Health and Safety at Chatham Dockyard, 1945 to 1984. Evaluating

THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL ‘We suffered in silence’: Health and Safety at Chatham Dockyard, 1945 to 1984. Evaluating the causes and management of occupational hazards, relating especially to asbestos, ionising radiation and masculinity. being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Emma Taaffe, BA (Hons), MA April 2013 Abstract This thesis is designed to enhance knowledge and understanding of a range of issues relating to the health and safety of the workforce at Chatham Dockyard from 1945 until its closure in 1984. During this period, the Chatham Dockyard workforce was predominantly white, male and working class. Many workers entered the Dockyard with the expectation of a job for life, while others aimed to take advantage of the superior education system to advance to management grades or to progress to further education and/or a career in naval architecture. The majority of workers lived locally and generations of families from the Medway area earned their living in the Dockyard. Casual workers were also employed and came and went as labour requirements fluctuated, while women occupied positions in clerical, cooking, cleaning, sailmaking, ropemaking and, latterly, traditional male roles such as engineering, slinging and plumbing. A key objective of this study is to establish how dangerous it was to work in the Dockyard, with particular reference to the significant hazards posed by asbestos and ionising radiation. The effectiveness of efforts to mitigate the risks of Dockyard labour is assessed, while the health and safety legislative framework is explored, as is its application to the Dockyards. Gauging the influence of an overtly masculine culture on worker safety, which is central to understanding how and why workers endangered themselves (consciously or not) in some circumstances, is a further objective of this study. In order to establish the masculine culture of this working environment, masculine behaviour traits are explored including camaraderie, provider mentality, risk taking and attitudes toward female workers (especially those working in traditionally male roles). Management strategies are also considered, with Admiralty/Ministry of Defence and local management policies set in their historical and legislative contexts in an attempt to shed light on the factors that informed decision making and management behaviour. This encompasses an account of the comprehensive educational and medical facilities provided to the Dockyard’s labour force in the period. In addition to the review of relevant secondary literature, the study utilises a range of documentary and life history sources. The latter include interviews and questionnaires completed by former workers, relating to work experiences, culture and the impact of industrial injury/disease. This evidence reveals a combination of causal factors that contributed to dangerous working conditions at Chatham Dockyard. While shipbuilding and ship-repairing work itself could be perilous, the study identifies the following contributory factors to risk: competing priorities impacted on the level of protection afforded to workers by the Admiralty and latterly the Ministry of Defence; masculine culture among workers increased the risk of succumbing to occupational illness or injury; and where legislation and Admiralty/MoD policy sought to address risks, these efforts were frequently hampered by communication failure, gaps in knowledge and poor management decisions. The study opens a discourse on the history of health and safety in the Royal Dockyards after 1945 and contributes to the historiographies of the use and impact of asbestos and nuclear power in industry. It also adds to literature in the fields of naval, maritime, labour, gender and medical history, while the testimony collected during the study makes an important contribution to the life history of Chatham Dockyard and builds on existing oral histories of the Royal Dockyards. Disclaimer The material used for this study does not knowingly contravene copyright, defamation, data protection, official secrets or freedom of information legislation. Interviewees and questionnaire respondents were made aware of the intended use of the information that they supplied and any request to remain anonymous was honoured. No defamatory comments have been reproduced in this thesis. It was made clear that the intention was to deposit copies of recordings and questionnaires with either the Royal Dockyard Library or the Chatham Dockyard Historical Society in order that future researchers may interrogate them. The UK Data Archive ethical principles (Appendix 7) were adopted during the study and ethics approval was obtained from the University of Hull. Page 2 of 333 Acknowledgements My