Just as the question of proper canteens _Women in the factory

bound up with organisation and good welfare superintendence, so also did

other items appear to be associated with it in the Inspector’s reports—

_e.g._, suitable protective clothing for those engaged in dusty or dirty

processes, in excessively wet or excessively hot processes, in use of

acid or caustic liquids, or in working about dangerous machines.

Cloakroom arrangements and their care were specially closely bound up

with the possibility of securing responsible supervision—and for years

in many places the difficulty of getting any adequate attention to

seating arrangements proved on the whole one of the most intractable

problems that the Inspector had to deal with, so long as seats remained

a matter “outside the Acts.” Complaints continued year after year of the

strain of standing occupations, of disciplinary refusal by foremen to

allow workers to sit down at all during spells of work, of vibration

jarring the nervous system through ordinary chairs or while standing.

Seats remained in this category down to 1916, and great must have been

the loss to industry as well as to individual workers through the long

years when conservation of strength by reasonably good seating

arrangements was widely neglected and sometimes ignorantly opposed by

managers.

In 1907, for example, repeated complaints were received of lack of

seats, and some could not be remedied through unwillingness of employers

to accept advice on the subject. In a factory where in the previous year

the injury to health to girls had been shown and advice tendered, it was

found in 1907 that stools had been provided for only thirty-seven out of

three hundred little girls, most of them being between thirteen and

fifteen years of age.

“Many looked delicate and weary, and said they got very tired before the

end of the morning and afternoon spells of work, standing as they did

for five hours at a time ... some seemed to be suffering from swollen

legs and feet or from debility.... Reference was made to the certifying

surgeon, who suspended one from employment and urged the employer to

provide seats for the others. After much persuasion the employer

undertook to increase the seating accommodation, yet when the surgeon

attempted to qualify his certificate with the proviso that the girl must

be provided with a seat this employer said that any girl whose

certificate was so qualified should be discharged.” In such ways did the

need for simple direct regulation of these matters become abundantly

evident. In a spinning factory where seats had been provided for the

preparers, one woman told the Inspector that she had left a factory

where she was earning sixpence a week more in order to work at this

factory where she would have a seat, and “now she was ready for another

day’s work every evening.”[238]

“The custom of employing half-time children on their feet ‘buttoning’ at

shirt factories in Lancashire, on the alternate day system, so that they

stood for ten hours on the alternate days, was found by the Women

Inspectors to be most unsatisfactory. In a few factories seats were

provided at their request by the occupiers, but in some places

persuasion failed: the children worked rapidly, and it was said they

could not get through the same amount if they sat at tables.”[239]

One felt how closely all this was allied to the overstrain touched on

above in Chapter IV. in weight lifting and carrying, and through

overpressure in various ways. In its many manifestations overstrain of

young workers seemed elusive of direct prohibition, and more amenable to

control by well-developed welfare superintendence in touch with a

department thoroughly versed in prevention of industrial fatigue.

Constructive work starting from a rational basis apparently becomes

inevitable for administration after the first stage of prevention of

gross abuse has been passed.

First-aid and ambulance work in the factory system was clearly a

foremost point in welfare work, and has already been touched on in the

chapter on dangerous processes and accidents. Development of Workmen’s

Compensation Acts greatly strengthened the argument for it among

enlightened managers, and in many large Midland factories a well-

equipped ambulance room, with a fully trained nurse, had afforded

considerable experience before the War came, bringing new developments

of this safeguard of health and life as well as of limbs. Even in 1911 a

Factory Inspector wrote:

“On visiting a large factory recently I was interested to find a rest

room in which there were four couches. Two of them were occupied by

girls who were sleeping soundly. I was informed that this room was

often used by girls not feeling well or tired, and that the renewed

vigour with which the workers returned to work after a few hours’ rest

soon made up for the loss of time.”[240]

In 1912 a large factory in Coventry, where hundreds of young girls were

employed, was reported on by Miss Whitlock. A nurse was employed by the

firm whose sole duty was to look after the health of the workers, and

she had a small surgery at which she attended to any slight injuries—of

which there were forty-nine on the day of this inspection. A doctor

called daily and could be consulted by the workers without charge.

Messrooms, where dinners could be cheaply obtained, and an open-air

swimming bath were provided. In a large surgical-dressings factory the

plan was adopted of having a social welfare secretary to care for the

health and welfare of the two to three hundred girls, and here a rest

room was part of the equipment. The cleanliness of the workrooms was

itself a lesson in hygiene. In the same year there were again examples

given by the Women Inspectors, showing the boundless room for growth of

general welfare work and of the more pressing safeguard of supervision

of girls’ labour by trained women superintendents. In a large printing

works in a small provincial town, where 120 women worked among 600 men,

an Inspector found no foreman and no women in charge. There had been a

complaint of behaviour to the Inspector, and she found the manager

anxious about the tone of his factory and ready to welcome her visit.

