Case Study In Francisco Automotive Manufacturing Plant, a largenumber of engineering activities are carried out in a wide range ofareas. These activities include design, production of parts,assembly, testing, and quality assurance. Many of the manufacturingprocesses in the plant are performed using automated technologiesand equipment. People also perform some of the manufacturing tasksand the plant employs over 400 workers. The decision on whetherpeople or machines will be used for a particular task is dependenton many factors, including costs, time, quality and worker healthand safety. The plant considered here produces a many parts forvehicles and assembles them. Among the parts produced are enginematerials and parts, pumps, fans, some exterior parts, andelectronics components. The plant normally operates three shiftsper day and has production lines including machining equipment,conveyers and overhead cranes, punch presses, and paint-spraybooths. The plant utilizes electricity and natural gas extensively.A number of workers at the plant have over the last six months beensubject to several different health problems. The followinginformation has been received by the head engineer at the plant. a)In an assembly area that was installed recently, workers have tobend to the ground throughout the day to attach several small partsonto a large and heavy vehicle component. Some workers have begunto develop lower back pain, likely due to the repetitive bending.The problem has become so severe for one of the workers that he hasbeen told by his doctor to stay off work for two weeks so his backcan recover. The manufacturing engineers who designed the assemblyoperation had wanted to use an automated system, but that optionwas deemed not to be economic. So they used a manual operation, butdid not take into account industrial ergonomics, as they had noexpertise in that discipline. b) An increased incidence ofrespiratory illnesses has been reported over the last month byworkers operating near the paint-spray booths. Many of thesubstances used in the booths (paints, solvents, etc.) are known tobe causes of the observed respiratory illnesses. But the workersare not supposed to come into contact with any of the substancesbecause the paint-spray booths are designed to ensure that allmaterials exit the plant through a high capacity ventilation systemand that no materials can leak back into the plant. No tests hadbeen carried out on the ventilation system, or on the air qualityaround the paint spray booths, so it is uncertain whether or notthere have been any leaks into the plant from the paint-spraybooths. c) In an area of the plant where metal cutting occurs andworkers use protective eyewear, workers have reported minor eyeinjuries. The area in question is one where it is common knowledgethat the workers do not routinely use the protective eyewear. It isoften observed to be hanging on nearby hooks or to be looselyhanging around the necks of workers. Workers complain that theyfind the protective eyewear uncomfortable and do not think it isneeded or important. The plant manager knows of this behavior butoverlooks it, since enforcing the use of the protective eyewearseems may make the workers unhappy and, consequently, lessproductive. That, he feels, could render the plantnon-competitive.

Question:

1) Should the head engineer endeavor to rectify the healthproblems on her own, or should she report the problems to the plantmanager beforehand? The head engineer is not sure if she willreceive the support of the plant manager in rectifying theproblems; what should she do if support is not provided?

2) Do you feel that some of the health problems that haveoccurred are due to worker health and safety being undulycompromised to allow the plant to be more productive orprofitable

3) Which of the unsafe conditions and acts identified in part bare (1) of a technical nature, or (2) related to human behavior ormanagement