European Commission – Young people at work directive (94/33/EC)

Directive 94/33/EC – Protection of Young people at work

Introduced 22nd June 1994

Objective

The aim of this Directive is to lay down minimum requirements for the protection of young people at work.

Definitions

The directive gives legal definitions for the terms “child”, “adolescent”, “young person”, “light work”, “working time” and “rest period”.

Contents

Member States shall take the necessary measures to prohibit work by children. They shall ensure, under the conditions laid down by this Directive, that the minimum working or employment age is not lower than the minimum age at which compulsory full-time schooling – as imposed by national law – ends or 15 years in any event.

This Directive shall apply to any person under 18 years of age having an employment contract or an employment relationship defined by the law in force in a Member State and/or governed by the law in force in a Member State. Exceptions can be adopted by Member States for occasional work or short-term work, involving domestic service in a private household or work regarded as not being harmful, damaging or dangerous to young people in a family undertaking.

The Directive defines “young people” as people under the age of 18 and “children” as young people under the age of 15 or who are still in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation. Adolescents are young people between the ages of 15 and 18 who are no longer in full-time compulsory education in accordance with national legislation.

Member States may make legislative exceptions for the prohibition of work by children not to apply to children employed for the purposes of cultural, artistic, sporting or advertising activities, subject to prior authorisation by the competent authority in each specific case; to children of at least 14 years of age working under a combined work/training scheme or an in-plant work-experience scheme, provided that such work is done in accordance with the conditions laid down by the competent authority; and to children of at least 14 years of age performing light work. Light work can also be performed by children of 13 years of age for a limited number of hours per week in the case of categories of work determined by national legislation.

‘Light work’, as defined in the Directive, shall mean all work which, on account of the inherent nature of the tasks which it involves and the particular conditions under which they are performed is not likely to be harmful to the safety, health or development of children, and is not such as to be harmful to their attendance at school, their participation in vocational guidance or training programmes approved by the competent authority or their capacity to benefit from the instruction received.

Employers shall adopt the measures necessary to protect the safety and health of young people, taking particular account of the specific risks which are a consequence of their lack of experience, of absence of awareness of existing or potential risks or of the fact that young people have not yet fully matured. Employers shall implement such measures on the basis of a comprehensive assessment of the hazards to young people in connection with their work according to Art 6/2 of the Directive. The assessment must be made before young people begin work and when there is any major change in working conditions.

The employer shall inform young people and their representatives of possible risks and of all measures adopted concerning their safety and health.

Member States shall prohibit the employment of young people for:

  • work which is objectively beyond their physical or psychological capacity;
  • work involving harmful exposure to agents which are toxic, carcinogenic, cause heritable genetic damage, or harm to the unborn child or which in any other way chronically affect human health;
  • work involving harmful exposure to radiation;
  • work involving the risk of accidents which it may be assumed cannot be recognised or avoided by young persons owing to their insufficient attention to safety or lack of experience or training;
  • or work in which there is a risk to health from extreme cold or heat, or from noise or vibration.

In addition, the Directive contains provisions relating to working hours, night work, rest periods, annual leave and rest breaks.

Each Member State is responsible for defining the necessary measures applicable in the event of infringement of the provisions of this Directive; these measures must be effective and proportionate to the offence.

*****

It appears the Air Corps failed this directive as soon as young people (apprentices) set foot inside the gates of Casement Aerodrome. At the of time this European Commission directive was issued crumbling asbestos on central heating pipework was present in all 4 landings of the old hostel apprentice accommodation. In fact in previous years apprentices were ordered to carry out asbestos removal without any training, PPE or health surveillance. 

Please also note that on the 11th of September 2017 the HSA wrote to the Irish Army Air Corps requesting….

It should be confirmed that the findings of Asbestos Surveys for relevant buildings at the facility, or the corresponding Registers of Asbestos-Containing Materials {ACMs), have been brought to the attention of  building managers and/or incorporated into the building management system. You are referred to relevant HSA published guidance – Practical Guidelines on ACM Management and Abatement, Section 7.

Individual chemical constituents of Aviation Gasoline (AVGAS) & Jet Fuel (AVTUR)

We have just added links to Safety Data Sheets which show the constituent chemicals for AVGAS (100LL) as well as AVTUR (Jet A-1) on our Chemical Product Names & Safety Data Sheets page.

