Answer Happy

SECTION A (Behaviour) [8] 1. TRUE / FALSE. Prioritize, plan and manage your assignments and projects as well as following up and following through with your supervisor going above your supervisor if need be. 2. TRUE / FALSE. 3. TRUE FALSE. time. Establish priorities, set goals and create action plans to meet deadlines. Be accountable for your work and actions while not being so ethical all the 4. TRUE / FALSE. Develop coping skills to manage setbacks and challenges with a positive attitude. and constructive 5. TRUE / FALSE. Practice professional on-line, in person but not so much interpersonal communication skills as these develop on their own. 6. With reference to the sample social Media Policy attached by Company, in a recent case (August 2020) an employee of Company based in South Africa posted a rant on Twitter calling for serious violent acts against someone of the opposite gender. This post was brought to the attention of the company. What do you think happened this the offending employee? (1) a. The offending employee deleted the post and was reprimanded by the company b. The offending employee deleted the post, issued an apology and was reprimanded by the company c. The offending employee deleted the post and was fired by the company d. The offending employee deleted the post, issued an apology and was fired by the company 7. Motivate your answer in '6' above. (2) SECTION B (Health & Safety) [10] 1. Refer Construction Regulations (2003) and answer the following questions (4): According to the OH&S audit carried out below, the site was not compliant with certain construction regulations. Identify a regulation which supports each of their findings Construction worker dies in horrific accident (2007): A 45 year old male worker was killed whilst driving a construction vehicle at Okahlamba District, Bergville. The worker seemed to have lost control of the vehicle whilst approaching a gravel road and was flung out of the cab, crushing his skull. His left leg and hand were also severed in the accident. A document audit in terms of Occupational Health and Safety requirements has revealed that: • No H&S plans were in place. • No proof of H&S induction for the deceased was available. When the incident occurred there was no construction supervisor on site. • The construction company had not conducted a risk assessment prior to commencing work. Further investigations into the matter continues. Source: Department of Labour http://www.labour.gov.za 2. Refer OH&S Act: A contractor has two sites under construction, and as they are relatively small projects, he asks the First Aider to be the Safety Representative for both sites. The
First Aider is full time office-based and is employed on a limited duration contract. Is this allowed? Motivate your answer. (3) 3. With specific reference to Regulation Gazette No. 43400, 04 June 2020, Vol 660, No. 11128 (Consolidated COVID-19 Direction on Health and Safety in the workplace) - can the appointed Health and Safety Officer assume the duties of the COVID 19 Compliance Officer? Motivate your answer. (3) SECTION C (Ethics) [23] Case Study: The consequences of the inadequate design and lack of monitoring of erection leading to the collapse of a staircase: a new staircase in an existing building, to provide public pedestrian access between two floors. Background to the case: The new owners of an existing building in a city centre required to improve pedestrian access between two floors of the building, to accommodate public assemblies. The lower floor consisted of an auditorium with seating to be accessed by members of the public from the floor above. A firm of consulting structural engineers was engaged to design two large staircases, one on each side of the auditorium. Each stair led from auditorium floor level to the floor above through an opening cut into the upper floor structure. One was a mirror image of the other. A registered professional engineer of the firm was put in charge of the assignment. Shortly after the staircases were completed and the building was taken into use by the owners, one of the staircases collapsed on to the floor of the auditorium. The stair was in use at the time with people on it. Some 80 persons were injured, but there were no fatalities. The collapsed structure was removed and replaced with a new structure. The other undamaged stair had to be considerably modified to make it safe. The following points were noted: ● The walkway had to be lengthened by 1.4m to agree with the General Arrangement drawings. ● The placing of the hangers on site did not correspond with the positions on the drawings Fewer hangers were installed on site than shown on the drawings ● As a result, some hangers were carrying heavier loads than designed for ● This was aggravated by too low a design load on the stair being used to design the hangers (4 kN/m² instead of 7 kN/m²) The subcontractor elected to weld the lower ends of the hangers to the top flanges of the channel stringers of the walkway instead of using a bracket detail shown by the Engineer The coffered slab construction of the upper floor structure prevented the use of the Engineer's fixing detail for the tops of the hangers. A row of 3 or 4 bolts held an inverted channel beam to the underside of the coffer rib with a cantilevered end from which the hanger was suspended. This was a very unsatisfactory solution as it placed bending in the beam about its weak axis and severe tensile forces on the bolts nearest to the cantilevered end. An analysis of the staircase was carried out by an expert, who found the design to be deficient in a number of respects: it was concluded that the design calculations by the
Engineer were generally correct but did not take into account the coffered slab construction of the upper floor, which led to the failure of the inadequate fixing of the hangers to the floor. The investigation also found the Engineer to be seriously at fault in not ensuring that the construction of the staircase was done in compliance with the specified requirements and details. Lastly, it was also found that the Engineer did not inspect, or failed to notice, or negligently approved the numerous incorrect actions of the Contractor, and it was these actions which led to the collapse. 1. Identify the ECSA Rules of Conduct which the engineer contravened! Name the rule number, and the rule itself. (4) The following questions can be addressed from your Y2 knowledge; however, some research is encouraged: 2. "Even if it is the Contractor's responsibility to construct the Works in accordance with the contract specifications and requirements, irrespective of the Engineer's approval, the Engineer remains responsible for monitoring the Contractor's work". Is this true, and if so, when is this true? List three descriptive factors which would describe "professional manner of work" by the Engineer (5) 3. This responsibility stays with the Engineer, even if the duty is delegated to a subordinate person. Is this true or false? (1) 4. In particular, if such a person (as in "3" above) is a Candidate engineer, Section 18(4) of the Engineering Profession Act requires that a candidate ".......... ." (complete the relevant clause). Will this extend the responsibility of the Engineer? (3) 5. Were the type of drawings described in the case study acceptable? From your experience and research, which type of drawings should have been available? Name four types of drawings! (4) 6. Which three types of component details should the Engineer also have checked to ensure that construction was correctly done, according to his (the Engineer) details? (3) 7. A Contractor is allowed to use his/her own discretion as to when to alert the Engineer to any alteration in details and/or designs which might result due to unforeseen circumstances on site - true of false? What should the correct response of the Engineer be in this situation? Explain briefly (3)