She urged the appointment of women overseers, and this was

promised.[241]

In the year 1909 a step of some consequence to the movement was taken in

the convening at Bournville, Birmingham, by Mr. Cadbury, of the first

general conference of social secretaries, welfare superintendents, and

manageresses, to consider the aims and results of their work.[242] At

this conference some very practical and helpful papers were read. By

invitation I spoke on the basis existing in the national standards laid

down in the Factory Acts, for the working out in individual factories of

the personal health and welfare of the workers, and I asked them to look

into and consider fatigue and its prevention. Discussion arose on the

means, legal and voluntary, for improving both the conditions in

factories and the physical and industrial fitness of the workers. There

was a marked gain in such meetings and discussions, leading as they did

to the clearing up of ideas, that at that stage were bound to be a

little vague, on the main objects of welfare superintendence and their

relationship to the production of wealth. The majority of welfare

supervisors present at the conference in 1909 would have been surprised

if they could have heard the high estimate of their calling to be

expressed in 1918 by Professor Urwick. “This is a skilled job,” he said,

“so skilled that it is beyond the scope of anyone who has not made a

careful study of the conditions of it ... it requires essentially

detachment as well as knowledge.” However high the estimate was to be,

there was certainly room throughout for ancillary welfare workers as

well, and these early conferences strengthened the professional spirit

in the calling. Partly from them and also from the interest shown by

leading employers came a new movement in the provincial Universities—

following an older one within the London University[243]—to provide some

training for such social workers by hygiene and social welfare courses

and diplomas. This growth led again, in 1917 and also in 1920, through

the war conditions of industry to conferences on training, officially

convened at the Home Office, between representatives of Universities,

employers, leading welfare managers, and the Factory Department.

Perusal of the pages, concerned with the increase of welfare work in the

experience of the Women Inspectors in the Annual Report for 1913,[244]

published but a few months before the great industrial upheaval of the

War, gives a strong impression of growth in the employers’ interest in

welfare, and of the vitality of a desire among an increasing number of

them to secure for employees much better conditions of work than can be

laid down in an Act of Parliament. The value of this growth lay not only

in the details of work done by the social secretary or superintendent in

organising medical, dental, or nursing facilities for care of the health

of the workers, methods of cleansing workrooms, organising messing

arrangements, bathing and washing conveniences, suitable protective

clothing, restful seating arrangements. Behind and above it all was the

possibility of making the “social helper most important to the workers

and a real help to the carrying out of the spirit of the Factory and

Workshop Act. An Inspector may remind an occupier that his factory must

be kept in a cleanly state, but unless there is some woman permanently

on the premises who will organise and look into the details of the

cleansing, and suggest contrivances for the purpose, it is seldom

properly done. Four firms visited in 1913 had arranged classes for their

work-people and ... for technical training ... most social workers had

the initiation of social clubs in their charge ... clubs for sports as

well as gardening.”[245]

In 1914 we passed from peaceful promotion of welfare to warfare, and a

new note had to be struck immediately. “How greatly,” said Miss Squire,

“the army of industrial workers need a commissariat department to cater

for them during their days of active service will perhaps be better

realised now that the public attention has been rivetted on the

victualling of our soldiers in camp and on the front. If ‘an army fights

on its stomach’ is it not also true that a factory works on it?” The

answer came promptly to this and to similar questions that had long been

asked, apparently vainly, by the Inspectors about the needs of

industrial workers. In an East End social restaurant, where the midday

meal was served daily to a hundred workers from a neighbouring factory,

the superintendent and her helpers had for years deplored the

insufficiency of the dinner purchased by the young girls under sixteen,

and they could scarcely refrain from supplying more than was paid for.

“One day soon after the War broke out there was such a run on meat-and-

vegetable dinners that the supply was not equal to the demand ... the

wages had that day been raised voluntarily by the occupier to the

proposed Trade Board rate; the effect was immediate and continued ... a

striking answer to those who cling to the theory that an increase in

wages is of no substantial value to a girl.”[246]

By the close of 1915 an entirely new position and outlook had been

opened for girls and women in industry. In demand for their labour, in

wages, in conditions, and in the possibilities of their output, the

situation had led to a “systematic introduction of hygienic safeguards

that Factory Inspectors had advocated for many years ... supervision of

women by women, provision of means of personal cleanliness, proper meal

and rest rooms and qualified nurses” in the factories. There was a “new

general awakening to the dependance of sufficient output on the welfare

of the human agent.”[247]