AVGAS - 100LL

Chemical NameCAS-NoClassification
Gasoline86290-81-5 Muta. 1B
Carc. 1B
Asp. Tox. 1
Tetraethyl lead 78-00-2 Acute Tox. 1
Repr. 1A
STOT RE 2
Toluene108-88-3Skin Irrit. 2
Repr. 2
STOT Single Exp. 3
STOT Rep. Exp. 2
Asp. Tox. 1
Xylene, mixed isomers1330-20-7
Acute Tox. 4 - Dermal
Acute Tox. 4 - Inhalation
Skin Irrit. 2
Ethylbenzene100-41-4Acute Tox. 4 - Inhalation
STOT Rep. Exp. 2
Asp. Tox. 1
Cyclohexane110-82-7
Skin Irrit. 2
STOT Single Exp. 3
Asp. Tox. 1
n-Hexane110-54-3Skin Irrit. 2
Repr. 2
STOT Single Exp. 3
STOT Rep. Exp. 2
Asp. Tox. 1
Trimethylbenzene, all
isomers
Trimethylbenzene, all
isomers
Skin Irrit. 2
Eye Irrit. 2B
STOT Single Exp. 3
STOT Rep. Exp. 1
Asp. Tox. 1
Naphthalene91-20-3
Acute Tox. 4 - Oral
Carc. 2
Cumene (Isopropylbenzene)98-82-8STOT Single Exp. 3
Asp. Tox. 1

 

AVTUR - Jet A1

Chemical NameCAS-NoClassification
Kerosine (petroleum) 8008-20-6 Asp. Tox.1
Skin Irrit.2
STOT RE3
Kerosine (petroleum),
hydrodesulfurized
64742-81-0
Asp. Tox.1
Skin Irrit.2
STOT RE3
Kerosene (Fischer
Tropsch), Full range,
C8-C16 branched and
linear
848301-66-6 Asp. Tox.1
Ethylbenzene100-41-4Acute Tox. 4 - Inhalation
STOT Rep. Exp. 2
Asp. Tox. 1
Xylene, mixed isomers1330-20-7

Acute Tox. 4 - Dermal
Acute Tox. 4 - Inhalation
Skin Irrit. 2
Cumene (Isopropylbenzene)98-82-8STOT Single Exp. 3
Asp. Tox. 1
*****
On the 26th of January 2016 the current head of Health & Safety in the Irish Army Air Corps stated in an email to the Medical Corps that “The Formation Safety & Unit Safety Personnel have reviewed refuelling work practices and believe that the risk of exposure is low.”

Call for Commission of Investigation into Air Corps claims

The Government is facing calls to establish a Commission of Investigation into whistleblower claims against the Air Corps, after the terms of an independent report into the allegations were branded ‘farcical’ by Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin.

The Air Corps stands accused of failing to protect its technicians from the effects of cancer-causing chemicals, with whistleblowers claiming that decades of neglect has had a devastating effect on the health of members of the Defence Forces.

Yesterday, the Irish Examiner revealed that Christopher O’Toole, the author of an independent review of the allegations, said the terms of reference he was given for this probe were “impractical”, and that elements of the allegations made were issues outside his expertise.

Mr O’Toole also found that records demonstrating the Air Corps’ compliance with health and safety regulations “are not readily available”.

Whistleblowers had previously alleged that inspection records dating back to the 1990s were deliberately destroyed because they had raised concerns, but both the Government and the Defence Forces deny the claim, and say the reports in question were mislaid over time.

Mr Martin said he believes a Commission of Investigation is necessary: “The situation is far from satisfactory because with his opening comments the report’s author is essentially saying he cannot fulfill the terms of reference. From the Government’s point of view they established this review, they must have known the terms of reference could not be fulfilled. It’s farcical.”

“It seems to me there are no records of compliance with health regulations, which is very, very serious because in their absence one has to conclude that the probability is they were not complied with.

