Safety and Ethics in a Busy Open-Plan Office
A 14-person insurance claims office in Katutura occupies one open-plan floor. In the past two months, three claims clerks have reported wrist and neck pain; their chairs are five years old and two have broken height levers. Boxes of old claim files are stacked in front of the fire exit because the store room is full, and the exit sign is obscured. Visitors enter through the staff entrance without signing in; last week a former employee walked to her old desk and used a colleague’s computer to check a claim. Cleaning fluids are decanted into unlabelled water bottles and kept in the kitchen fridge. A supplier has offered the office manager two free tablets and a weekend hotel voucher before the office decides on a N$180,000 stationery contract. Staff have also been posting photographs of claim forms on social media to ‘show how busy’ they are.
1. Prioritise the health and safety hazards in this office and recommend immediate controls, distinguishing urgent from longer-term actions.
Read the worked answer
Priority order: 1. Blocked fire exit - immediate danger to life. Remove the boxes today, clear the exit route, and keep the sign visible. If the store is full, use a temporary secure off-site store or dispose of files past retention; do not wait for a new store. 2. Unlabelled cleaning fluids in the fridge - immediate poisoning risk. Remove them from the kitchen, label all containers with product name and hazard, store in a locked chemical cupboard, and stop decanting into water bottles. 3. Workstation ergonomics - three reports in two months is a pattern. Replace broken chairs and adjust seats/screens; introduce micro-breaks and a workstation checklist. This is urgent but can be scheduled over days. 4. Visitor access - a former employee reached a desk and used a computer. Add sign-in, badges, escorting, and screen locks. Reasoning: prioritise by severity × likelihood. Fire and chemical risks can kill or injure quickly; ergonomic harm is cumulative; security is serious but needs a layered fix. Record the actions and review dates.
2. Explain the security and confidentiality failures revealed by the former employee incident and the social media posts, and recommend controls.
Read the worked answer
Failures: the former employee entered without sign-in, was not escorted, and used an unlocked computer; her access credentials had not been revoked. That is both physical and logical access failure. The social media posts are a confidentiality breach: claim forms contain personal and health data, and photographs can identify claimants. Staff also created a record that may be copied and cannot be reliably deleted. Controls: visitor sign-in and badge, escorted access, locked doors, clean desk and screen-lock policy, disable accounts on the day someone leaves, and remove keys. For information: a written confidentiality and social media policy, training, a rule that claim documents are never photographed, and a disciplinary route for breaches. Add an incident log and tell staff to report near misses. The office manager should investigate the specific incident, check whether the claim was actually viewed or changed, and notify the responsible officer if personal data was accessed.
3. The office manager asks whether the supplier’s gift may be accepted. Advise, applying an ethical decision-making test.
Read the worked answer
Advice: do not accept the two tablets and the hotel voucher while the N$180,000 stationery contract is being decided. The gift creates a conflict of interest and the appearance that the contract is being bought. Ethical test: (1) Is it lawful and allowed by the office’s gift policy? (2) Would I be comfortable if the supplier’s offer and my acceptance were published? (3) Could it influence, or appear to influence, my judgement? (4) Is the timing close to the procurement decision? The answer to the last two is clearly yes. Action: decline politely and explain the procurement rules; record the offer in a gifts/conflicts register; if the supplier insists, hand the items to the organisation rather than keep them. The contract should be evaluated by a panel using published criteria, with members declaring any relationship with bidders. A small promotional pen might be acceptable under a de minimis policy, but a weekend voucher and tablets are not. Transparency protects both the manager and the supplier.