Special Committee Factories Bill, 1954 debate -
Thursday, 3 Feb 1955

SECTION 72.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 52 :—

Before Section 72 (but in Part V) to insert a new section as follows :—

72. Where the persons employed in a factory have selected from among themselves a committee (in this section referred to as the safety committee) for the purpose of giving advice and assistance relating to the safety and health of the persons employed, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) the safety committee may request the occupier of the factory to make an entry in the general register noting—

(i) the establishment of the safety committee, and

(ii) if the safety committee has nominated one of its members to be the safety delegate, for the purposes of this section, the name of the safety delegate.

(b) the occupier shall consider any representations made to him by the safety committee on matters affecting the safety and health of the persons employed,

(c) an inspector shall consider any representations made to him by the safety delegate,

(d) an inspector shall be entitled, should he so wish, to have the safety delegate accompany him on his tour of inspection of the factory or any part of such tour.

Chairman

Amendment No. 52 and the amendments thereto may be discussed together.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I move my first amendment to amendment No. 52 :—

In lines 3 and 4, to delete " giving advice and assistance" and substitute " assisting the occupier in securing compliance by persons employed in the factory with the provisions of this Act."

I want to make it clear that I am not objecting at all to the establishment of safety committees. On the contrary, I think it may prove to be a useful device to secure compliance with the provisions of this legislation by factory owners and factory workers. But in my experience the problem in that regard has been far more one of getting workers to understand that these regulations are designed for their welfare and safety and not merely for their vexation than a problem of getting employers to obey the legislation. That being so, the main duty which I could see such a committee perform is educating workers in factories, getting them to appreciate that these regulations are designed by intelligent people for their own welfare, and developing amongst them that spirit which will result in deliberate failure to conform with the safety regulations being reported to those who can apply remedies. I appreciate that my amendments do not cover fully the point I have in mind or are adequate to define what the work of these safety committees might be ; but I do think that the sub-section should be so framed as to make it clear that they have that function, the function of educating workers in the need for these safety regulations and of helping to produce the atmosphere in which the enforcement of the regulations can be more easily effected by factory managers.

It would be wrong, I think, so to frame the proposed section of the Bill as to create the impression that the only difficulty in getting compliance with these regulations lies with managements. There is far more need for work in the other direction. I would like to see members of these committees when meeting, knowing and realising, because of the phraseology of the section, that they have the one duty as well as the other, the duty of getting their fellow workers to conform to the regulations and to create that atmosphere in each workshop in which the reporting of a breach of the regulations will not be regarded as merely carrying tales.

The risk is, of course, that these committees will be constituted and never meet a second time, but if the approach to their establishment is a right one and if the members are made to think that they have a special function amongst their fellow workers of encouraging, helping, advising and instructing them to conform with the regulations that have been made, I think they can serve a very useful purpose indeed.

I realise now that my amendment to some extent would take away from these committees the function of making representations to employers. I certainly did not intend that. They should certainly have the right of making representation to the employers, if ever it seems to them that regulations are not suitable, as in the case of the design of goggles mentioned some time ago, and the use of protective devices—protective devices which are sound in theory are often defective in practice—as well as to ensure that this job of protecting the safety of the workers is not merely a matter for the Government by regulation or for the employers, but is also a matter for the workers. Then I think we will get considerable improvement. It should be the function of the committee, as I see it, to try to get that improvement in the general approach to the regulations, and it is in that matter it could do most useful work. Therefore, I would urge that this section of the Bill should be amended so as to make it clear to the members of these committees that they have these dual functions, not merely the right to go to the employers and urge that certain things should be done but also the duty to go to their fellow workers and urge them to conform with the regulations when made.

Mr. Norton

In the long run, the main concern is to make this Bill work and to make the section work. I felt that Deputy Lemass's amendment restricted the value of the committee. I thought it ought to have the functions that Deputy Lemass suggested, but his amendment would give it purely those functions and not the wider functions I wish to give it.

Mr. Lemass

I realise that, and if I were re-casting it now I would give them the dual functions. For example, I would not, in the first amendment, move to delete the giving of advice and assistance to employers

Mr. Norton

I was going to make the suggestion that if there was agreement that it ought not to operate merely in the field given to it by my amendment, but also that it should ensure that workers in the factories are made aware of the necessity and encouraged to take steps to protect themselves against the risks which are inseparable from factory employment, we might get agreement to amend the amendment. I would bring in a further draft to this committee at the next stage, trying to meet that point of view while at the same time retaining for the safety committee the powers which are set out in (a) to (d) in my amendment.

Mr. Larkin

I have no objection whatever to the point of view put forward by Deputy Lemass, except that I would suggest that in phrasing the particular provisions regard should be had to one of the things mentioned by him, that is, the desirability of avoiding giving the impression that we are looking for workers to act the part of informers on fellow workers. To that extent we should refer to the obligation devolving on them of reporting breaches of the regulations or failure of compliance, rather than to speak of the failure by workers, because that might well imply to them that it was a question of actually reporting anything. In principle, I have no objection to that part of it and I think it very desirable.

On the Ministerial amendment, I have an amendment which has covered much the same ground but which approaches it on a somewhat different basis. First of all, the first main difference is that the Ministerial amendment speaks of a situation where the persons employed in a factory " have selected from among themselves a committee." It leaves it purely on a voluntary basis and there is no actual requirement nor is there any set machinery provided by which this committee would be elected. It may well be argued that where there is an effective trade union organisation, advantage would be taken of this section to secure the election of a safety committee, but where that type of organisation is not either effective or as wide awake as it should be we might find that the establishing of a safety committee is dependent completely on some of the more responsible of the wide awake workers. In the ministerial amendment, there is no tie-up between employer and committee as such, except to the extent that the safety committee is to give him advice and assistance—even that is not very definite—and, secondly, that he should consider any representations. If we are to take the view that we are placing responsibility on the workers themselves to see that there is compliance with the Factories Act, I think we should also tie the employer in so far as the safety committee is concerned and make it quite clear that it is a joint responsibility. That is not provided for in the ministerial amendment.

