MCIB calls for review of effectiveness of life jacket rules
The Board said regulations in relation to the use of personal flotation devices (PFDs) are being routinely flouted.
The call is contained in a report into the death of a fisherman in Galway Bay, in August 2023, which has been published today.
The MCIB said the casualty went overboard from the Lady Pexia, while he was returning from a fishing trip on 25 August.
He was reported missing by the vessel's skipper, who noticed he was no longer on board, as the boat returned to shore.
The investigation said that the deceased was not wearing a personal flotation device when he was recovered from the water by a Coast Guard rescue helicopter.
The man was taken to University Hospital Galway where he was pronounced dead.
A post-mortem examination found that he drowned.
The report concludes that the consumption of alcohol was a "significant contributing factor to the incident" and that it "likely impaired judgement, leading to risky decisions, such as [the casualty] removing his PFD and engaging in unsupervised activities".
Inspectors said that despite clear legislative provisions and repeated warnings, instances of non-compliance with PFDs persist.
They question the impact of existing laws and suggest there may be a need to improve enforcement by means of prosecutions, in the manner that applies to breaches of road traffic laws.
The report also found that while the deceased had worn his PFD at times during the fishing excursion, it was not functioning properly and was ineffective as a flotation aid.
The MCIB said that apart from the PFD worn by the Skipper, there were no other functioning life jackets on the boat.
The report said this "appears to be a breach of Applicable safety regulations" but goes on to say this is a matter for the prosecuting authorities.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Manager sacked after ‘joke' sext on colleague's phone gets reduced WRC award
A tribunal has made a reduced award for losses from unfair dismissal to a manager sacked after he admitted taking a colleague's phone and sending her husband a 'sexually explicit' text message as 'a joke'. In an anonymised decision just published, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) upheld a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 against the man's former employer after concluding it was 'too extreme' to declare that the man's conduct was 'at the high end of sexual harassment'. He said he was being made the 'fall guy' for a workplace culture of 'sexual comments and innuendo' at the financial services company as he pleaded to its board to be let keep his €60,000 a year job, the tribunal heard. The tribunal heard that in January 2024, the complainant took one of his direct reports' mobile phones from her desk and sent a 'sexually explicit WhatsApp message to her husband', which the other worker, Ms A, found out about as she left to go home. READ MORE The complainant 'owned up' and claimed it was 'meant to be a joke', the tribunal noted. Ms A raised it with the CEO of the organisation as soon as he returned from leave, telling him she and her husband considered the message 'vulgar and disgusting'. The text of the message was not included in a WRC decision document published on Friday. The CEO called the claimant to a meeting and suspended him with pay a week after the event, the tribunal heard. The tribunal noted the evidence of the CEO that another senior employee, Ms B, who came to the suspension meeting as a witness, remarked afterwards: 'I can't believe this is happening again.' The CEO told the tribunal he had forgotten about a previous similar incident involving the same manager in September 2022, and told Ms B: 'If we're to do anything about this, I need it documented.' Ms B later wrote a letter of complaint setting out that she had left a personal device in the company's finance office when she went on holiday in September 2022 so a colleague could use a banking app installed on it, the tribunal heard. While she was away, the man had posted 'two sexually offensive messages' on her social media account, the complaint letter stated. Ms B made contact with the manager and told him not to use the banking app, as she feared the phone was 'hacked'. The complaint letter set out that the complainant 'pretended to be serious at first, and then he began laughing and [said] he had posted the messages as a joke', the tribunal heard. Ms B wrote in her complaint letter that she was 'extremely annoyed', but after arranging with the CEO for a dedicated mobile phone for the finance office, took the matter no further. Michael Kinsley BL, appearing instructed by Daniel O'Connell of Kean's Solicitors in the matter, told the Commission the company had failed to examine the position advanced by his client about the 'culture and behaviour of staff in the organisation', which he said had been 'treated dismissively' at all stages. Mr Kinsley said the investigation was 'biased and prejudged' and the decision to dismiss 'wholly unfair and disproportionate'. Lauren Tennyson, for the company, instructed by Sarah Conroy of Beale & Co, said the employer took the view that the external investigator had made 'extremely serious' findings at the 'higher end' of sexual harassment and that the complainant's behaviour 'warranted dismissal for gross misconduct'. Adjudication officer Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision: 'I do not wish to minimise the impact that the incidents had on the two employees,' she wrote. However, she noted that the complainant and Ms B remained friends after the September 2022 incident, while Ms A had stated she had 'just kind of got on with things'. She considered it reasonable that both women would be angry, embarrassed and shocked at the complainant's behaviour, and that it amounted to sexual harassment. However, the conclusion reached by the company investigator that it was a 'high severity of sexual harassment' was 'too extreme' a view, she wrote. She considered it unfair that the employer included the 2022 incident with Ms B's phone in its probe 'to bolster a case for the dismissal of the complainant', having taken no action about it at the time, she wrote. Ms Byrne also found there were 'serious failings' with the process followed by the employer. They 'failed in their duty to properly consider the complainant's defence' – having spent at most 20 minutes considering the worker's position before deciding to dismiss him. Ms Byrne upheld the complaint of unfair dismissal and awarded the worker €22,500 in compensation. She wrote that this was 30 per cent of his estimated losses of €73,500, calculated on the basis that the claimant was out of work six months and was now earning €314 a week less than he had with his former employer.
