Assessment Task 1: Case Study
• You will be allocated a case study for a Request for Service (RFS) for a fictitious PCBU (person conducting a business or undertaking) in the WSMS training environment.
• You are the Inspector responding to this RFS and you are to use the evidence supplied to answer the questions specific to the case study. As the inspector in the case study, assume that you have collected the evidence yourself. For example, you have taken the photos or directly observed activities taking place.
• You are free to add or make up the names of any characters that you feel may add detail, structure or clarity to demonstrate your evidence collection and actions you took to address the RFS.
• There are two parts to this assessment task:
Part A:
– Read the case study you were allocated and submit written answers to address each of the questions listed in Part A below.
– You will be required to demonstrate how you identified the non-compliance/breaches, determined control measures that are reasonably practicable, and outlined the strategies you would use to facilitate improvements and implement compliance.
Part B:
– You will be required to complete and submit all supporting documentary evidence as outlined in Part B.
Context of the Assessment
• This is an individual assessment.
• This assessment task must be written by you independently and be your own work.
• Answers must not be shared with any other candidate.
Submission of Assessment Tasks
• All submissions for assessment tasks are to be uploaded your assessment submissions to your individual channel in Teams
• Both Part A and Part B are to be submitted together as one submission.
Case Study Questions – Part A: Written Questions
Submit typewritten answers to the questions below specific to the case study you have been allocated. Remember you are the responding inspector and have collected the evidence yourself.
At the start of your report, please identify the number/name of your allocated case study.
Prior to Workplace Visit
1(a). Three powers of the regulator (SWNSW) (WHS legislation reference)
- Access to Workplace – Section 163 WHS Act 2011
The regulator may let inspectors access a workplace at all times, without prior notification, to do inspections, investigate occurrences, and assess compliance. - Issuance of Improvement and Prohibition Notices – Sections 191 & 195 WHS Act 2011
The regulator may issue statutory notifications to ensure adherence to WHS legislation. Improvement notices demand action within a certain deadline; prohibition notices instantly halt actions that present significant dangers. - Initiate Legal Action – Section 230 WHS Act 2011
SafeWork NSW possesses the authority to commence legal action against PCBU for violations of the WHS Act and Regulation.
2(a). Three powers of an Inspector (with WHS legislation references)
- Entry Powers – Section 165 WHS Act 2011
Access workplaces at any moment without advance notification. - Power to Require Document Production – Section 171 WHS Act 2011
Inspectors may mandate the PCBU to furnish and permit the review of documentation. - Authority to Seize Items – Section 175 WHS Act 2011
Inspectors may confiscate objects for analysis or as evidence within enquiries.
2(b). Limitations of inspector and regulator powers
- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination – Section 172 WHS Act 2011
Individuals have the right to refrain from producing documents that may incriminate them. - No authority to enforce employment contracts or resolve industrial disputes
WHS inspectors only deal with health and safety, not HR or industrial relations.
3. WHSDOM policy/procedure related to education and facilitation of stakeholders
WHS Consultation and Communication Procedure:
Encourages engagement with workers and PCBUs to inform and enhance ongoing WHS advancements. Includes directives on toolbox discussions, safety notifications, and instructional sessions.
4. Risk management techniques – formatted as text (not a table)
Technique: Review documents
• Example tool: Procedures for Safety Work, Training Documentation
• Description: Analysis of current safety documents
• Reasoning: To evaluate deficiencies in existing protocols and confirm adherence