The Cine Technician (1953-1956)

42 CINE TECHNICIAN March 1956 A.G.M. (Kodak) (Continued) without any heed to what you can live on. They refuse to recognise trade unionism because what they really want is a tail waggers' club, but the moment the tail ceased to wag there would, of course, be trouble. All the more honour, therefore, to those brave spirits who, in defiance of the ban, are keeping the flags flying." Ray Sharpe, Technicolor, said " I am speaking, I think, with the full approval of the Technicolor members, because I think it is disgusting that we, who are usually very militant on various matters to help our other trade union brothers, have left this matter for Kodak to fight on their own. I know that after this meeting I am going to put it to our members in our laboratory to let them know fully the attitude of the Kodak management to A.C.T. and I know as a result our members and Shop Stewards' Committee will make our own attitude felt quite plainly to the Kodak management." Ken Roberts, Kodak, spoke of " they know the repercussions " victimisation of Shop Stewards and A.C.T. members at Kodak and said " people did not realise the influence of A.C.T. inside and outside the factory. Kodak recognised the strength of A.C.T. in the outside industry and they know the repercussions there would be if they came out for direct victimisation of A.C.T. members so they always use a subtle approach." Dermatitis The industrial hazard of dermatitis, to which many of our members in the laboratories are exposed, was the subject of a very illuminating debate. Bill Whittemore, of Humphries Laboratories, moved a resolution (Composite Resolution 2) stressing the gravity of the disease and calling upon the General Council and Laboratory Committee to establish, in conjunction with the Film Laboratory Association, a charter for the prevention of dermatitis, and, meanwhile to make secure the employment of those persons who contract the disease. The resolution was seconded by Joe Lawrence, of Denham, who said that in the past two years they had had twelve cases of dermatitis, which involved a considerable loss of working time. Dr. Gordon Evans, A.C.T.'s honorary medical officer, who attended the A.G.M. specially to deal with this subject, said that it always seemed to him that in every industry a worker could only sell himself and his work by hand or brain and no employer, whether in privately or publicly owned industry, had any right to hazard that man's or woman's health in any way at all by any process or material which might be used in that industry. Referring to the pamphlet which A.C.T. is to issue to every member working in the laboratories, Dr. Evans said that new chemicals were constantly being introduced into the industry and all the details could not be covered in this pamphlet. " We have had to cover certain general principles applying to the prevention of Dermatitis, not only in this industry but in every other industry in the country, principles which by and large were not observed by employers," he said. When new processes were brought in the introduction of safeguards was costly. The problem could only be tackled in two ways, either by getting the full co-operation of employers, or by making it more costly for them not to take precautions, " and by that I mean not only securing a man's employment when he has contracted the disease, but securing his wages as well until he is cured from it." Dr. Evans said that taking Common Law action in cases of this kind was a thing to be avoided if possible because there would almost certainly be a conflict of expert opinion on dermatitis in court. The employer's duty, above all, was to make sure he did not introduce any chemical at all without being sure no health hazard went with it. He should try to avoid using chemicals with a health hazard and if that was impossible he should automatically inform the workers of the dangers, tell them the precautions to be taken and provide the facilities for them. In many laboratories there were closed processes introduced, not to safeguard the workers but to safe " no right to hazard health " guard the firm. The same precautions must be applied to the workers in the industry too and closed processes be introduced wherever possible so that the workers do not come into contact with the chemicals at all. Dr. Evans then referred to the problem of secrecy. " In the present conditions of industry," he said, " it was understandable that an employer did not want to disclose what particular chemical he was using in what might be a secret process." "In time of war you could maintain secrecy by the use of code words, by all means let employers use code words for what particular chemical they have so long as they tell us what the ingredients are (Continued on page 43)