This awakening was strikingly expressed in the formation of the Welfare

Department by the Minister of Munitions, for promoting the means of such

welfare in controlled and national factories. This department had as its

first Director an employer experienced in the successful promotion of

industrial welfare experiments in his own factories, Mr. Seebohm

Rowntree. At his wish I supplied him with detailed surveys of the

munition factories, made by the Women Inspectors. Before the end of 1916

he was supplied with 1,396 surveys relating to the welfare conditions of

nearly 200,000 women and girls, classified according to the degree of

urgency for his attention: 31 per cent. of the factories were in the

first and best class, 49 per cent. in the second, and 20 per cent. in

the third class. In the second and third classes were placed factories

lacking in varying degrees and combinations, means for preparing and

taking food, cloakrooms and washing conveniences, first-aid or rest

rooms, seats, and suitable supervision. One must remember that in many

instances the workers travelled daily long distances with only defective

means of transport, and most were working twelve-hour (day and night)

shifts. Great progress was made during the year in so transforming the

conditions in many of the factories as to qualify them for advance to a

higher class. A great stimulus was given to supply of welfare

superintendents by the forming of a panel of likely persons and by

giving them access to intensive training. While mistakes were

unavoidably made in the rush to supply the need, employers being free to

make their own choice, a remarkable proportion of capable and a few

highly distinguished welfare administrators were put up by the movement.

Medical women, moreover, had, and made good use of, a new and important

channel for experience as medical officers of great national factories.

The supply of surveys and reports from the Factory Department to the

Welfare Department, Ministry of Munitions, continued, while co-operation

with dilution officers also developed until well on into 1917. One of

the Medical Inspectors of Factories, Dr. Collis, then succeeded Mr.

Rowntree in charge of the Welfare Department, and early in 1918 Miss

Squire, Deputy Principal Lady Inspector of Factories, passed into charge

of the Women’s Welfare in that Department. Thus a kind of fusion of the

emergency wartime department with the peacetime department for

industrial welfare preceded the end of the War and the rapid closing of

the munition factories that followed. The making of Welfare Orders by

the Secretary of State had, however, begun in October, 1917, under the

powers given by the Act of 1916.

In “The School Child” that Act was pleasantly described as a “little

Police Act,” by which “the Home Secretary obtained large powers to

compel the provisions of many measures for the welfare of the workers in

factories and workshops.” It was there also truly designated as “in

fact, a large extension of the Factory Acts,” dependent in some degree

on the reception given to it by the workers. The prompt issue of a

summary of the operative clause of the Act, in “School Child Leaflet No.

14,” is one of the many straws then floating about that one can gather

up now, showing that a new wind of the spirit was blowing in the

industrial affairs of the nation. As I said, however, at the Birmingham

Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute in 1920:

“Only after the Great War was it generally realised how largely the

personal welfare and health of manual labourers rest on their own co-

operation in ... demand for, and use of all the new means placed by

development of science and advancing humanitarian and Christian ideals

at the disposal of industry, and how important it is to have trained

technical assistance in developing the full use of all these means in

each workplace.”

A skilled workman in a large factory, president of his union (a craft

union), and taking a leading part both on the works’ committee and the

district committee of the joint industrial council of his trade, said to

me in the summer of 1920 that he believed that the workers had it in

their power (if they could only see it), in co-operation with the

employers, to do no less than recreate their work and surroundings.

At the time of the passing of the “little Police Act,”[248] in 1916,

there was some apprehension amongst the few workers’ leaders who took

any notice of it that it might mean no more (at the worst) than some new

kind of efficiency engineering or possibly (less objectionably) a mere

revival of philanthropy by employers. Employers themselves appeared to

be too busy to take notice of the Act before it was passed, and it

quickly and quietly became law, the only amendments being such as to

strengthen the provision for initiative by the workers in working out

details.

The Act provided that, “where it appears to the Secretary of State that

the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the

processes carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require

special provision to be made at the factory or workshop for securing the

welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in

relation to the matters to which this section applies, he may by order

require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may

be specified in the order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the

requirements of the order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall

be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory Act, 1901.”

Meals, drinking water, protective clothing, ambulance and first-aid,

seats, facilities for washing, accommodation for clothing, and

supervision were the subjects particularly specified as covered by the

section, but power was given to the Secretary of State to extend it to

other matters, and rest rooms have since been added.[249]

