Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2001, Publicación: 90ª reunión CIT (2002)

Convenio sobre la protección de los cargadores de muelle contra los accidentes (revisado), 1932 (núm. 32) - Nueva Zelandia (Ratificación : 1938)

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments regarding the number and causes of all kinds of accidents reported and the number of workers covered by the relevant legislation.

2. The Committee notes with interest the publication in 1997 of the Port Safety Guidelines that give guidance on the application of the Health and Safety in Employment Act in port operations. These guidelines, which are based on the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152), are currently being revised with the intent that they will be issued as an Approved Code of Practice under the Act. It is also intended that, once an Approved Code of Practice is published, the superseded General Harbour Regulations will be revoked. The Committee also notes with interest the information that, in addition to the guidelines, a range of material is published by the Occupational Safety and Health Service, summarizing the requirements and providing guidance to the Act. The Committee further notes with interest the information that in February 1999, New Zealand and Australia signed a memorandum of understanding recognizing each other’s inspections as equivalent. Thus, a vessel inspected in Australia en route to New Zealand will only be inspected in New Zealand if a deficiency was reported in Australia.

3. The Committee notes the comments made by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions expressing a number of concerns.

(i)  The NZCTU indicates that unions affiliated to it have raised concerns about delays in obtaining assistance from either the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) service within the Department of Labour or the Maritime Safety Authority (MSA). It indicates that while the waterfront industry is a 24-hour one, there are often delays in obtaining assistance on weekends and at night. It states that these issues are more pronounced in regional ports. The Committee notes the reply given by the Government that OSH has a 24-hour call-out policy in respect of accidents. It adds that an emergency mobile number is usually contained in each OSH branch office’s after-hours message. The NZCTU states that the immediacy of the response depends upon the nature and gravity of the event being reported. If any problems are experienced in particular instances, the unions concerned are able to contact the OSH service manager in the first instance, or the national service manager in the second instance. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the workings of the arrangements in place for assistance during weekends and nights.

(ii)  The NZCTU is also concerned about what it calls the unclear jurisdictions between OSH and MSA, which potentially creates instances where neither agency claims responsibility for specific waterfront accidents and hazards. It indicates that one example provided to it involved the malfunctioning of a crane that was being driven by a waterfront worker on a ship. While normally the MSA would assume responsibility for incidents on board ships, the situation supposedly fell outside their jurisdiction because the crane was not being driven by a member of the crew. In its reply, the Government states that if any problems are experienced in a particular instance, the union concerned should contact the OSH service manager or the national service manager. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on how potential difficulties of jurisdiction are being resolved without prejudice to the workers’ requirements of assistance due to accidents and hazards.

(iii)  The NZCTU also reiterates its previous requests that the Government report on waterfront injury rates, as well as fatalities. This would, in its view, provide a more useful assessment of the incidence and severity of accidents. It indicates that relevant data could include serious harm accidents notified to OSH, and moderate to serious work-related claims recorded by the Accident Insurance Regulator. The Government replies that it does not collect separate figures on waterfront injuries and is not therefore able to supply separate data. It states that the Accident Regulator is able to provide data on claims by occupation only, not by place of accident, which will not necessarily result in accurate data in respect of waterfront injury rates. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide all available data that may help identify the particular location of accidents and thus permit a better assessment of the incidence and severity of accidents.

The Committee wishes to recall the invitation formulated by the Governing Body to States parties to Convention No. 32 to contemplate ratifying the Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152), the ratification of which, ipso jure, will involve the immediate denunciation of Convention No. 32. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information in this regard.