asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is prepared to make known the report made by an inspector of factories following a complaint of dangerous ship's gear on the M.V. Soemba in Cork on 29th August, 1958: and if he will give an assurance that in future cases the opinion of the inspector on the condition of ships' discharging gear will, if requested, be communicated to the workers or their representatives.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ship's Gear: Report of Inspector.
3.
The publication of a report made to me by an Inspector of Factories under the Factories Act, 1955, would be in breach of the confidential nature of such reports and contrary to long-established practice in the matter. I would be unable, therefore, to disclose the contents of the report referred to in the Question, or of any similar report which may be made to me in the future.
Is the Minister not aware that in the case referred to in this question there were clear indications that the ship's discharging gear was in a highly unsatisfactory and dangerous condition, that the dockers concerned, through their responsible trade union, sought for some kind of certificate as to the condition of the gear and that because this adjudications was not forthcoming a withdrawal of labour occurred? Does the Minister feel it desirable that the regulations should be such that when dockers reasonably question the conditions of the gear, stoppage of work may occur in the further? Does the Minister not think it reasonable and fair that some provision should be made in a matter such as this, in which these people are vitally concerned, whereby they would have some machinery through which they could get an immediate adjudication?
That is what happened. I understand the trade union concerned immediately contracted the factories inspector. He immediately went to the site and inspected the gear. The gear was not in fact subsequently used in the discharge of the ship. It seems to me there is some misunderstanding about the function of factories inspectors. Their duty is to warn people operating apparatus, gear or machinery they think is unsafe that they are liable to penalty on continuing to do so. In this case, once the warning was given by the inspector, no attempt to use the defective equipment was made.
The Minister appears to be under a misapprehension. Is he not aware that the trade union sought that advice from the inspector and he refused to disclose whether or not the gear was in a dangerous condition? Surely it was not to be expected that the dockers concerned were to risk their lives while the inspector fiddled around about sending a report to the Minister? Incidentally, no definite reply was received by the union from the date of the occurrence in August until the 31st February this year. A stoppage of work occurred and I am simply asking the Minister does he think it desirable that these stoppages should occur because of what appears to be a flaw in the operating machinery?
If the factories inspector had notified the owners of the ship that the gear was defective—as he did in this case—they should have stopped work until they had made alternative arrangements for discharging. The purpose of the inspector is to ascertain the facts. If he is of opinion that defective gear is being used, he can warn the owner of the legal penalties to which he leaves himself liable by continuing to use it. That is the limit of his functions. The actual determination of the legal penalty is, of course, a matter for the courts.
Surely there is some force in the point made by Deputy Casey? The dockers were asked to unload a vessel which had defective gear and it was so certified by the factories inspector. However, they did not know he had so certified it.
That is not the case.
Deputy Casey stated the complaint was made in August and no decision was conveyed to the union until February of the following year. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that dockers, whose lives are in danger if defective gear is used, should have some information conveyed to them that the gear was in fact defective and dangerous in use?
These are not the circumstances in the case. In this case a wire rope, to which was attached a bucket, broke.
The bucket fell into the hold where the workers were working.
In fact the inspector was there within half an hour and when he had inspected the gear and the alternative equipment it was proposed to use, he conveyed his opinions to the owners as to their quality. The owners immediately acted on his opinion and made alternative arrangements for loading the ship.
That is just the point. The owners insisted even at that stage that the remaining part of the gear was not dangerous and that the dockers should proceed with the unloading of the ship with the alternative gear. The trade unions were unable to have any authoritative statement from anybody as to whether this ship's gear was dangerous or not. Naturally, they were not going to risk the lives of workers and they withdrew their labour.
The fact is that the inspector fulfilled this functions. He went to the owners of the ship and expressed the opinion that the alternative gear they proposed to use was equally defective and that, if they used it, they would leave themselves liable to Court proceedings. They did not, therefore, proceed to use it.
That was not conveyed to the dockers.
It appears that the factory inspector is entitled to go and tell the owners to put their house in order but he is not entitled to warm the men that they are endangering their lives if this defective gear is used.
That is precisely the function of the factory inspector— to warn the owners of plant of any failure to observe safety regulations as laid down.
The function of the factory inspector is to warn the owners?
That is right.
And he has no care or liability for the lives of the dockers at all?
That is nonsense.
It is. That is the important thing.
Surely if the factory inspector can tell the employer his gear is unsafe to use, he ought to tell the dock workers that their lives will be in danger if they use it.
Would the Minister indicate that he will look further into this matter so that, in such a case in the future, the inspector might indicate defects in the gear to the workers?
There is an obligation on the factory inspector if Court proceedings are instituted to give a factual report to the Court.
That is great consolation, if a man is dead.
It would introduce a completely new element into this business, if the reports of a factory inspector or inspectors were to be regarded as available to anybody applying for them, even representatives of the workers. It is only where defects in the arrangements, breaches of the safety code arise, that any action calls to be taken. May I express surprise that Deputy Norton should take a contrary view—he was joint author with me of the existing legislation?
At the same time I do not think we should insulate ourselves against intelligent opinions as the Minister for Health can do. I feel the Minister and myself should keep clear of his medical preparations. Surely the Minister ought to agree that if the inspector can tell the owner the gear is dangerous he should be able to tell the workers: "You had better be careful; that gear is defective"?
They were aware of it.
They were not aware of it.
Did the bucket not drop into the hold?