For Employers’ duties see HERE

Under Statutory Instrument No. 386/2006 certain general duties are imposed on employers. The SI also transposes the terms of Council Directive 92/57/EEC into Irish law.

For Employers’ duties see HERE

According to a report in 1990 from an advisory group of employers, trade unions, the National Industrial Safety Organisation and the Health and Safety Authority Inspectorate, the main causes of building accidents, were cost-cutting, lack of control over sub-contractors and time-saving measures.

The study showed, in the case of the sample of incidents reviewed, that 20% involved falls; 20% involved ladders or scaffolds; 11% involved contact with power lines; 9% involved collapse of trenches.

In 1985 the safety Officer of the Construction Industry Federation reported “….. it is evident that many of the site managers and workers have no idea of their responsibilities under the Acts”.

According to the then Minister for Labour, in 1988, building sites were among the most dangerous places in Europe. He said a sizeable number of building site were not being reported to his Department.

Over the previous10 years more than 70 people were killed and 5,000 seriously injured on Irish building sites.

Significantly, almost the first of Bertie Ahern’s issues, raised by him after the election, was the use of e-voting machines. The title of this posting is a quote from him, condemning the alternative traditional paper system.

Suffice to say that there are many people who disagree with him as can be seen HERE and HERE. They say that the purchase of the e-voting system was a waste of taxpayers’ money and, so far, a complete loss of that money and consequential expenditure.

The current estimate of the loss for which his Government is allegedly responsible is between €50 and €60 million and growing.

As far as can be judged, he seems to intend to try to spend his way out of the problem.

But is there another route?

Possibly.

For example, two companies are maintaining the London Underground. One, Metronet, is heading for a £1 billion overspend with insolvency looming; the other, Tube Lines, is, apparently, on budget.

Even if Metronet goes bust London Underground is adamant it will not change the contract with Metronet. Under the PPP contract there is an arbiter to decide conflict issues between Metronet and London Underground

Contracts of this kind are complex arrangements involving legal principles and take account of changing factual or economic circumstances.

So, what of Ireland’s e—voting machines? Do we know what was in the contract for the sale and supply of the machines (and the software)? No, we do not. Most if not all such contracts are not available under Freedom of Information (FOI) legislation due to “commercial sesitivity�.

This category of exception under FOI can conceal failures to properly express the relationship between the parties. NEDAP supplied the machines to the Irish Government. In terms of knowledge and experience it is superior to the Government. Did the contract reflect that?

Did the Government have the services of an IT consultant as it negotiated the NEDAP contract?

In Stephenson Blake (Holdings) Ltd. v Streets Heaver Ltd. [2001]Lloyd’s Rep P.N. 44, QBD (OR) the UK court set out the obligations of a consultant on such a contract; the consultant must advise if the client’s perceived needs correspond to its actual needs; the consultant must advise if the client’s needs will be met by the IT system; the consultant must advise if the client’s staff and the consultant’s staff are capable of completing the project and finally, whether the client’s budget is and will be sufficient to meet the client’s objectives.

In St. Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd. [1995] F.S.R. 686, QBD; [1997] F.S.R. 251, CA the UK court decided an IT supplier must inform the customer exactly what the supplied system will do for the client; inform the customer exactly what the supplied system will not do for the client; and clarify the consequences for the client of the system not doing the things it will not do.

What Bertie Ahern ought to do is to have a review of the contract with NEDAP. That review should seek to identify what the express and implied terms of the contract with NEDAP are; it should check to see if, in the light of that review, NEDAP is in breach of the terms of supply or, if a consultancy was involved whether the consultant was in breach of its express and implied terms.

Given the substantial sums involved the taxpayer is entitled to nothing less.

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

28th May 2007

Although it was not, and is not, an issue in the litigation, it would not be inappropriate to report the outcome of the General Election for the two Plaintiff candidates, in their respective constituencies.

a) Catherine Murphy just lost her seat in a close race;

b) Finian McGrath retained his seat;

For Employers’ duties see HERE

A disturbing pattern of deaths in laboratory workers at Teagasc was revealed in 1989 in an epidemiological report prepared for the organisation three years before. The organisation gives an advisory service to Irish farmers on agricultural matters. 11 workers had died from rare blood and brain cancers. The study did not pinpoint the cause of the deaths. The Teagasc workers were above the average age of Irish laboratory workers. Teagasc had been in possession of the report for three years before releasing it to the employees. Contemporaneously, Teagasc declined an opportunity of being included in a survey of European laboratory workers undertaken by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The survey was to detect occupational levels and causes of cancer in such workers.

A few days after the publication of the Teagasc incidents the National Industrial Safety Organisation called for a nationwide survey of the incidence of cancer and other health problems in laboratory and research workers. It was said that they should be continually monitored at the expense of the employer.

Occupational cancer is avoidable.

The use of the World Wide Web has implications for the law relating to conflict of laws.
This is the body of law developed to address questions generated by the involvement in a legal issue of one or more legal systems or, more correctly, legal jurisdictions.

Publication on the Web involves publication everywhere the material is accessed. Therefore publication will, potentially if not actually, invoke the legal rules of every place of access. Eoin O’Dell publishes in Ireland and is, therefore, in the view of Irish law, subject to Irish law.

If the Great Firewall of China is incorrect and Mr. Eoin O’Dell’s site is not blocked from access by the people of China, then, as viewed by Irish law, the law of China applies to his publications there.

Of course the law of China may not see matters in that way.

For example, the law of the United States takes the view that the applicable law (and jurisdiction) is the law of the place of “uploading� or “hosting�.

