323 / 482
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1989
Safety, Health & Welfare
at Work Act 1989
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".
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
impo r t ant
question.
1
reports
on
the
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
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
301