Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) 14. Non-routine work 1. Identify all health and safety hazards associated with worker activities and the work environment. The Elliott scored 0 on this activity. They did not list the work activities performed by workers that could be a cause of health and safety hazard on the workers’ health.
| The students hired to perform the audit were not supervised properly, if at all. | 2) A sufficient understanding of internal control is to be obtained to plan the audit and to determine the nature, timing, and extent of tests to be performed. | Jones instructed the students not to spend time reviewing controls; therefore the nature, timing and extent of tests that needed to be performed were not planned sufficiently. Consequently, the audit did not reveal anything substantial about the management of the business (fraudulent activity, accuracy of
If their expectations were not met then Greg Allen Construction Corp. could be held accountable. However, in order for Daniel and Sondra to obtain credit there were required inspections throughout the project. If throughout the process much of Allen’s work was unacceptable then the Estelle’s did what they were supposed to be. If the work was completed and no complaints were made during the inspections until after the work was completed then Allen’s corporation wouldn’t be held liable. That would be due to that the fact that the inspections were to have been assumed to be passed during the work.
Broom and Miller’s appeal was not able establish how these laws obligates to their discharge case. Broom and Miller’s intention was right but they failed to use “the proper chain of command in raising an issue about another employee”. They are nonunion employees, which means they have no support from any union. Answer 2: If Broom and Miller had been members of the a bargaining unit represented by union for the purpose of collective bargaining, this case would have been handled differently. Broom and Miller lacked the evidence in the three salutary laws, which they presented.
‘The CQC report on Winterbourne View found owners Castlebeck Care had failed to ensure residents living at the unit were adequately protected from risk, including the risks of unsafe practices by its own staff.’ [www.bbc.co.uk] This review outlined the unsafe practices as well as recommendations it has to Castlebeck. Unsafe Practices that were outlined in the report included; ‘Lack of training for staff , Inadequate staffing levels, Poor care planning, failure to notify relevant authorities of safeguarding incidents and failure to involve people in decisions about their own care.’ [www.cqc.org.uk] The review also describes how this practices had a direct effect on the care received by patients in Winterbourne Hospital for example, due to lack of training for staff and inadequate staffing levels, it was apparent that in some services investigated by the CQC, staffing levels dictated the activities that could be offered which took away the importance of basing activities on individuals assessed needs. Another one of the unsafe practices outlined in this review was poor care planning, investigators found that patients had been staying in rehabilitation services for long periods of time due to lack of effective communication between staff and poor planning of the patient’s care. [www.cqc.org.uk] Overall, the Care Quality Commission said there was a ‘systemic failure’ to protect people or to investigate allegations of abuse. The report said that the provider had failed in its ‘legal duty to notify the CQC of
The team failed to raise concerns about the size, leverage, or composition of RBS’s balance sheet, which would have signaled the concerns of RBS taking more and more leverage prior to the crisis. The failure of the supervision team to address this allowed for the RBS to operate on a high risk. Also, the FSA failed to collect sufficient data to fully analyze the RBS. The report mentions that this may have hampered the FSA’s supervision of the RBS but could not have been a factor in firm’s failure. But, this seems like an excuse since the whole point of the supervision is to identify the factors that could potentially cause failure, and advise the banks to take measures to prevent it.
- Peterson does not have the right team in place; key positions are not equipped to handle all aspects of their charge (Curt Andrews, Chief Engineer). - A lack of clear definition of authority for Peterson vs. headquarters. - Lack of insight, experience or guidance on how to really approach and deal with problems. Peterson never created a team; he managed the people and the situations. Lena Inability of handling his job - No prior experience of constructing a cellular mobile telephone system - Hardy (immediate supervisor) also inexperienced in the industry - Relationship between Hardy and Peterson difficult to define - Difficult time managing the team - Did not delegate: attempted to tackle every problem by himself instead of looking to the employees for help with this - Morale is low GA Comments: 1.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sanctioned Fiedelman for failing to exercise due professional care and for failing to document the changes that his subordinates had made in the 1997 North Face work papers. The SEC’s rationale behind their allegation of Fiedelman’s failure to exercise due professional care is that he was in violation of AU Section 230 and AU Section 150. The SEC explains that, as partner in charge, it was his responsibility to document any changes to the 1997 audit conclusion of North Face (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003). Once he neglected to record these changes, he dismissed his responsibility of exercising due professional care as partner in charge and was, first, in violation of AU Section 230 (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003). Second, the SEC explains that this mistreatment also caused Fiedelman to be in violation of AU Section 150; he neglected his responsibility of ensuring that the process for making these changes was carried out in accordance to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS)
The last thing an injured employee needs after being injured at work is for their employer to refuse to provide accommodations for the employee to perform light duty work . Unfortunately, this is the case in many situations, and many employees are left without remedy because the ADA does not provide for protection under workmen‘s compensation injuries. Under the current version of the ADA, employers are not mandated to alter a position to a accommodate light duty restrictions, as long as the employer has no current light duty program for its employees (Sparks, 1998). The sheer embarrassment of facing the general public is an excellent weapon in fighting an employer that blatantly discriminates against an individual, as occasionally someone brings public attention to the illegalities committed against them, forcing the offender to honor their responsibilities under the ADA (Meneghello and Russon, 2008). Also, there is no requirement that forces an employer to create a light duty position, when there was no such position in existence to begin.
BP had failed to implement its highest safety standards, known as the operating management system (OMS) in the Gulf of Mexico, even though the company had acknowledged deepwater drilling in that region represented one of the highest risk activities. Also when introducing new processes they were not probably addressed due to lack in communication and the primary focus on profit. An inexperienced leadership had an impact on wrong decision-making and did not consider