first debt of gratitude must go to my supervisor, Professor David J Starkey, for his encouragement and guidance. I am particularly thankful for his support and understanding through a long and sometimes challenging period of study. The study would not have been possible without the testimony of former Chatham Dockyard workers. I am sincerely thankful to all who took part in interviews and completed questionnaires. The names of the participants are listed in Appendix 1, except where individuals requested anonymity. Fellow Members and friends from the Chatham Dockyard Historical Society were very accommodating. Many generously spent time explaining technical issues and sharing their experiences. I am especially grateful to Philip Lewing for his steadfast and honest help and advice. I am also thankful to Brian Jenkins, who helped to bring context to many issues and who also introduced me to helpful contacts and to the late Harold Bennett, a man who provided me with considerable assistance and was a dear friend. Pam Woods, Visitor Centre Manager for the Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust, kindly introduced me to contacts for the study and made it possible for me to interview former workers in the Dockyard. Throughout the study I have benefitted from the support and guidance of Dr Lewis Johnman, for which I will always be grateful. I am also thankful to Professor Geoffrey Tweedale for his advice and for access to the Turner & Newall Archive. His comments on the draft of Chapter 5 were very welcome. Barbara Jones, dear friend and Information Services Manager at Lloyd’s Register, has also been on hand with advice and to proof read draft chapters. I am also indebted to friends and acquaintances from the archives accessed during the study including Richard Ward, Parliamentary Archives and Norma Crowe, Cindy O’Halloran and Nikki Pratt, Medway Archives and Local Studies Centre. John Chambers and his successor as Librarian, Helen Crowe, at the Royal Dockyard Library deserve special mention for hunting out sources even when the vaguest information was provided. The MoD has also been very accommodating of my enquiries, which at times related to quite controversial issues. I am very grateful to Catherine Ansell, Senior Occupational Hygienist at Devonport Dockyard, for giving so generously of her time when Page 3 of 333 I visited the Dockyard. I would also like to thank her and Ronald Brown, Principal Scientist, Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, for answering my many questions so comprehensively. Finally, none of this would have been possible without the forbearance and help of my family. The persistent and selfless support that I received from my parents and from my partner and best friend, Keith Povey, was invaluable. Page 4 of 333 Contents Page no. Disclaimer 2 Acknowledgements 3 Contents 5 Tables and illustrations 6 Glossary 8 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: Historical and legislative background 35 Chapter 3: ‘Cold. Wet. Noisy. Degrading.’: hazardous work in Chatham 69 Dockyard Chapter 4: A culture of danger? 101 Chapter 5: Falling out of love with asbestos 141 Chapter 6: ‘You’re safer in nuclear’ 220 Chapter 7: Conclusion 294 Appendices: Appendix 1: List of participants 303 Appendix 2: Questions from initial questionnaire 306 Appendix 3: Questions from asbestos questionnaire 311 Appendix 4: Questions from radiation questionnaire 312 Appendix 5: Checklist for discussion groups and interviews 313 Appendix 6: Introduction to group discussions participants and 314 interviewees Appendix 7: Ethics in oral history research 315 Appendix 8: Example release form 316 Bibliography 318 Page 5 of 333 Tables and illustrations Page no. Illustrations Figure 2.1 The Old Surgery 67 Figure 2.2 Advertising hoarding at Gillingham Football Ground, 68 1979 Figure 3.1 Accident photograph: burner, fall from scaffolding 90 Figures 3.2a/b Examples of confined spaces 91 Figure 3.3 Accident photograph: electrical fitter, finger trapped in 92 machinery Figure 3.4 Illustration of Caisson No 3. 93 Figure 3.5a Steam crane explosion 94 Figure 3.5b Steam crane in Museum collection today 94 Figure 3.6 Example of safety notice 95 Figure 3.7 Accident photograph: death of skilled labourer 96 Figure 3.8 Accident photograph: death of electrical fitter 97 Figure 3.9 Accident photograph: worker injured by steam crane 98 Figure 4.1 HMS Ocelot 129 Figure 4.2 Cartoon: impression of female apprentice 130 Figure 4.3 Female apprentice Sukhdev Panesar (Apprentice of the 131 Year) Figure 4.4 First technician apprentices receiving their deeds 132 (including Zandra Bradley) Figure 4.5 First female apprentice, Zandra Bradley 133 Figure 4.6 First female apprentice plumber, Marion Rogers 134 Figure 4.7 Cartoon: ear defenders 135 Figure 4.8 Cartoon: equal pay 136 Figure

Load more