I notice a difference between the provisions of this section and the next following section, which deals with shuttle threading by mouth suction. In Section 60 the regulations made by the Minister may impose duties on persons employed as well as on occupiers, but Section 59 does not so provide, and it seems to me that it would be desirable that it should, that it is not sufficient to put on the occupier the obligation to supply suitable goggles or screens where there is danger to the eyes in the process, but that there should also be power to make regulations imposing a duty on the persons who are supposed to use the goggles or screens. I do not know why that provision is not put in Section 59 when it was thought necessary to put it in Section 60. In most cases the risk to the eyes arises, not from the unwillingness of the occupier to provide goggles, but the discomfort of the goggles discouraging workers from using them. I have been in factories on many occasions and have been urged to wear goggles because of the risk involved, but the workers were going around with the goggles on top of their foreheads, not using them. It seems to me that power should be taken to put the obligation on the person supposed to wear the goggles as well as the occupier.
SECTION 59.
Mr. Lemass
I would suggest that you would look at Section 122. This is intended to deal with the case where the person is obliged to take steps, himself or herself, to comply with provisions or regulations which are prescribed.
Mr. Lemass
It was looking at Sections 59 and 60 that raised the query in my mind. The Minister may make regulations under Section 60 to impose duties on persons employed as well as on the occupiers. If it is not necessary in Section 59 it is hardly necessary in Section 60.
We will look at Section 60 in relation to Section 122 and see whether we can get both in the one section.
In connection with Section 59 regard should be had to one of the difficulties that arises in respect of persons not wearing goggles. I am not clear whether, in so far as the power given to the Minister here is concerned, it would also make it possible for him to prescribe the actual type of goggle, not merely a suitable goggle from the point of view of protection. One of the reasons why many workers do not wear them is that the goggles are not comfortable and create difficulty for them in their work and so long as an employer complies with the general definition that the goggles will be suitable or effective from the point of view of protection, it seems to me there is no obligation on him to ensure that the goggles are also comfortable and of a type that the worker will readily wear.
I do not know what more we can do beyond what is provided for here, that is, " suitable goggles or effective screens shall, in accordance with any directions given by the regulations, be provided." This implies that the regulations can be adjusted to meet the particular circumstances of the case. What more do you suggest?
I am not quite clear at the moment unless we could secure some means whereby there would be consultation either with the workers or the trade unions in connection with the actual type of goggles that would be obtained by the employer to comply with the regulation but everybody is well aware that you can have a goggle completely suitable from the point of view of protection and yet most uncomfortable to wear and that actually interferes with the process of work. That is often the background to the reluctance of workers to wear them continually. There is no point in providing suitable goggles for protection when it is almost impossible to carry on the work with the goggles particularly if, under the terms of Sections 121 and 122, we are going to make it an offence if they do not use them.
The main point is how can workers be consulted on the suitability of the goggles?
I gather that in the making of the regulations directions would be given. I take it the directions would be almost specific to the particular employer and the particular process. That would make it possible for some consultation to take place, say, possibly through factory inspectors, to ensure that the particular type of goggles were of such a nature that they would be and could be worn.
Mr. Lemass
Having regard to the amendment where it is proposed that the occupier shall consider any representations made to him by the safety committee on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed, it is clear that representations could be made to the employer.
Probably the best way of dealing with it would be by having the complaint ventilate itself. The process may change from factory to factory.
It might be ventilated in a way that everybody will regret. Goggles were supplied in a concern in the city and there was a strike over them and then they were replaced by the employer. That could have been avoided if there had been consultation before the goggles had been bought. The employer agreed that they were not suitable when he saw them himself. Some official of the company had bought them.
I do not know if there is any short cut in dealing with this problem. One might be tempted to suggest that as workers know whether they will or will not need goggles they could make their views known to the safety committee, so that they would be brought to the notice of the employer. If he provides suitable goggles that ends the matter. If he does not, the matter can be brought to the inspector's notice and he can bring it to the Minister's notice, who is bound to make regulations to have suitable goggles provided.
Mr. Lemass
It is not a matter for the worker to decide whether he needs them or not. The Minister will decide on the advice of the inspector that in some process goggles should be worn and, having made an order, then there should and would be consultation as to the suitability of particular types of goggles.
I have in mind that people following various occupations know what they want. A plasterer knows he does not need goggles but the fellow doing acetyline welding knows that he needs them. Where the workers are in an occupation in which goggles are necessary, if they have any complaint about them they can make it through the safety committee and, if they cannot get satisfaction, let it be brought to the inspector and to the Minister who has an obligation to see that suitable goggles are provided. I do not know if we will get after it in that way or in any more effective way.
I only had in mind the phrase " in accordance with any direction given by the regulations ". That brings it down somewhat closer to the individual concern and if the opportunity does present itself advantage will be taken of it to secure prior consultation.