Contractor Rescue in a Nitrogen-Inerted Silo
A food-ingredient factory in Johor operates three 8-metre flour silos. Nitrogen is used to inert one silo during a product changeover. The factory has 180 employees and engages a specialist cleaning contractor, with six workers, to remove caked flour. The contract says the contractor is 'solely responsible for the safety of its workers'. On the second day, a contractor worker enters the silo through the top hatch without breathing apparatus and collapses. A factory production supervisor shouts to a second contractor worker to go in and pull him out; that worker also collapses. A factory employee calls the emergency services. Both workers are later pronounced dead. The DOSH inspector finds no confined-space entry permit, no gas testing, and no rescue plan. The factory manager says the contractor was an independent company and that the factory had no control over the cleaning method.
1. Advise the factory occupier on its duties under the OSH Act 1994 towards the contractor workers, and assess whether the contractual clause shifting responsibility is decisive.
Read the worked answer
The starting point is that the clause does not decide the statutory question. Under OSH Act 1994 s 16, every employer and self-employed person owes a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the safety, health and welfare of persons other than employees who may be affected by the undertaking. Contractor workers inside the factory silo are plainly such persons.
The factory also has duties as occupier of non-domestic premises under s 21 and, through its supervisor, as a person in charge of work under s 24. It controlled the silo, the nitrogen system and access to the hatch. It knew or ought to have known that nitrogen inerting creates an oxygen-deficient atmosphere and that entry requires a permit, gas testing, isolation, breathing apparatus and a rescue plan. The contractual indemnity may allocate commercial responsibility between the companies, but it cannot displace the factory's own statutory duty.
The contractor remains an employer with duties to its own workers under ss 15 and 18. Both companies can therefore face enforcement action on the same facts. The practical judgement is to ask who had control over the particular risk: the factory controlled the atmosphere and access; the contractor controlled the cleaning method and its workers. The clause is evidence of allocation, not a defence.
2. The production supervisor instructed an untrained contractor worker to enter the silo for rescue. Discuss the supervisor's potential liability and the correct emergency response.
Read the worked answer
The supervisor is not a bystander. As the person directing the work, he may be a 'person in charge' under s 24 and an employee under s 19. His instruction created a new, foreseeable danger: sending an untrained person into an oxygen-deficient space without breathing apparatus or rescue equipment. The fact that he was trying to save a life is mitigation, but it does not make the instruction lawful or safe. The correct response was to stop entry, raise the alarm, call the emergency services, isolate the nitrogen supply, and use non-entry rescue or a trained team with SCBA and a retrieval system.
The employer's wider failure is also relevant: s 15 requires safe systems of work, and s 18 requires information, instruction, training and supervision. A written confined-space procedure and rescue drill would have told the supervisor what not to do. The investigation should therefore examine the supervisor's conduct, but also the factory's failure to train supervisors and contractors on emergency response. Prosecution of the supervisor alone would not address the system failure.
3. What enforcement options are available to the DOSH inspector, and what penalties could follow?
Read the worked answer
The inspector should first secure the scene and prevent further entry. A prohibition notice can stop confined-space work and require the silo to be isolated. An improvement notice can require a confined-space programme, gas testing, permits, rescue arrangements, training and contractor management. The inspector may also seize documents, take statements and require production of the risk assessments, contractor agreement and training records.
On prosecution, the general duty offences are the likely route. Section 15 and s 16 offences carry substantial fines and imprisonment exposure; the exact charge depends on whether the deceased were employees or other persons. The factory should not assume that a single charge covers everything: separate failures in the safe system of work, information and training may be charged. The inspector should also consider the supervisor's instruction as a separate line of inquiry. The commercial clause between factory and contractor is relevant to indemnity but not to the criminal standard. The outcome should reflect both companies' roles, not just the contractor's presence on site.