“Orders may be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for

factories or workshops of any class or group or description.” The first

order, dated October 5, 1917, provided for simple welfare arrangements

for workers in tinplate factories, with their rough and heavy processes

in which women have been employed for many years.[250] The second order

of the same date provided for a wholesome supply of drinking water at

convenient points with suitable drinking vessels in all factories and

workshops in which twenty-five or more persons are employed. The third

order, dated October 12, 1917, was of great significance, providing in

detail for first-aid and ambulance arrangements in large groups of metal

factories, where the greatest number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal,

are reported (including blast furnaces, copper mills, iron mills,

foundries, and metal works). The same provisions were applied, in an

order of November 8, 1918, to sawmills and factories in which articles

of wood are manufactured, the next greatest accident producing group of

works. First-aid was, however, also required in various other classes of

works, for which general welfare orders were made; for example, works in

which bichromate of potassium is used in dyeing, March 22, 1918; oilcake

mills, July 21, 1919; laundries, April 23, 1920; gut scraping, July 28,

1920; gutting, salting, and packing herring in Norfolk and Suffolk,

September 9, 1920. By the beginning of March, 1921, fifteen orders had

been made, of which ten made various requirements for particular

industries. The interesting progress made in development of these

general welfare orders may be followed in the chapters on welfare in the

Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector from 1918 onwards.[251]

The Act further provided that “orders may be made contingent in respect

of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified

number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the

manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained,” and may

“provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of

the arrangements, accommodation, or other facilities for which provision

is made where a proportion of the cost is contributed by the workers;

but no contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or

workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special

benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not

reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless

two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop,

on their views being obtained in the prescribed manner, assent.”

Under these latter provisions no order had been made before the close of

1921, but the way is clearly open for a new initiative by the workers,

and in many factories a share in management of welfare arrangements by

workers through works’ welfare committees had indeed begun before the

War. This share was further developed during the War and has blossomed

out in many new ways since 1918. In 1916, in a large national factory, I

found a workers’ welfare committee, elected on their own initiative,

fully developed with an income of £50 a week. The committee members were

nearly equally men and women, representing every branch of work, one

member representing the management. The funds were raised by agreed

deductions from wages, no other collections being allowed in the

factory. Regular subscriptions were made to local hospitals,

dispensaries, and to prisoner-of-war funds. Newspapers were provided

daily in the canteen and concerts arranged twice weekly. “Whatever we

want we can have,” said a member of the committee to me in describing

the activities of his committee.[252] In a printing works in 1918 a shop

committee, consisting of eleven members, two representing the employers

and nine the workers (four the women and five the men), looked after all

the welfare arrangements, including management of the canteen,

alterations in hours, and wages questions. When the Factory Inspector

found the five hours’ spell being exceeded, the alterations necessary in

arrangements of work were made by the shop committee. In a northern

tailoring factory employing many women there was, in 1917, and still

flourishing in 1921, a “Workers’ Trustees Council” on which workers of

over ten years’ standing in the factory served. Their special function

was to consider and report to the firm suggestions made by the workers,

and some of the most fundamental, with regard to hours, have been

carried into effect. In a large stationery factory—where a Whitley Works

Council dealt with employment, wages, and staff questions—a specially

elected committee dealt with the canteen and sports questions, and

special education and health officers with continuation classes and

sanitation and health questions; the whole welfare organisation was

known as the “Personal Service Department.” In a woollen factory with

representative committees and with well-developed canteen, rest, and

recreation rooms and other provisions for health and welfare, the works’

welfare magazine took the name _Service_, and its first editorial, May,

1919, said: “We want to prove to the world that the primary function of

industry is service.”

Examples could be multiplied from the experience of the Inspectorate of

various types of works’ committees with practical co-operation of

workers and management. These committees, building on a basis of

fairness in wages and other fundamentals, showed that a very good cement

had been found in joint work for welfare, for the building up of

peaceful industrial relationships, even before the formal development of

joint councils of the Whitley type had begun. It has been one of the

great satisfactions for the Inspectorate, when preparing by systematic

enquiry for welfare orders or for the making of welfare pamphlets, to

come upon long, modest, almost unnoticed, histories of welfare

institutions in old-fashioned mills and factories. There is, as Prince

Kropotkin pointed out in his “Fields, Factories, and Workshops,” a

survival all over England of smaller factories and industries helping to

keep alive an older social atmosphere than that of the “factory system.”

Something has certainly lived on in our country that partly accounts for

the definite experience, that representative works’ committees can

revive or replace the more personal relationships formerly existing

between management and workers in manufactures.

Returning for a moment to the legal and official provision for the

workers’ share in welfare activities, the sudden falling away of

employment in the summer of 1920 limited the developments in this

direction, so far as individual factories are concerned, for the

remainder of the period with which this book deals. In the larger matter

of consultation with joint councils for trades, when draft orders were

considered for welfare and for regulation of dangerous processes or

other matters, great progress has been made—_e.g._, in the furniture,

laundry, pottery, building, and silk trades. The Home Office steadily

proceeded with the making of welfare orders, which were generally

received with enthusiasm by workers and by many employers as instalments

of reforms long overdue; also with the helpful series of welfare

pamphlets[253] designed to spread a requisite knowledge of successful

experiments on which good hygienic and welfare arrangements can be built

up in factories and workshops.

