[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London, City of ].

  • City of London (London, England). Corporation of London.
Date:
1970
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: [Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London, City of ]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    12/54 page 10
    10 occur, but two possible explanations are: (1) The drowsy feeling people tend to get after a reasonably large midday meal, or possibly the lack of it. (2) The fact that this is the period of the day when fatigue begins to set in. There was one fatal accident during the year. This occurred when a group of men were engaged on maintaining a lift at first floor level. A box of chains resting at 5th floor level came down striking one of the two men standing on the lift cage killing him instantly and injuring another. The increase in the amount of work carried out during the year made apparent several short comings in the existing legislation. Under the terms of the Act in accordance with Local Authority Circular Number 8, it is not necessary to report an accident occurring in the common parts of a shared office block although employers are encouraged to do so. Neither is it necessary for the employer to report accidents occurring to staff engaged on work away from the office premises, but as both the persons employed and the common parts fall within the main purview of the Act, this is an omission which should be remedied and the employers and/or owners required by legislation to report all accidents occurring within the curtilage of the premises and to staff employed by them on their official duties. There are several anomalies under the definitions in the Act. For example, a more suitable definition of the term employed could be embodied into the Act. During a recent inspection of office premises an employer claimed that a young lady of foreign extraction, engaged at the time of visit in typing, was not employed as she did not receive any salary, did not work any regular or fixed hours and resorted to the office where she carried out any typing works available purely as part of her programme for increasing her facility in the English language. In this specific case there was no infringment of the welfare requirements of the Act involved and the ensuing discussion was mainly of academic interest But as it can be readily envisaged that this situation could occur in other circumstances and having regard to the arguments that could be applied both for and against counting a person as being employed, a more suitable definition of employed could with advantage be incorporated into the Act. A further problem in this respect has arisen with the increased employment of temporary clerical staff. As a result of illness or the inability to fill vacancies, firms resort to agencies to carry out their work for them. This usually results in the clerical staff resorting to the registered premises and carrying on office work there. But they are not employed by the person who is required to register under the Act, and no money is paid to them, the fee being paid direct to the agency and the agency paying the employee's salary. As a result it could be said that the person working in the office is not employed by the person occupying the premises and therefore would not fall under the purview of this legislation. An interesting problem of demarcation also arose during the course of the year. A Public Health Inspector carrying out general routine inspections came across premises registered as an office which were in fact a non-power factory. As these office premises were inside the curtil age of the factory the responsibility for the inspection of the office premises devolved upon the District Factories Inspectorate. However, as it was a non-power factory, Sections 1-7 of the Factories Act, 1961 came within the jurisdiction of this Department. The Health, Safety and Welfare provisions of that part of the Factories Act and that part of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963 are basically similar in regard to the pro visions of sanitary accommodation, washing facilities, lighting, ventilation, drinking water, etc. Thus, in order to have a look at the wash hand basins in the premises which were shared by both office and factory staff, the Factory Inspector and the Public Health Inspector would each have to make a visit. This seems rather pointless in view of the local authority circular defining the terms of enforcement by the Factories Inspectorate of offices within the curtilage of Factories, and inspection of other offices falling under the purview of the local authority. In order to avoid just such duplication it is felt that this matter should be looked into more closely and an amend ment made where appropriate. During the year there has been an increase in the number of estate agents, owners, employers of persons, consultant engineers etc., who have approached this Department with a view to obtaining prior approval of the intended works in order to secure compliance with the Act and a large volume of the Inspectorate's time has been spent on this aspect of the work. In order to make greater use of the Inspector's time a new and more abbreviated type of inspection form was devised in late 1968 and it is hoped to bring this into operation during early 1969 thus reducing the amount of work involved in the recording of defects and conditions of premises. It is hoped that the new format will help the Inspectorate to have in addition a clearer view of conditions as a whole in premises in multiple occupation. This year, more than any previously, the Inspectorate have been able to get to grips with the
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3