Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 7

Public Business. - Workmen's Compensation Bill, 1933—From the Seanad.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
5. Section 8. Two new sub-sections added at the end of the section as follows:—
(5) Where a person is employed by the owners of a ship which is not registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the agent of such owners shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the employer of such workman.
(6) Where a person is employed under a local or other public authority, such authority shall, notwithstanding that the appointment of such person by such authority was or the dismissal of such person by such authority is subject to the approval of a Minister of State, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the employer of such person.

I move the amendment on the Order Paper:—

In the proposed new sub-section (5) of Section 8, to insert at the end thereof the words "unless such owners reside or have a place of business in Saorstát Eireann."

Deputies will recollect that when we were considering the amendments from the Seanad, we adjourned consideration of amendment No. 5, which provides:—

Where a person is employed by the owners of a ship which is not registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the agent of such owners shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the employer of such workman.

It was suggested that it was undesirable that the owner of a ship on which a workman was injured should be exempted from liability to compensate the workman. The amendment was originally inserted by those who speak for the interests of workers employed in that way, who felt that it was preferable to have a right of action against the agent of the owner who had a place of business in this country rather than against an owner who might have no such place of business in the country. It is clear that it is not necessary to make that provision where the owner has a place of business here, and so it is proposed to add to the section the words "unless such owners reside or have a place of business in Saorstát Eireann." I think that meets the point raised.

I suppose the Minister had the point looked into, but may I put a question to him in this form? Previously, the law was that if an accident happened in relation to a boat which was not registered here, and if a judgment were got, that that boat could be more or less attached for the purpose of the debt, if it came again within the jurisdiction. The remedy then was in relation to property—valuable property—when it came into the jurisdiction again. Then the amendment from the Seanad, on the pink paper, came down, and that changed the situation so as to have it that the agents of the owners, where the owners are not registered here, are to be deemed to be the employers of the workman. It is now proposed to keep that section, which came from the Seanad, with this limiting addition "unless such owners reside or have a place of business in Saorstát Eireann." I suggest that, now for the future, it means that you do not deem the agent to be the employer where the owner resides or has a place of business in Saorstát Eireann, even where he is not registered for the purpose of shipping here. Does that still supply a remedy against the boat?

Only to those registered here.

Then, it has no relation to those ships not registered here; but, certainly, the security an injured person had, under the Merchant Shipping Acts, for the satisfaction of an award, was that if the boat, although not registered here, nevertheless came inside the Port of Dublin again, it could be seized and attached then for the debt. Will that still operate?

No. The workman will have the right of proceeding against the person who resides or has his place of business here; that is, the owner, if he resides or has his place of business here, or the agent, otherwise.

That would mean that his remedy will only be up to the amount of the property here, but will no longer attach to the ship.

Oh, no. The owner of the ship is liable for the compensation.

Amendment No. 5 as amended agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.

Agreement to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; agreement to amendment No. 5, as amended; disagreement to amendment No. 6; agreement to amendments Nos. 7 to 24 inclusive, reported.

Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
Top
Share