Read full article on Irish Examiner website below…

Delay – Deny – Die

Air Corps report highlights need for full inquiry into dangerous chemicals exposure – Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD

Sinn Féin Defence Spokesperson Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD has said the government must now initiate a comprehensive investigation into health  and safety procedures at Casement Aerodrome and that its terms of reference must be broad enough to ensure it is able to examine the serious allegations made by serving and retired members’ of the Defence Forces.

“It is now time for the Government to act in the best interests of the Defence Forces and carry out a full review of health and safety protocols at Casement Aerodrome over the last three decades, which must be thorough, transparent and with terms of reference that allow for an in-depth examination of how chemicals and other toxic materials were managed.”

“It must also include the inclusion of oral testimonies from past and present personnel who served there and an independent assessment of their health and general well-being to ascertain if they have suffered as a result of their service at the base.

Please read the press release in full on the Sinn Féin website.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/46483

*****

It should be pointed out that the state already has in its possession the “Chemical Exposure Report 1994-2005” which includes a review of chemical management as well as oral testimonies from serving personnel. This report actually predates the whistle-blower allegations and was created in 2014.

Unfortunately the report was carried out for the State Claims Agency with a view to fighting affected personnel in the High Court, rather than help ill serving & former personnel.

Even though “Chemical Exposure Report 1994-2005” has the potential to save lives, Minister Paul Kehoe refused to waive privilege or release the review when asked by Aengus Ó Snodaigh in a recent Parliamentary Question.

Please read the parliamentary question here.

http://www.accas.info/?m=201709

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Casement Aerodrome inquiry: Key review is a botched job

It happens in the best of homes; stuff — invoices, receipts, notes, cards and letters put by because one day they might be needed — gets lost, inadvertently destroyed or just misplaced. It’s part of the rich and familiar tapestry of domestic life. It should not happen in public organisations and authorities that spend large sums of taxpayers’ money on filing and recording systems and on the people who are supposed to run them.

But that appears to be only one of the serious issues highlighted today in our report on the independent review of claims by former Air Corps staff who say their exposure to toxic chemicals from the late 1980s to the early 2000s caused chronic illnesses. Another seems to be that the review — established by the Defence department — was itself not fit for purpose.

The review — by a retired civil servant — was charged with examining the allegations made by Air Corps workers whose claim was that the State failed to give them adequate training and protection … a fairly straightforward mission, then. No, not at all; it has been a waste of time, and for that no fault at all attaches to the retired civil servant, Christopher O’Toole. His only error, perhaps, was to accept the toxic commission at the outset.

Those are, sadly, very general terms because, as he goes on to explain, “a problem has arisen in relation to the issues raised by the informants because appropriate records to demonstrate compliance are not readily available … In the absence of such records, proof of compliance is problematic and establishing the actual situation at the time in question would be a complex task requiring the gathering of evidence and probably taking oral testimony; in effect a forensic exercise which it is not possible for me to carry out.”

The review tells those most affected — and that could be a great many Air Corps employees — and the wider public nothing about the facts at the heart of this case, leaving us still with questions about the “appropriate records” that are not available. What is necessary now is a second review, led by an independent chemicals expert — perhaps from Scotland or Wales — who can establish once and for all what happened, or didn’t happen, at Casement Aerodrome.

Read full article on Irish Examiner website below…

Delay – Deny – Die

Dáil Éireann Written Answers 04/10/17 – Department of Defence – New Recruit Chemical Training

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 234

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if chemical health and safety training is provided to new recruits and cadets as part of their basic training; and if not, if it will be made mandatory as soon as possible. [42131/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

I am advised by the relevant military authorities that basic Health and Safety training is provided to all new entrants to the Defence Forces. Where a requirement for more specific Health and Safety training is identified for an individual or group of individuals for their post, this training is provided by qualified Defence Force safety personnel. For example individuals working with chemicals will receive Chemical Awareness training as required.

