A new plating machine had been installed and was being checked for proper operation. During this check it was discovered that the bearings on the caustic solution circulating pump were defective and had to be replaced. The pump was removed and repaired and was being reinstalled. An electrician was assigned to make the electrical connections, while a plumber performed the necessary pipe connections on the same pump.

The electrician finished the assignment except for checking the direction of shaft rotation. Since the plumber was out of the area, the electrician asked the company representative supplying the equipment if the pump was ready to be tried out. The representative stated that it was. The electrician walked to the end of the plater to start the motor, just as the plumber appeared. The plumber's shouts to the electrician not to start the pump were too latethe pump had already been turned on. At that moment, hot caustic solution showered out of the pipe flange, which had not been tightened after reassembly. The solution splashed onto the plumber, two engineers in the area, another plant engineering employee, and the vendor representative. The plumber received burns requiring immediate hospitalization and was off work for about two months. One engineer required subsequent hospitalization for eye burns and was off work for more than a week. The other three involved received minor burns. What would you recommend for preventing this situation or similar events from occurring again?

Using the HR Thought Cycle as a guide, we are able to consistently analyze the case study.

Stage	Analysis
Identification of the case issues:	Defective bearings discoveredon new plating machine during operational check Pump removed, repaired, and re-installed Electrician and plumber assigned to complete installation Plumber left the area Electrician asked companyrepresentative if equipment was repaired, and received confirmation that it was Equipment was not repaired Plumber tried to intervene before equipment was turned on by shouting at electrician Electrician turned on the machine, causing harm to self and others
Hypothesis:	Proper lock-out and tag out procedures were not implemented and followed
Identification of legislative issues:	Occupational Health and Safety Act violations Hazard controls, safe handling, and lock-out procedures Supervisory and employee obligations not met
Risk identification:	Several employees were harmed, causing significant distress to them and others Violations will result in penalties, fines, and potential charges Employees who were harmed maybe subject to permanent injury and not able to work in future Employer is liable for safety failures under the Act
Action:	Secure the area immediately Implement investigation andreporting protocols The JHSC to develop andimplement safe workplace lock-out and tag-out procedures Provide training to all employees and supervisors on lock-out procedures
Issue Resolution:	Through the implementation of proper lock-out procedures, the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future is reduced
HR Impact:	HR to work with JHSC on thedevelopment of operational equipment audits, lock-out, and tag-out training program HR to track and monitor all supervisor and employee training
Further considerations:	Lack of immediate compliance with lock-out and tag-out procedures
Proactive response:	Provide immediate training onneed for lock-out protocols If employees and/or supervisorsdo not comply, impose disciplinary action up to and including dismissal Communicate expectations to all employees/supervisor

As an HR professional responsible for health and safety, do you have a better answer for Tadao?