At the onset of the almost catastrophic degree of unemployment in 1920—

at the moment when industry appeared to be in full flow of life and

energy—the interest of the community swung round inevitably from the

evolution of a better order within industry to the primary problem of

restoration of that ebbing life and energy. Never could the mutual

interdependence of aims for successful application of material and

labour in industry and for health and welfare of the human agent in

production be more conclusively shown. Nor could the social and economic

value of institutions making for harmonious co-operation between

organisers of industry and the manual workers, in constructive self-

government within the factory system, be more dramatically demonstrated.

It had been a splendid and cheering experience at the brief time of

activity, when the women and girl munitioners and substitutes for men

were being re-absorbed in their old occupations, in 1919 to 1920, to

learn from the Inspectors who were revisiting textile and clothing

factories, laundries, potteries, ropeworks, and other peacetime

industries of women, of the new demands for improved conditions that the

women were making and with good effect. It was the more cheering because

the women had behaved very well in the unselfish spirit in which they

had gone out from their interesting temporary occupations. They left new

welfare behind them for the returning men, and they spoke to the

Inspectors with pride and dignity of the new amenities growing up in

their own old workplaces. Large numbers of women munition workers had

been recruited from the old-time industries with unreformed conditions

of personal hygiene, and they rightly showed a marked reluctance to

accept the old bad standards. Alert young managers, back from the field

of war, quickly took the hint and moved their old directors into the new

and right direction. “We have seen the impossible undertaken and

accomplished, and we want to carry on here too,” was the keynote struck

by some of them. New standards had, of course, been tried and their

value proven in production for the nation; yet there was something

greater than the realisation by employers of the possibility of more

harmonious relations and the higher efficiency to be gained by better

conditions of work. There was a widened outlook and a new spirit of

comradeship for the workers in many young employers lately returned from

the War, and a readiness to put responsibility on to workers’

representatives. Managers would “speak with enthusiasm of the general

interest and communal responsibility that has resulted” from the

activities of representative works’ committees, and would praise the

“eminently practical” nature of their proposals.[254] In socially

backward, rough industries, where even elementary requirements of the

Factory Act had still to be forced on the attention of occupiers, the

Inspectors hoped for an awakening through the application to them of the

new stimulus of a welfare order. In the trades that were little

organised from the workers’ side enquiries began to come from individual

workers—a hopeful sign—as to when an order might be expected in their

particular trade.

The effect in some factories with old-established welfare institutions

of the introduction of representative works’ committees has been

remarkable in the advance of the workers in self-reliance and interest

in their work, and in initiative in developing better conditions. Most

striking in their activities are some of the works’ committees in

industries where the constitution of the committee has been approved by

the Joint Council for the trade. In one such factory the accomplished

welfare superintendent has been enrolled a member of the trade union.

She is secretary of the works’ committee, and the elections of the

committee are carried out under the care of the trade union secretary.

Here the careful supervision of the health and safety sub-committee of

the works’ committee is evident in the excellence of the fire drill and

other arrangements and the good, coloured “safety first” notices at the

machines. The note of authority that is apparent in the rules drawn up

by the committee reflects the representative basis of the government of

daily life in the factory. An extensive, well-chosen library is an

outstanding feature of the social arrangements.

The immense advantage for future control of many risks and

inconveniences, as well as promotion of constructive welfare work in

industry, that may be reaped from the vigilance of workers, practised in

methods of self-government, is so obvious after seeing some of their

earlier achievements that one can only marvel that it has taken so long

for the “captains of industry” to begin to make the discovery. The

position of influence over the minds of workers held in the old-time

craft industries by the “master” craftsman can, it appears, in a new

way, be regained in modern factories with their specialised production.

The whole organisation of great industry is necessarily so intricate and

complicated that with the added machinery of internal factory

government, by committees, a “master organiser” is certainly necessary

to the success of the undertaking. This will become increasingly clear

to all workers capable of entering into the meaning of their

surroundings, when their share in self-government grows and their

contact with the organiser becomes closer. Already eloquent tributes may

be heard from individual workers to the “wonderful” organising gifts of

the employer or manager where the boon of representation has been

conceded to them.

Notwithstanding all the wonderful discoveries and inventions multiplying

power to increase wealth that could have been turned to the social

welfare and happiness of the worker, the factory system of the

nineteenth century failed portentously on this social side. It failed

through its blind and too often barbarous neglect of the really great

part that can be played both in workmanship and in organisation by the

spiritually endowed human agent of production. Man, woman, young worker,

or child, with their varying needs and capacities, they were all alike

“hands.” Their moral claims to a secure share in the good things—the

wealth and the welfare—that their labour helped to buy for the whole

people were not the only things denied to them. They have only won

through to the possibilities of the new position that lies ahead (when

industry can be revived), through sufferings and trials that are

difficult now to imagine, but of the story of which no responsible

thinker or leader in the nation’s affairs should ever be allowed to

remain ignorant.

