Employee challenges employer over missing safety briefings and equipment in negligence claim
A District Court in Singapore recently dealt with a negligence claim brought by a worker who sustained injuries whilst performing his duties at a worksite.
The worker argued that his employer had failed to provide adequate safety briefings, proper risk assessments, and necessary supervision during his work activities.
The worker claimed he had never received briefings on risk assessments or safe work procedures relevant to his specific tasks.
He argued that while his employer's safety documentation addressed some hazards, it failed to identify risks associated with his particular job scope.
Additionally, he said safety equipment was unavailable and that he was working without proper supervision on the day of the accident.
The employer disputed these claims, maintaining that the worker was experienced and that appropriate safety measures were in place.
They argued that safety briefings were conducted regularly, equipment was available when needed, and supervision was adequate for the type of work being performed.
Workplace safety allegations under scrutiny
The case involved a construction company operating as a subcontractor for structural work.
The Bangladesh national had worked for the employer for approximately three years across two periods and was performing metal formwork duties when the accident occurred on 27 October 2022 at approximately 9:30 a.m.
The worker was squatting on rebar mesh whilst tightening metal hollow sections with galvanised iron wire when one of his legs became stuck in the rebar mesh hole, causing him to fall sideways and sustain injuries to his right knee.
The formwork supervisor was positioned 8 to 10 metres away when he heard the worker's call for help.
The worker's legal case centred on four arguments: inadequate safety briefings, insufficient risk assessments covering his specific tasks, unavailable safety equipment, and lack of supervision.
He claimed he "had never been briefed on any risk assessment and/or safe work procedure pertaining to his job scope" and that the employer "had therefore failed to provide a safe working environment."
Safety procedures face legal challenge
The worker argued his supervision situation breached Regulation 60(4) of the Workplace Safety and Health (Construction) Regulations 2007, which requires formwork operations to occur "under the immediate supervision of a formwork supervisor."
He contended that proper safety equipment should have been provided across the rebar surface to eliminate tripping risks.
The employer's defence rested on the worker's experience and work nature.
They maintained that "the nature of the work was such that the Defendant had no control of how the Claimant walks over the rebar mesh or place his foot in an appropriate place to avoid the rebar gaps."
The safety supervisor testified that toolbox meetings were held at 7:30 a.m. covering daily high-risk work.
The formwork supervisor described meetings covering "how workers can work safely, what to do when there is an opening and how they can use the safety harness, ladder and other machinery safely."
The employer argued the worker "failed to have any regard for his own safety and who failed to keep a proper lookout."
Legal standards for safety examined
District Judge Sia Aik Kor applied established Singapore employment law principles.
The court referenced precedent establishing that whilst employers must devise proper work systems, "the employer is not obliged to stand over workmen of age and experience at every moment they are working… to see that they do what they are supposed to do."
The court applied "the general objective standard of a reasonable person using ordinary care and skill" with industry standards as indicators.
The judge emphasised that "an employer is not to be regarded as an insurer of an employee's safety under any circumstances. The duty to take care is certainly not absolute in nature."
The judge stated that determining breach of care must be analysed "in light of the nature of the specific risk that has eventuated."
The court examined four allegations: inadequate toolbox meetings, insufficient risk assessment procedures, lack of safety equipment provision, and inadequate supervision.
Risk assessment adequacy questioned
The employer's risk assessment identified "trips and falls at the same level as well as below" as a workplace hazard during formwork erection.
The safety supervisor agreed that the risk assessment did not specifically cover the worker's exact scope, but the court disagreed with this assessment.
District Judge Sia found: "I do not think the Risk Assessment document or the Safe Work Procedure document has to cover every job task in order to be adequate. Both documents cover the erection of formwork, which encapsulates the Claimant's job, as well as the risk of workers tripping and injuring themselves, which would cover the risk [that] eventuated."
The court noted that "it may not always be possible or practical to eliminate all risks and residual risks may have to be accepted, after reasonably practicable measures are taken to minimise and control the risk."
The judge found the employer's framework included appropriate measures and concluded the worker failed to prove the risk assessment fell below reasonable standards.
Safety equipment provision disputed
The worker referenced the Land Transport Authority's (LTA) Workplace Safety handbook, which suggested "providing proper and durable wire mesh overlay across rebar surface to eliminate the risk of workers tripping on rebar gaps."
He argued proper equipment would have allowed him to sit whilst performing his work.
The court noted this handbook represented practices that "surpass conventional industry standards" and that failure to implement them did not automatically indicate the employer had fallen below reasonable standards.
The court recognised that not all innovative practices become mandatory safety requirements.
Both supervisors testified that whilst mats or planks were available, using them would make the job more difficult to perform safely.
The court accepted this evidence, stating: "it would not be practical for a worker to use a plank and perform the job of tightening the GI wire."
Employment safety obligations clarified
The court's causation analysis proved decisive. The judge found that "the [worker] was unable to show a causal connection between the [employer's] alleged breach of duty and the accident."
The worker needed to establish that deficiencies actually caused his injury, not merely that improvements were theoretically possible.
The court noted the worker "accepted that he had to exercise care not to step into the rebar holes" and that "there were no unusual dangers in his work environment as the rebar holes were a necessary incident of the formwork."
Additional briefings would not have prevented the accident since the worker already understood basic safety requirements.
Most significantly, the worker acknowledged "that if he had stood up and moved to the next location to tie the rebar mesh, the accident would not have happened." This admission undermined his argument that the employer's systems caused his injury.
The court dismissed the worker's claim, finding he had "failed to prove his case on a balance of probabilities."
The employer was awarded costs of $30,000 plus goods and services tax.
The judge concluded that "The standard of care requires defendants only to reduce risk to a reasonable level by taking reasonable precautions" and that assessment must consider "whether the precaution would be feasible and practical in the context of the activity or job performed by the worker."