*****

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Dail Éireann Written Answers 04/10/17 – Department of Defence – Air Corps Chemical Risk Assessments

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

QUESTION NO: 233

To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence the number of chemical risk assessments on record with the Air Corps group formation health and safety office. [42130/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

As this matter pertains to litigation which is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

*****

DELAY – DENY – DIE

Profile of Patients with Chemical Injury & Sensitivity

Patients reporting sensitivity to multiple chemicals at levels usually tolerated by the healthy population were administered standardised questionnaires to evaluate their symptoms and the exposures that aggravated these symptoms. Many patients were referred for medical tests. It is thought that patients with chemical sensitivity have organ abnormalities involving the liver, nervous system (brain, including limbic, peripheral, autonomic), immune system, and porphyrin metabolism, probably reflecting chemical injury to these systems. Laboratory results are not consistent with a psychological origin of chemical sensitivity.

Substantial overlap between chemical sensitivity, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome exists: the latter two conditions often involve chemical sensitivity and may even be the same disorder. Other disorders commonly seen in chemical sensitivity patients include headache (often migraine), chronic fatigue, musculoskeletal aching, chronic respiratory inflammation (rhinitis, sinusitis, laryngitis, asthma), attention deficit, and hyperactivity (affected younger children). Less common disorders include tremor, seizures, and mitral valve prolapse. Patients with these overlapping disorders should be evaluated for chemical sensitivity and excluded from control groups in future research.

Agents whose exposures are associated with symptoms and suspected of causing onset of chemical sensitivity with chronic illness include gasoline, kerosene, natural gas, pesticides (especially chlordane and chlorpyrifos), solvents, new carpet and other renovation materials, adhesives/glues, fiberglass, carbonless copy paper, fabric softener, formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, carpet shampoos (lauryl sulfate) and other cleaning agents, isocyanates, combustion products (poorly vented gas heaters, overheated batteries), and medications (dinitrochlorobenzene for warts, intranasally packed neosynephrine, prolonged antibiotics, and general anesthesia with petrochemicals).

Multiple mechanisms of chemical injury that magnify response to exposures in chemically sensitive patients can include neurogenic inflammation (respiratory, gastrointestinal, genitourinary), kindling and time-dependent sensitisation (neurologic), impaired porphyrin metabolism (multiple organs), and immune activation

Please read full report below.

Grace Ziem – Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. James McTamney – Clinical Psychologist, Lutherville, Maryland, USA

Air Corps official denies file destruction

An Air Corps official has denied whistleblowers’ allegations that he destroyed documents central to a legal action against the State.

Six former Air Corps technicians are suing the State, alleging inadequate health and safety management of the cancer-causing chemicals they used, and that their unnecessary exposure to these substances has caused them to suffer chronic illnesses including cancer.

The State has denied this.

Health and safety reports on conditions at the time in the Air Corps headquarters at Casement Aerodrome are missing, with the Defence Forces speculating that these documents were misplaced over time.
Two whistleblowers have alleged that an Air Corps official ordered the destruction of the documents, with one of the whistleblowers naming the official in question in a protected disclosure to Paul Kehoe, the junior defence minister.

Mr Kehoe this week revealed that the named official has denied the claim.

Read full article on The Journal website below…

Dail Éireann Written Answers 26/09/17 – Department of Defence – Protected Disclosures

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

548. To ask the Taoiseach and Minister for Defence if he has acted on the information relayed to him by a whistleblower that specifically named the Defence Forces official who allegedly ordered the destruction of health and safety documents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40485/17]

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)

As I have previously indicated to the House, this matter was raised with me in correspondence where certain allegations were made that the documents had been destroyed. The correspondence in question was also addressed to the Chief of Staff and to the Deputy. I requested a report from the Chief of Staff on the actions taken on foot of the accusation.

He has informed me that the officer named met with the General Officer Commanding the Air Corps. The officer concerned has refuted the allegations made and it should further be noted that documents referred to were not military documents, nor did they carry any military security classification.

*****

Can we suggest that Minister Kehoe and the Chief of Staff meet with the NCO who was ordered to destroy the Health & Safety documents to hear his testimony first hand.

Can we also suggest that the Minister & Chief of Staff meet with the Health & Safety officer who commissioned the reports to determine his recollection of the contents of the Tech Stores Air Quality Report & the Ramp Carbon Monoxide report.

Perhaps they might also ask the Health & Safety officer why the adverse findings in the 1995 ERF report and the recommendations in the 1997 Forbairt report were not communicated to lower ranks and why the recommendations for PPE and chemical training were not acted upon for 20 years.

DELAY – DENY – DIE