I had some difficulty in drafting my amendment and I have merely set down broad principles, leaving it to the Minister to set out the details by way of regulation, where that is the most desirable way of making it. I think it is important that it should be accepted that in factories where there is more than a certain number of persons employed, it is the intention that a safety committee will be established, and secondly that that safety committee will provide opportunities for continuous and constant contact between the employer and the representative of the workers on this problem of factory safety—if you like, not with an equal division of responsibility but with shared responsibility. I can see, as far as the ministerial amendment is concerned, the weakness first of all in regard to securing the establishment of the committee and secondly, the very likely possibility—it could arise in certain types of employment—that the effort to have that committee will not be accepted by the employer with good grace, that we may have from the beginning a situation of a certain amount of strain and that the very purpose which the committee is intended to carry out will be largely prejudiced by the fact that we have not clarified the basis on which it should come into operation and tied in these two elements in factory production, that is, the worker and the employer.

Mr. Lemass

Arising from what Deputy Larkin has said, I am familiar with the operation of one industrial concern in which there is a workers' council that meets regularly and which deals with these matters and a variety of other matters as well. In that particular concern, it would appear to me to be unnecessary duplication to have a separate safety committee, because the workers' council itself is in fact doing the work and is the most appropriate body to do the work. I would not like to see a statutory obligation on the people concerned in that particular instance to set up another formal body to do the work that is now being done. Therefore, I think the amendment should only provide for this safety committee to be set up where no other satisfactory machinery for doing the same job does not exist.

Mr. Larkin

That could be dealt with by administrative regulations. I feel that in many ways we could largely confine ourselves to setting down the broad principles—because there will be many practical difficulties arising that would probably be better dealt with in this instance by regulation—although I do not normally like them—than by trying to cover everything in a section. In so far as we are in broad agreement on what we are trying to attain, the Minister might consider the whole matter in the light of the discussion.

Mr. Lemass

I think we should adjourn these amendments or dispose of them and then wait until the Minister produces the redraft.

Mr. Norton

Do I gather from Deputy Larkin that he has a preference for regulation?

Mr. Larkin

I am making the point that we are trying to introduce something which is fairly novel and it might well be that we cannot hope to deal with everything by a specific section. In this case, I would be prepared, with reluctance, to give the Minister power to handle these problems by regulation.

As to the matter raised by Deputy Lemass, quite clearly there is no point in a safety committee being set up where there is already an effective works committee.

Mr. Norton

But if you make it a statutory obligation to set it up, as you seek by your amendment, you will have a safety committee and a works council running in parallel directions. Under my amendment, it is not made compulsory—it is a voluntary effort on the part of the workers employed, although in Deputy Larkin's case, while he makes it obligatory, it cannot be got to function unless the workers elect the persons. It may well be that because we are now getting into uncharted seas in relation to this, the best way of dealing with the matter is by regulation. I will do it that way if you wish, giving to the Committee a broad idea of what the kind of regulation is at this stage, if that would meet the viewpoint of the Committee. On the next stage, we can see how far the regulation meets our respective points of view.

Mr. Lemass

With whatever limitation we might think of putting to it.

Mr. Norton

Can we take it then that these are all withdrawn ?

Mr. Larkin

There are a couple of matters relating more to the wording than anything else to which I should like to refer. If these committees are to be set up, it should be made clear in the wording that they are confined to this particular job. Otherwise, you could have these committees involved with other existing negotiating arrangements.

Mr. Norton

You agree that the committee should be a voluntary committee and that the initiative should come from the workers ?

Mr. Larkin

I am not altogether satisfied with that. I can see the weakness of saying that there must be a statutory committee and then not having one, but I also see the difficulty of imposing on the workers the responsibility of using their own initiative to set up a committee and then finding that they are doing it against the desires of the employer, with no responsibility on the employer whatever.

Mr. Norton

It seems to me that if you try to put up a committee of this kind in the teeth of the employer's hostility, you may get a situation in which the committee will be stillborn. I was hoping that, by establishing it on a voluntary basis, the pattern would extend and come to be recognised as the normal pattern of factory life. Even in Deputy Larkin's case, where he provides for the compulsory establishment of it, there has to be the voluntary act of electing people before bringing the committee into existence.

Mr. Lemass

And the further consideration that it is undesirable to create a situation in which the committee could not function, if the employer did not participate in its work. There should be power to operate even if the employer did not wish to attend the meetings.

Mr. Norton

I will put in an alternative amendment and give the Committee a broad picture of the matters that would be covered by the regulations but not a detailed plan of the regulations.

Mr. Larkin

You should bear in mind that if you are going to proceed on a voluntary basis, you should consider the desirability of making some provision for associating the employer with it, because otherwise you may well find a position in which he will feel that this committee is going to be set up, not in opposition to him but at least at the other end of the pole. I tried to cover that by bringing the employer in on the committee, but I do not think we should go to the other extreme of putting him in the position of feeling that this safety committee is going to be set up completely separate and apart from himself.

Mr. Lemass

The emphasis should be on co-operation.

Chairman

Is it agreed that we leave it at that stage and take it up again at the next meeting?

Mr. Norton

Perhaps we could leave these amendments as they are in the meantime.

The Committee adjourned at 4.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 11th February, 1955.