipped and
fell. This caused Kitchen Worker A to spill the pot of boiling water and rice over themselves, scalding
their chest, abdomen, left hand and arm.

IG1-0039-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Jun24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 2 of 5

As soon as the head chef and the owner heard Kitchen Worker A screaming in pain, they ran over to
them. Both the owner and head chef are first-aid trained. Kitchen Worker A was lifted from the floor
and taken over to the sinks. Cool water was continuously poured over their scalds. The owner
called for an ambulance and stayed with Kitchen Worker A until they were taken to hospital.

The head chef and two other workers started cleaning up the water and rice spillage. Another ‘wet
floor’ sign, along with a ‘cleaning in progress’ sign, was put out. After Kitchen Worker A was taken to
hospital, the owner updated the accident book.

Local enforcement inspector visit

Three weeks later, following an anonymous call about the accident, a local labour inspector visits the
restaurant. The inspector spends two hours talking to the owner and asks to look around the
restaurant and kitchen. During the tour of the restaurant, they find that the health and safety policy,
displayed by the entrance, was signed and dated eight years ago, in 2016. Also, there is no sign of
any risk assessments for either the kitchen or the general restaurant. Later that day, the inspector
interviews each of the workers. They ask the workers how often accidents are recorded in the
accident book. The workers respond that they do not know what is to be recorded and when. Due to
the inadequate documentation, the owner is given an enforcement notice.

The owner later finds out that injured Kitchen Worker A has been told not to return to work for at least
six weeks, or until the scalds have completely healed.

IG1-0039-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Jun24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 3 of 5

Task 1: Influencing health and safety culture

1 Comment on the negative indicators of health and safety culture in the

restaurant. (14)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 2: Near misses

2 How could an investigation of previous near misses in the kitchen have helped
prevent the accident? (12)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 3: Policy review

3 Why might the restaurant's health and safety policy require a review? (11)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 4: Reactive monitoring measures

4 The local labour inspector advises the owner that they should start health and
safety performance monitoring.

What are the reactive (lagging) monitoring measures that could be put in place
by the restaurant? (12)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 5: Organisational factors

5 Comment on the organisational factors that could have contributed to the

accident. (17)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

IG1-0039-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Jun24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 4 of 5

Task 6: Obligations of employers to workers

6 Employers have obligations under Recommendation 10 (a, b, c, and e) of the

International Labour Organisation’s (ILO’s) R164 – Occupational Safety and
Health Recommendation, 1981 (No. 164).

Comment on how these employer obligations may not have been followed in
the kitchen. (12)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 7: Potential benefits of consulting workers

7 What are the potential benefits of the owner consulting with workers on health
and safety measures? (13)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 8: Developing a safe system of work (SSOW)

8 What should the owner consider when developing a safe system of work for the
kitchen activities? (9)

End of examination

Now follow the instructions on submitting your answers.

Important note
All NEBOSH Intellectual Property shall remain vested in NEBOSH. NEBOSH assessment papers,
supporting documents and answer sheets must not be reproduced/copied/distributed in any way, or
any form, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written consent of NEBOSH or as required by law.

IG1-0039-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Jun24 © NEBOSH 2024 page 5 of 5