2
:
2
Q. 7(1)
Q. 7(n)
Only where absolutely necessary.
It is suggested that this should be deleted as dock work is not associated with any particular occupational disease. Q. 7(p) Suggest that this clause be made a
desirable objective in the Recommendation as small employers and their workers would probably shun formal organizations.
Q. 7(q) Suggest that this be confined to the
training of operators in power driven lifting appliances and truck drivers only.
Q.12(1). This would make a good administrative
2.40
arrangement but a poor piece of legislation. Whereas it is important that removal of fencing and safety devices should be carried out only under proper supervision, the clause, if to be written into the law in its present form, will make offences for improper removal of fencing unenforce- able. This is because an employer can easily appoint any of his employees as an authorized person, and say that the fencing is removed by him for the purpose of the work being carried out. Suggest that the whole clause be removed, including 12(2), to the Code of Practice as an administrative guideline.
Unless the ILO can pin-point and specify jobs and circumstances whereby initial and periodical medical examinations as well as occupational health services for dock workers are essential, this clause should either be dropped or be incorporated in the Recommendation.
Q.47(1). (a) (a)
Fishing vessels in Hong Kong are all below 200 tons. These are either traditional fishing junks which are mechanised, or mechanised boats of a modified design to suit local opera- tions and are owned and operated largely by family members and are not equipped with sophisticated lifting appliances. Loading and unloading are usually done manually or with simple lifting appliances installed at the Government operated wholesale fisheries markets. Furthermore, fishing vessels are not covered by cargo handling safety regulations. (2 3(2))
/(b)
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.