The Gazette 1989

SEPTEMBER 1989

GAZETTE

Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 1989

health and safety as someone else's business. Going beyond that the committee considered that much of the law was "intrinsically unsatisfactory" and it recom- mended a complete overhaul of the legal structure with a view to designing it to promote health and safety at work through a system of self regulation within industry. The new emphasis was to be on workplace involvement rather than central control. Our own Health and Safety at Work Act 1980 involved a partial implementation of the Robens approach and it is clear that the current statute bears the imprint of similar origins. However, in examining the 1989 Act it is important to acknowledge the more direct influence of the Commission of Inquiry on Safety, Health and Welfare at Work which was established in this jurisdiction in 1980. The commission acted under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Donal Barrington and its report was published in 1983. The Barrington Analysis The Barrington Commission recog- nised that one of the basic problems with existing legislation in the area was the absence of a consistent and comprehensive approach to the issue. Despite the volume of legal regulations only a small percentage of the workforce was protected by statute. Further- more, even in those employments governed by the legislation there was apt to be confusion about its meaning and ignorance of its impact. Much of this was caused by the legalistic d r a f t smansh ip and technical detail of many provisions. On top of that there was the "obsolesence factor" - the fact that many of the laws contained technical details which the rapid

Legislation on Occupational Health & Safety tends to attract only minority interest. Traditionally statutes in the area have been complex, technical and of limited application. These difficulties have bean compounded by the fact that there are twenty pieces of relevant primary legislation and almost two hundred supporting regulations on the statute book at the moment. Even for lawyers this legal structure is daunting. For employers trying to assess their responsibilities or for employers trying to establish their rights the position is even more confusing. Against this background it is difficult not to have much sympathy with the view that one of the principle problems in the area is that there is simply "too much law".

impo r t ant question. 1

reports

on

the

The response of the legislature to this problem has been to pass another law. This one, however, is different. By the standards of its predecessors it is clear, simple and brief. Furthermore, it will in time replace all previous enactments. For these reasons alone, the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 is a very important and wel- come statute. What makes it more significant though is the fact that it embodies a very broad approach to heath and safety at work. Previous enactments regulated the employment of an estimated 20% of the workforce, this Act will extend the scope of the law to almost everyone at work. In this respect it should be of concern to the majority rather than the minority. This article will examine the content and modus operandi of the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act. It will focus on the nature of the duties imposed and the methods of enforcement estab- lished. It will also examine the role of the new national authority which t provides for. Before embarking on those primary objectives, however, f will be beneficial to consider the icnesis of the statute. This is particularly important because the ' lew approach" to legislation on health and safety at work, which is embodied in the Act, arises out of particular difficulties with previous statutes and the influence of t wo

By Declan Madden, Solicitor, and John Brennan, Solicitor*

The Robens Report In 1970 the Government of the United Kingdom appointed a committee on health and safety at work under the Chairmanship of Lord Robens. The committee pro- duced its highly influential report in 1972. In the years since then the Robens Report has had a profound affect on the legislative approach to health and safety at work. That influence has not been confined to the U.K. Its analysis and recom- mendations have been generally accepted throughout Europe and statutes adopting the Robens approach have been passed in many countries. 2 The Robens analysis suggested that the most important reason for accidents at work was apathy and that one of" the fundamental reasons for that apathy was the fact that there was " t oo much law". It was suggested that the huge mass of law had an all pervasive psychological effect which encouraged people to see

301