“In the struggle for life to which industrial undertakings are subject,”

said the Belgian Vandevelde many years ago, “the final victory is

reserved for those who know how to meet their rivals not only with the

most perfect machinery, but yet more with the best human material, the

most solid array of moral and intellectual forces.”

That was a warning that need not have fallen on deaf ears, even in an

avowedly competitive society, and that might have been understood by the

factory organisers of the nineteenth century. It is a new world that has

to be faced now, and although we should not forget that saying, we may

better dwell on the thought that harmony in industrial relationships

promises to be the natural outcome of associated human effort for the

sound, plentiful production that mankind so greatly needs and that may

minister to a reviving desire for fitness and beauty in the world.

APPENDIX I

DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES

REGULATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PROCESSES CERTIFIED AS

DANGEROUS UNDER SECTION 79, FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901.

┌─────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┐

│ 1. │ 2. │ 3. │

│ _Date of_ │ _Class of │ _Kind of │

│ │ Manufacture, │ Risks._ │

│ │ Machinery, │ │

│ │Plant, Process │ │

│ │or Description │ │

│ │ of Manual │ │

│ │ Labour._ │ │

├──────────────┬──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│_Certificate._│_Regulations._│ „ │ „ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=1.= Feb. 24, │Dec. 19, 1921.│1. =Aerated │Accidents from│

│ 1921. │ │Water.=— │bursting │

│ │ │Manufacture of,│bottles. │

│ │ │and processes │Exposure to │

│ │ │incidental │wet. │

│ │ │thereto. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=2.= May 9, │ │2. =Arsenic.=— │Poisonous │

│ 1892. │ │Extraction and │dust. │

│ │ │use of. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=3.= Aug. 26, │Dec. 30, 1908.│[255]3. │Poisonous │

│ 1907. │ │=Benzine.=— │fumes and │

│ │ │Manufacture of │dust. │

│ │ │nitro and amido│ │

│ │ │derivatives of │ │

│ │ │and of │ │

│ │ │explosives with│ │

│ │ │dinitrobenzol │ │

│ │ │or │ │

│ │ │dinitrotoluol. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=4.= June 6, │June 26, 1908.│4. =Brass.=— │Injurious │

│ 1907. │ │Casting of, or │fumes. │

│ │ │any alloy of, │ │

│ │ │copper with │ │

│ │ │zinc. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=5.= Oct. 29, │ │5. │Injurious │

│ 1910. │ │=Briquettes.=— │dust. │

│ │ │Manufacture of │ │

│ │ │patent fuel │ │

│ │ │with addition │ │

│ │ │of pitch. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=6.= March 7, │ April 16, │6. =Bronzing= │Injurious │

│ 1911. │ 1912. │with dry │dust. │

│ │ │metallic │ │

│ │ │powders in │ │

│ │ │letterpress │ │

│ │ │printing, │ │

│ │ │lithographic │ │

│ │ │printing, and │ │

│ │ │coating metal │ │

│ │ │sheets. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=7.= Oct. 6, │ │7. =Buildings= │Accidents from│

│ 1921. │ │in course of │falls or │

│ │ │construction, │falling bodies│

│ │ │alteration, │or from │

│ │ │repair, or │machinery. │

│ │ │demolition. │Plumbism │

│ │ │ │(painters and │

│ │ │ │plumbers). │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=8.= April 24,│Nov. 28, 1921.│8. │Fire (highly │

│ 1914. │ │=Celluloid.=— │inflammable │

│ │ │Manufacture, │material). │

│ │ │manipulation, │ │

│ │ │and storage of.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=9.= Dec. 14, │ │[256]9. │Caustic │

│ 1920. │ │=Chemicals.=— │liquids in │

│ │ │Manufacture and│vats, etc. │

│ │ │processes │Poisonous │

│ │ │incidental │gases. │

│ │ │thereto carried│Injurious │

│ │ │on in “Chemical│dust. │

│ │ │Works” (as │Explosions and│

│ │ │defined in the │fire. │

│ │ │Schedule). │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=10.= June 27,│Aug. 15, 1913.│[256]10. │Injurious dust│

│ 1913. │ │=Chromate= and │and fumes. │

│ │ │Bichromate of │ │

│ │ │Potassium, │ │

│ │ │Sodium, │ │

│ │ │manufacture of.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=11.= │Dec. 21, 1911.│11. =Cotton │Humidity. │

│ │ │Cloth Weaving.=│High │

│ │ │ │temperatures. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=12.= Sept. │Oct. 28, 1904.│12. =Docks, │Risks to life │

