Document MJa1RxQ0n6kGL5GdzyzOyYvoa

*176 Tu'cufy-second Congress--National Safety Council 'performing hi* ordinary duties,' is interpreted as meaning performing fully and acceptably and without extra assistance all the duties customarily included in a regular assignment to one of his title, payroll classification, and pay rate. For cxan^le, a bralccman or switchman most be able to walk, throw switches, get on and off cars and set brakes: a fireman most be able to fire an engine, take water, shake grates, etc; a trackman most be able to walk, remain standing and work, use wrench, shovel, rake, etc with both hands; a carpenter must be able to stay on his feet, walk, set and drive nails, use handsaw and other tools in a workmanlike man* ncr. a aadnnbt must be able not only to operate his machine, but to do the cus tomary work in connection with placing material.in position mi the machine and removing same. Generally shaking, any injury which, if * occurred off duty, would be regarded as necessarily incapacitating an employee from performing his regular work should be likewise considered as incapacitating him when the accident occurs on duty. The best and most acceptable evidence that a person is able to perform his ordinary duties consists in Ids continuing to do his usual work and pertaining those duties throughout lus regular working period without disability amounting to more than three days during the ten days following an injury." 1 have heard contentions from railroad safety men that employees were trespassers, merely because they violated some rule of the company at the time they got hurt, and I am particularly anxious that we all lave uniform understanding of this tom. as well as others. * A railroad employee na the premises of a radroad. injured while on duty during hour* paid for. shnuld not be classified aa a trespasser. The fact that hr was vio lating the railroad rule, or even a law, does not justify sueh classification. Such casualties most be reported as occurring to an employee. A railroad employee on the premises of a railroad, injured while off duty or outside of hours paid for, can not be classified as a trespasser if his presence on the property is for the purpose of getting to or from point of work, or for any other purpose connected with his service as an employee. Violation of a rule or law does not justify such a classification. Such casualties must he reported as occurring to an employee off duty. He may only be classified as a trespasser if and when hb presence on the premises is (or no purpose connected with hb services as an employee." Necessity of Uniformity in Reporting Accidents By DR. M. O. LORENZ Director. Bureau of Statistics, X. C. C, Washington, D. C. The sjwakcr said m part: We arc all agreeing that it b important tu lure these statistics based on the reports as accurate as possible, and if they show a favorable tendency, wc can aQ rejoice: if they show an unfavorable tendency, you are the first person who wants to know about it o ynu can correct the condition. I think the work of this committee is very important and will help a great deal toward securing uniformity. The definitions wluch it proposes are, with very slight exceptions, m accord with the interpretation and rule*, as I understand them. now. arid? from minor differences which wc shall lie able to iron out without any trouble. There is one which I wish to mentiun especially, to which I take exception, and that b the proposed modification of what is a reportable train accident Mr. Wsrfel has indicated that he profwses to cut out from the expense which u counted in building up to $150. that being the limit of a reportable accident the expenses of Safety Section ANA--Straw Railroad Section NSC 477 going to and from a wreck. Hb proposition b entirely logical. Of course, the ex pense of going to and from a wreck does not affect the importance of a wreck at all. but thb b a critical sign in the condition of the railways, and these particular statistics of train accidents arc being watched, and it would be unfortunate to make any change just now that would dertrw or affect to any nalcrial degree the Com parability from month to month, or from year to year. 1 would rather nut see the statistics disturbed, even !Itough they arc not entirely logical or perhaps entirely uniform vt complete, but I would let each railroad continue to report them as they have been, and the trend in this particular period writl stQ] have some significance. In foci. I think that instead of tinkering with thb rusty old dipper, we might try to get a new* dqi|Kr and frame an entirely new definition of what b reportable as a train accident, and make a fresh start, for that $150 limit has very serious objections. Passing to another part of the Committee's report, tie interpretation liy the Com mittee, that the three days* incapacity means 72 hours and nut three calendar days, b in accord whb our past interpretation. We put oat a circular letter some years ago to that effect. On the other hand, as he has said, there b not otmpletc uni formity at the present time. Some roads are using the calendar lost*, and thry hare perhaps on their side of the argument the fact that the American Standards Asso ciation, in its plan for uniform accident reporting (nm all industries, suggests a three-day calendar day ba*U I should be inclined to adliere to the Committee's report and our past practice, unless I heard from a gnod many ttuve of you that the calendar day basb was preferable. Perhaps, wc ought to issue a circular on llic subject and gather our experience, unless the Committee is satisfied that the majority using the 73-hoar laris is now so large that it would not be wise tn change. I am modi pleased with that part of the Committee's report which Mr. Warfel explained, defining the phrase "performing Ins ordinary duties." As he iriund out. hb proposed definition is, "The phrase, performing hb ordinary duties, is inter preted as meaning performing fully and acceptably and without extra assistance all of the doxies customarily mclndcd m the regular assignment tn me of hb title, payroll ctassifiotion. and the payralc. For example, a brakeman or switchman must be able to walk, throw switches, etc.** If wc had had that strict definition and had aithcrcd to it in recent years. I think it would hare eliminated a good deal of the criticism that has been tecricd against the statistics of injuries. I am sure that even if we had adhered to it, there would still have been a very considerable drop in the number of injuries reported Ivcausc of the rinse attention obtained to what b a reportable injury, but I mean it would have eliminated the grounds for criticism that have existed. For example, it seems as though a switchman reported at work when he was merely answering a telephone. Things of that kind are magnified far beyond their real hn|*ortancc, and therefore this particular part of the Committee's report wfll help a great deal, 1 think, to verify the matter. The following resolution was presented by I. F. Shcdd. chairman of the Resolu tions Committee: Whereas, the Safety Section of the American Railway Association in session at the Stevens Hotel in Chicago. October 3-5. 1933--is not unmindful that the success of tins Thirteenth Annual Convention and of those Conventions that have preceded it can only he attributed to the unceasing interest and untiring efforts of those in *'ho*c hands the responsibility for arrangement and necessary details were placed