UK and Australian law corresponds with Irish law.

However the UK courts have, in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co, ameliorated this readiness to assume jurisdiction by requiring the Plaintiff to prove substantial (certainly “non-minor�) readership and therefore substantial damage, in the UK, before being permitted to proceed with the action.

This case was in no way out of kilter with Gutnick v Dow Jones & Co., an earlier Australian case.

Mr. Gutnick lived in Australia and was libeled by the Defendants on the Internet. The Defendant objected to the courts of Australia having jurisdiction, not by reference to the extent of publication, or otherwise, in Australia, but on the grounds that the “uploading� or “hosting� took place in the USA.

This involved the Defendant appealing to the Australian court to accord sole jurisdiction to the US courts, an appeal which, not surprisingly, was unsuccessful. The Defendant settled with the Plaintiff for a substantial amount.

Assume that Eoin O’Dell falls foul of the law of China, what would it mean to him if he were accused in a Chinese court of libeling some citizen of China? Probably nothing, assuming he intends never to travel to China. An adverse judgment in such a court is not enforceable in Ireland, where Eoin O’Dell lives.

Eoin O’Dell has the advantage, relative to a business like Dow Jones & Co., of not conducting business in China or of having any assets in that jurisdiction.

It is this latter point that is likely to determine the practicality of proceedings commenced in distant jurisdictions, rather than the exposure to many systems of law.

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

22nd May 2007

1. On 18th May 2007, (in Distillery Court 1) the High Court (Clarke J.) reserved judgment in the action and designated 7th June 2007 for the delivery of judgment.

It’s time to change the name of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An agency that, as it says itself, permits and licences [polluting] activities should not hold itself out as a protecting body.

True, the Office of Environmental Enforcement is part of the EPA, but it ought not to be, for many reasons, not least in the light of what we read in the report of Case C-494/01, (Commission of the European Communities v Ireland) ( a case concerning 12 sample indictments of the Defendant’s breaches of EU environmental law), that the Defendant produced a letter from the EPA concerning the dumping by Limerick City Corporation [now Limerick City Council], of construction and demolition waste in protected wetlands, a letter which the court quoted as saying

…the EPA stated in a letter of 23 January 1998 that depositing of that kind amounted to recovery operations not requiring authorisation.

THE HIGH COURT
RECORD NO. 2819P/2007

Between

CATHERINE MURPHY and
FINIAN McGRATH

Plaintiffs

And

THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

21st May 2007

1. On 18th May 2007, (in Distillery Court 1) the High Court (Clarke J.) reserved judgment in the action and designated 2nd June 2007 for the delivery of judgment.

For Employers’ duties see HERE

It is generally agreed that skin disease is the commonest occupationally-caused disease. According to the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive it accounted for 59% of all reported occupational disease in 1978-79. This reflects the Irish experience in proportional terms, although the total Irish figures are deceptively low.

Although the skin is a remarkable and complex organ, the stresses applied to it in some workplaces are extreme and it is unable to perform its usual valuable functions. These include the provision of a barrier to harmful bacteria and retention of liquid in the body tissues.

The skin has a number of layers, the uppermost consisting of a thin layer of acid fat soluble secretions from the sebaceous glands. Solvents or prolonged immersion in water will remove this layer. The lower layers are subject to damage from acids, abrasions, cuts, and solvents.

The effects vary but dermatitis is by far the most frequent manifestation, representing 80% to 90% of the problem. It may arise from a number of causes, including physical sources such as heat or cold or excessive exposure to water, but most of it is caused by contact with a chemical agent of one or more kinds. Some of these will cause dermatitis in every person exposed to sufficient concentrations, while others are active only as an allergic reaction in sensitive individuals. The symptoms are similar whether the agent is irritant or allergic. They can consist of redness, rash, dry scaling, wet weeping, sores or crust formation.

The agents are very numerous; they include cement, rubber, paint, some woods, tars, dyes, detergents, bricks, oil, leather.

The following also cause dermatitis;

1,2-dichloroethylene, 1-2-dichloroethane
2,4-dinitro-O-cresol, Acetates
Acetic anhydride, Acetonitrile
Acrylonitrile, Alkalis
Allyl alcohol, Anthraquinone
Antinomy, Barium Compounds
Benzene Hexachloride (Lindane), Calcium cyanamide
Chloride of Lime, Chlorinated biphenyls
Chlorinated naphthalenes, Chloronitroanilines
Chloronitrobenzenes, Chlorprene
Dinitro-phenols, Epoxy resins
Ethyl acetate, Hexachlorobenzene
Hexamethylene tetramine, Hydroquinone
Isocyanates, Malathion
Naphtols, Pentachlorphenol
Phenols, Picric acid
Piperazine, Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Pyridine, Tetryl
Tin compounds, Toluene di-isocyanate
Vinyl acetate, Xylenols

Dermatitis is caused by exposure and appears at the point of contact. The agent may be air-borne, in which case any exposed skin will show symptoms. Skin covered by clothing will be untouched, often resulting in a sharp border line between affected areas and clear skin. If direct contact is involved, the hands are obviously most at risk but the forehead or other parts of the head may be also affected through contamination from the hands. Occasionally, the wearing of gloves will have protected the hands and only the head will show symptoms. Sometimes the thighs are affected, even through clothing, by rubbing with the hands during work.

Allergic dermatitis requires a period of sensitization to the active agent. This may occur over a variable period of time during which there will be no symptoms. Thereafter, symptoms will appear with each contact with the agent.