That's only four why's, and it doesn't address why the employee suddenly needed a table.
Which means it may not be the "root cause", either, and the offered "more tables" solution may not help.
Which means it may not be the "root cause", either, and the offered "more tables" solution may not help.
Personally, I can't say I'm inclined to think "the employee needs a table" is likely to have any useful root cause that goes any deeper... "I need a table" is hardly some sort of exotic need.
Adding a table strikes me distinctly as ignoring the root of the problem, which probably has more to do with safety standards and training. There has to be a more robust way to prevent accidents than luring people away from them.
So, ironically, this seems to be an example of asking too many questions, and we're not even at 5 yet.
My larger point is that failure analysis is complicated and full of red herrings. Simplifying it to "five whys" (or four, or six) only creates false security.