│ 30, 1902. │ │Wharves,= =and │and limb from │

│ │ │Quays=, loading│dangerous │

│ │ │and unloading │machinery and │

│ │ │at, and │appliances, │

│ │ │loading, │and ladders │

│ │ │unloading or │and corners, │

│ │ │coaling any │and lack of │

│ │ │ships in any │fencing for │

│ │ │dock, harbour, │dangerous │

│ │ │or canal. │hatchways, │

│ │ │ │etc. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=13.= │ │13. │ │

│ │ │=Earthenware │ │

│ │ │and= =China.= │ │

│ │ │(See under │ │

│ │ │=Potteries=, │ │

│ │ │No. 32.) │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=14.= Aug. 3, │Nov. 24, 1903.│14. =Electric │Poisonous dust│

│ 1903. │ │Accumulators=, │and fumes │

│ │ │manufacture of.│(lead). │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=15.= Aug. 9, │Jan. 1, 1909. │15. │Danger to │

│ 1907. │ │=Electricity.=—│health or to │

│ │ │Generation, │life and limb │

│ │ │transformation,│from shock, or│

│ │ │distribution, │burns, or │

│ │ │and use of. │fire. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=16.= Sept. │Dec. 22, 1908.│16. │Poisonous │

│ 21, 1908. │ │=Enamelling=, │dust. │

│ │ │vitreous, of │ │

│ │ │metals or │ │

│ │ │glass. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=17.= June 6, │Aug. 19, 1902.│17. =Felt │Fire and │

│ 1902. │ │Hats=, │explosions. │

│ │ │manufacture of,│ │

│ │ │where │ │

│ │ │inflammable │ │

│ │ │solvent is │ │

│ │ │used. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=18.= Sept. │June 23, 1903.│18. =File │Metallic lead │

│ 22, 1902. │ │Cutting= by │dust. │

│ │ │hand. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=19.= May 11, │Feb. 26, 1906.│19. =Flax and │Irritant dust,│

│ 1905. │ │Tow=, spinning │artificial │

│ │ │and weaving of.│humidification│

│ │ │ │and high │

│ │ │ │temperatures. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=20.= Oct. 14,│Oct. 15, 1909.│20. =Grinding │Irritant dust │

│ 1908. │ │of= Metals and │(silica and │

│ │ │Racing of │gritty │

│ │ │Grindstones. │particles, │

│ │ │ │also steel and│

│ │ │ │iron powder). │

│ │ │ │Accidents. │

│ │ │ │Moisture. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=21.= Jan. │Aug. 28, 1907.│21. =Hemp and │Vegetable │

│ 29, 1907. │ │Jute= spinning │dust. │

│ │ │and weaving. │Liability to │

│ │ │ │tetanus in │

│ │ │ │case of │

│ │ │ │lesions of the│

│ │ │ │skin. │

│ │ │ │High │

│ │ │ │temperature in│

│ │ │ │spinning and │

│ │ │ │humidity. │

│ │ │ │Cold and │

│ │ │ │draughts in │

│ │ │ │preparatory │

│ │ │ │process. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=22.= Oct. │Dec 29, 1921. │22. =Hides and │Anthrax spores│

│ 15, 1920. │ │Skins.=[257]— │in the │

│ │ │Dry or dry- │material. │

│ │ │salted, │ │

│ │ │imported from │ │

│ │ │Africa │ │

│ │ │(including or │ │

│ │ │Asia (including│ │

│ │ │Japan and Malay│ │

│ │ │Archipelago), │ │

│ │ │handling of. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=23.= May 23,│Dec. 20, 1907.│23. =Horsehair │Anthrax spores│

│ 1907. │ │from= =China, │in the │

│ │ │Siberia,= =and │material. │

│ │ │Russia=, use │ │

│ │ │of. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=24.= Dec. 21,│Mar. 31, 1922.│24. =India- │Poisonous dust│

│ 1920. │ │rubber.=— │(lead). │

│ │ │Certain │Injury to │

│ │ │processes │health from │

│ │ │incidental to │volatile │

│ │ │the manufacture│vapour. │

│ │ │of, and of │Accident from │

│ │ │articles and │inflammable │

│ │ │goods made │vapour. │

│ │ │wholly or │ │

│ │ │partially of │ │

│ │ │india-rubber. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=25.= Sept. 3,│Aug. 23, 1921.│25. │Poisonous dust│

│ 1920. │ │=Lead=,[258] │and fumes │

│ │ │compounds of, │(lead │

│ │ │including │compounds). │

│ │ │carbonate, │ │

│ │ │sulphate, │ │

│ │ │nitrate, and │ │

│ │ │acetate of │ │

│ │ │lead, │ │

│ │ │manufacture of.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=26.= Dec. 13,│ Aug. 12, │26. │Poisonous dust│

