APRIL 2025-NEBOSH IGC SCENARIO AND TASKS

 SCENARIO
The warehouse
A storage and logistics organisation has a busy warehouse that is used for storing consumer goods
in high-bay racking. Working in the warehouse is a warehouse supervisor and five workers. There
are frequent visits from the sales department, which is based off site, to confirm the availability of
goods. Forklift trucks move goods inside and outside of the warehouse, following clear traffic
segregation routes. Hard hats, safety shoes, and high-visibility jackets are mandatory for everyone in
the warehouse. The fluorescent tube lighting in one of the bays is not working, but the ceiling is
eight-metres high and cannot be reached by any ladders in the warehouse.
The contractor
The warehouse supervisor arranges for a small, local contractor called AllJobs, to change the
fluorescent tube. As it is managed by one of their friends, the warehouse supervisor knows that
AllJobs has the equipment needed for this job. AllJobs has assigned Worker A to be the supervisor
responsible for changing the fluorescent tube, and Worker B who will carry out the work. Worker A
visits the site to discuss the work with the warehouse’s maintenance manager (MM), who manages
the permit-to-work (PTW) system. They complete the PTW form together in the MM’s office, using
the organisation’s standard multi-part form for working at height.
On the PTW form they describe the work to be done: change the fluorescent tube in warehouse bay
one. They consider and record the existing hazards of working at height, and what controls will be
needed to work safely, including personal protective equipment (PPE). Together, they decide that a
mobile elevating work platform (MEWP) should be used to access the fluorescent tube. Worker A
recommends inspecting the workplace, but the MM assures them that they have all of the warehouse
hazards memorised, so there is no need. They inform Worker A that the warehouse floor is in good
condition and will provide a stable surface suitable for the MEWP. They also plan to barrier off the
area around the MEWP while work is being carried out, to prevent access.
Worker A has equipment suitable for the job and they show the MM the MEWP inspection records,
as well as Worker B’s MEWP operating license. The MM is happy and agrees with Worker A that
AllJobs will be responsible for all health and safety arrangements.
The MM issues the PTW, which Worker A accepts. They schedule the maintenance work to take
place between 06:00 and 09:00 one week later, before the warehouse workers begin their shifts.
These timescales are recorded on the PTW, and both the MM and Worker A sign it. Worker A takes
one part of the PTW document, the MM takes another part, and the third part is given to the
warehouse supervisor.
The following week, Worker A and Worker B are delayed by traffic and arrive at the warehouse at
08:00. They have to wait for the warehouse supervisor to travel from the other side of the warehouse
to let them in, as nobody else is present. Once they gain access, they unload the MEWP and move it
under the broken light. The warehouse supervisor attaches the PTW on the racking near to where
the work is taking place, and leaves the area to carry on with their daily tasks while the contractors
start their work.
Worker B carries out a quick pre-start inspection, and a walk-around inspection. They tell Worker A
that it is not necessary to cordon off the area with barriers, as the warehouse is empty. As Worker B
enters the work platform at ground level, they complain about how long it takes to construct the
barriers each time, and how annoying and heavy they are. The platform is then raised to the correct
position height.
The accident
Worker B tries to remove the broken fluorescent tube, but it is a type they have not worked with
before. They become frustrated as it gets stuck, so they pull it hard. The bulb is long and awkward
to manoeuvre on the small working platform. The warehouse supervisor is returning to check on the
IG1-0049-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Apr25 © NEBOSH 2025 page 3 of 6
work and approaches the MEWP just as the bulb slips from Worker B’s hand. It falls and hits the
warehouse supervisor’s head, breaking the glass.
The warehouse supervisor’s hard hat falls off as the impact knocks them to the ground, and they hit
their head on the floor. The warehouse supervisor loses consciousness and is bleeding from
lacerations on their face and arms. Worker A rushes over to them and telephones for an ambulance
on their mobile phone. As they make the call, the warehouse supervisor regains consciousness and
appears confused. Meanwhile, Worker B has lowered the MEWP and goes to find a first-aid box,
that they bring back to the site of the accident. Worker A follows an instruction booklet inside the
first-aid box to clean and bandage the warehouse supervisor’s wounds. After doing this, Worker A
also telephones the MM, who is on their way to the warehouse. As soon as the MM arrives on site,
they cordon off the area with barriers. After the ambulance arrives, Worker A and Worker B both
leave the site.