Irish Times
21-07-2025
- Irish Times
‘Woo, the tenants are going today': Landlord who allegedly banged bowl with spoon ordered to pay €8,000
A landlord alleged to have stood in front of her tenants' home banging a bowl with a spoon and shouting 'Woo, the tenants are going today' has been ordered to pay more than €8,000 by the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB). In response the landlord told an RTB tribunal one of the tenants had been 'shooting 'scortty' looks' at her daughter. The tenancy tribunal found notices of termination on the grounds of anti-social behaviour served on tenants Megan Kellett and Jake Webster last August by landlords Janna Yore and Eric Yore were invalid. The tribunal heard that Ms Kellett and Mr Webster became tenants of a house in Carrigasimon, Lisduff, Virginia, Co Cavan in November 2020 and vacated the dwelling on September 1st 2024. The tenancy was never registered with the RTB. READ MORE Two seven-day notice of termination were served on the tenants on the grounds of anti-social behaviour, on August 5th and August 13th. Ms Kellett told the tribunal that between August 13th and September 1st, when she and Mr Webster vacated the property, a number of incidents occurred, including Ms Yore standing at their front door at 8am banging a bowl with a spoon and shouting 'Woo, the tenants are going today'; Mr Yore driving his ride-on mower around the house and sellotaping notices to their window alleging breach of tenant obligations; calls to An Garda Siochána by the landlords; and blocking the drive with bins. Ms Yore told the tribunal that before August of last year Ms Kellett had been intimidating the Yore's daughter by asking her not to ride her bike near the house. Ms Kellett had been shooting 'scortty' looks at her daughter Ms Yore said. On August 1st, Ms Yore said she was returning her horses to the stable and asked Ms Kellett to move so she could get by. According to the tribunal record Ms Yore said Ms Kellett refused and 'provoked her and assaulted her'. Ms Yore said at this point she told Ms Kellett she would be serving notice of termination because 'she could no longer tolerate this terrible situation' the tribunal heard. The following day there was a separate incident where Ms Kellett slammed a gate, Ms Yore said. Ms Yore denied standing outside the house banging a bowl with a spoon. She accepted the tenants' clothes line had been removed because Ms Yoke said 'it was spooking the horses' and she acknowledged an electric fence had been moved so the tenants would not have room to put up another clothesline. She said she called Garda because the tenants had made 'such a big deal of the clothesline being removed'. She said that she had 'performed a dance routine' when she found Ms Kellett videoing her. Mr Yore told the tribunal he had an 'informal arrangement' with the tenants and that was why the tenancy not registered with the RTB. He felt the tenants were 'always unhappy' because they had been unable to apply for a tax credit because the tenancy was unregistered. He denied unnecessarily riding around the house on his mower and said he was simply cutting the grass. The tribunal found the tenants were entitled to 180 days' notice based on their length of tenancy. It said that even if the landlords' evidence about the behaviour of the tenants was accepted, it did not meet the definition of anti-social behaviour and so the seven days' notice of termination was invalid. The tribunal has ordered the landlords to pay their former tenants damages of €7,200 for 'unlawful termination of their tenancy', €600 for overcharges in rent, €873.70 of deposit withheld and a €70 fuel credit.
RTÉ News
15-05-2025
- RTÉ News
MCIB calls for review of effectiveness of life jacket rules
The Marine Casualty Investigation Board (MCIB) has recommended that the Minister for Transport reviews the effectiveness of rules relating to the mandatory wearing of life jackets. The Board said regulations in relation to the use of personal flotation devices (PFDs) are being routinely flouted. The call is contained in a report into the death of a fisherman in Galway Bay, in August 2023, which has been published today. The MCIB said the casualty went overboard from the Lady Pexia, while he was returning from a fishing trip on 25 August. He was reported missing by the vessel's skipper, who noticed he was no longer on board, as the boat returned to shore. The investigation said that the deceased was not wearing a personal flotation device when he was recovered from the water by a Coast Guard rescue helicopter. The man was taken to University Hospital Galway where he was pronounced dead. A post-mortem examination found that he drowned. The report concludes that the consumption of alcohol was a "significant contributing factor to the incident" and that it "likely impaired judgement, leading to risky decisions, such as [the casualty] removing his PFD and engaging in unsupervised activities". Inspectors said that despite clear legislative provisions and repeated warnings, instances of non-compliance with PFDs persist. They question the impact of existing laws and suggest there may be a need to improve enforcement by means of prosecutions, in the manner that applies to breaches of road traffic laws. The report also found that while the deceased had worn his PFD at times during the fishing excursion, it was not functioning properly and was ineffective as a flotation aid. The MCIB said that apart from the PFD worn by the Skipper, there were no other functioning life jackets on the boat. The report said this "appears to be a breach of Applicable safety regulations" but goes on to say this is a matter for the prosecuting authorities.