│ 1910. │ 1911. │=Lead.=[258]— │and fumes lead│

│ │ │Smelting of │compounds). │

│ │ │materials │ │

│ │ │containing │ │

│ │ │manufacture of │ │

│ │ │red or orange │ │

│ │ │lead and of │ │

│ │ │flaked │ │

│ │ │litharge. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=27.= Aug. │ May 2, 1905. │27. │Accidents from│

│ 24, 1906. │ │=Locomotives │locomotives, │

│ │ │and= =Waggons=,│etc., in │

│ │ │use of, on │motion by │

│ │ │lines and │mechanical │

│ │ │sidings in or │power. │

│ │ │used in │ │

│ │ │connection with│ │

│ │ │premises under │ │

│ │ │the Factory │ │

│ │ │Acts. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=28.= June 2,│ │28. =Lucifer │Phosphorus │

│ 1892. │ │Matches=, │necrosis. │

│ │ │manufacture of.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=29.= Oct. │Nov. 7, 1904. │29. =Mules, │Accidents. │

│ 17, 1905. │ │Self-Acting=, │ │

│ │ │spinning by │ │

│ │ │means of. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=30.= Dec. 1,│Jan. 25, 1907.│30. =Paints and│Poisonous dust│

│ 1906. │ │Colours=, │(lead). │

│ │ │manufacture of.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=31.= Oct. │ │31. =Patent │ │

│ 29, 1910. │ │Fuel=, │ │

│ │ │manufacture of.│ │

│ │ │(See under │ │

│ │ │=Briquettes=, │ │

│ │ │No. 5.) │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=32.= Aug. │Jan. 2, 1913. │32. =Pottery.=—│Poisonous dust│

│ 25, 1911. │ │Manufacture or │(lead). │

│ │ │decoration of, │Silica and │

│ │ │or any process │other dust, │

│ │ │incidental │heat, and │

│ │ │thereto, and │humidity. │

│ │ │the making of │Heavy weights.│

│ │ │lithographic │ │

│ │ │transfers, │ │

│ │ │frits, or │ │

│ │ │glazes for use │ │

│ │ │in such │ │

│ │ │manufacture or │ │

│ │ │decorations or │ │

│ │ │processes. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=33.= Mar. │ April 26, │33. =Refractory│Silica dust. │

│ 22, 1918. │ 1919. │Materials.=— │ │

│ │ │Crushing, │ │

│ │ │grinding, │ │

│ │ │sieving, and │ │

│ │ │other processes│ │

│ │ │involving the │ │

│ │ │manipulation of│ │

│ │ │such materials.│ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=34.= Aug. 5,│April 4, 1914.│34. =Ships, │Accidents. │

│ 1913. │ │Construction= │ │

│ │ │=and Repair= │ │

│ │ │=of=, in │ │

│ │ │shipbuilding │ │

│ │ │yards. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=35.= Sept. │June 30, 1909.│35. =Tinning of│Poisonous │

│ 25, 1908. │ │Metal= =Hollow-│fumes (lead). │

│ │ │ware=, =Iron │ │

│ │ │Drums=, and │ │

│ │ │harness │ │

│ │ │furniture. │ │

│ │ │(Coating of │ │

│ │ │metal articles │ │

│ │ │with a mixture │ │

│ │ │of lead and tin│ │

│ │ │and lead │ │

│ │ │alone.) │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┴──────────────┤

│=36.= │ │36. =White Lead.= (See under =│

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┬──────────────┤

│=37.= June │Dec. 18, 1908.│37. =Wool, East│Anthrax spores│

│ 17, 1905. │ │Indian=, use │in the │

│ │ │of.[259] │material. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=38.= June │Dec. 12, 1905.│38. =Wool- │Anthrax spores│

│ 17, 1905. │ │Sorting=, │in the │

│ │ │willeying, │material. │

│ │ │washing, │ │

│ │ │combing, and │ │

│ │ │carding, and of│ │

│ │ │goat hair, │ │

│ │ │camel hair, and│ │

│ │ │processes │ │

│ │ │incidental │ │

│ │ │thereto.[259] │ │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=39.= Aug. │ │39. │Accidents from│

│ 10, 1920. │ │=Woodworking │dangerous │

│ │ │Machinery=, use│machinery. │

│ │ │of. │Injurious │

│ │ │ │dust. │

│ │ │ │ │

├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤

│=40.= June 1,│Aug. 6, 1907. │40. =Yarn=, │Poisonous dust│

│ 1907. │ │heading of │(lead). │

│ │ │dyed, by means │ │

│ │ │of a lead │ │

│ │ │compound. │ │

│ │ │ │ │

└──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┘

Just as the question of proper canteens and messroom arrangements was