The health and safety manager arrives on site as usual at 09:00 and hears reports of the accident.
They contact the hospital and learn that the warehouse supervisor has a concussion, will be in
hospital for the next three days, and will not be able to return to work for at least a week.
The health and safety manager arranges for an accident investigation to take place immediately.
They remove the PTW documentation (which has a completion section that is blank) from where it is
attached to the racking, and adds it to their accident investigation notes. They take photos of the
scene on their mobile phone and contact the witnesses (Worker A and Worker B) from AllJobs to
take statements. Once the accident investigation is completed, the health and safety manager writes
up their findings and recommendations, which includes a review of first-aid arrangements. They also
report the accident to the health and safety regulator, and to the organisation’s insurance provider.
Inspection by the regulator
Four days later, an inspector from the regulator arrives at the warehouse to carry out an additional
accident investigation. They observe the scene of the accident and interview the warehouse
supervisor; they also separately contact and interview Worker A and Worker B. The inspector also
reviews the PTW system for working at height and finds that there has been a breach regarding
authorisations. The organisation is issued with a notice to improve their PTW system, including
training workers in its correct use. The deadline for completing the improvements is one month.
The accident and the notice from the regulator are discussed at a management meeting. The
organisation’s senior managers accept the inspector’s findings and instruct the health and safety
manager to start work immediately to resolve the issues raised and to allocate a budget for it. The
health and safety manager’s first priority is to arrange a meeting of the organisation’s health and
safety committee at the earliest opportunity, to address the recent issues.
IG1-0049-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Apr25 © NEBOSH 2025 page 4 of 6
Task 1: Policy implementation
1 The health and safety manager checked if the organisation’s general policy
statement for health and safety was adequate. The statement includes the
following
To the best of our ability, we commit to:
Investigating accidents and near misses.
Providing safe and healthy working conditions.
Meeting legal requirements.
Consulting workers.
Provision of resource required to make this policy and arrangements effective.
Comment on the aspects of this policy that have been successfully
implemented. (10)
Note: Your answer must be based on the scenario only.
Task 2: Selecting contractors
2 Comment on why the organisation’s approach to selecting contractors might be
considered inadequate. (13)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
Task 3: Level of accident investigation
3 Discuss what level of investigation (minimal, low, medium, high) is appropriate
for this accident. (10)
Notes: You should reference the likelihood and consequence criteria described
in HSG245.
You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant information
from the scenario.
Task 4: Reporting the accident
4 (a) Why must the accident be reported by the warehouse supervisor’s
employer to the competent authority? (5)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
(b) How would the employer report this accident to the competent authority
about this accident? (5)
IG1-0049-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Apr25 © NEBOSH 2025 page 5 of 6
Task 5: Assessing the permit-to-work (PTW) system arrangements
5 Comment on the poor practices in the application of the PTW system at the
warehouse. (12)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
Task 6: Prioritising health and safety issues
6 What health and safety issues should the committee prioritise at the next
meeting? (15)
Note: Your answer must be based on the scenario only.
Task 7: Possible uninsured costs incurred from the accident
7 The organisation’s insurance only covers the following costs
- equipment repairs and replacement
- stock replacement
- personal injury compensation
- civil claim awards
- medical costs.
What would the possible uninsured costs be for the organisation, from the
accident? (12)
Task 8: Administrative control measures
8 What administrative control measures could be put in place to help prevent a
repeat of the accident? (10)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
Task 9: Individual human factors
9 What individual human factors might have influenced the behaviour of Worker
B? (8)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.
IG1-0049-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 Apr25 © NEBOSH 2025 page 6 of 6
End of examination
Now follow the instructions on submitting your answers.
Disclaimer
This case study is entirely fictional. It has been crafted to simulate a realistic situation in order to
assess your ability to apply theoretical knowledge to practical problems. Some details in this case
study may reflect the author’s real-world insights or experiences. However, for the purpose of
assessment, factual details have been changed or fictionalised. No element of the content is
intended as a factual representation of any specific person, organisation, or event.
Important note
All NEBOSH Intellectual Property shall remain vested in NEBOSH. NEBOSH assessment papers,
supporting documents and answer sheets must not be reproduced/copied/distributed in any way, or
any form, electronic or otherwise, without the prior written consent of NEBOSH or as required by law.