Rouens. In court, four agents who were exposed to asbestos attack the Department
By Mathieu Normand
Published on
They have been waiting for this moment for almost seven years. After a complaint filed in 2015, the CGT union and four agents from departmental council of Seine-Maritime see in court Rouen (Seine-Maritime) Tuesday March 15, 2022. Civil parties at the hearing, they accuse the local authority of endangering the lives of others by manifestly deliberate violation of a regulatory obligation of safety or prudence.
The facts date back to the period from April 14 to 17, 2015, during a decommissioning project on maritime ferry 13, with a view to its asbestos removal. The officers were tasked with removing the items from the bin. “They were exposed to asbestos in this context”, indicates the lawyer of the CGT of the departmental council, Karim Berbra. “The Department did everything to minimize its responsibility, saying that it was just necessary to loosen the bolts [et pas enlever les blocs, NDLR]. The specifications and schedules leave no room for doubt, according to the board. “At no time did these agents go beyond their mission. At no time did they allow themselves to be overtaken or disrupt the site. »
Worried for them, and for their families
The Department took over the management of the ferries in 2001. According to the civil parties, it knew from that moment that maritime ferries 13 and 14, quite frequently used as replacements, were built with materials including asbestos. Dust measurements carried out in 2010, 2012 and 2014 confirmed this for tank 13. “The degradation of the flocking led to the natural release of asbestos fibers in the machine room”, indicates Master Berbra.
To qualify the endangerment of the lives of others, the prosecutors highlighted the failure in terms of risk assessment and prevention: no or little training, a protocol existing since 2012 not implemented, no instructions to wear personal protective equipment, and many missing data according to them in the single risk assessment document, in particular concerning the degree and duration of exposure in working conditions. Three days after the events, dust measurements revealed the presence of two fibres. “At the time, how many were there? We will never know, because you have not taken the dust measurements, ”says the lawyer.
If they were not in danger of death or immediate injury, the agents exposed in this cramped place could in the future suffer the consequences, argues the lawyer, who recalls that a scientific consensus has existed since 1982 on the fact that the exposure limit values do not protect against the development of an asbestos-related disease. A situation providing for “a prejudice of anxiety” among these agents, according to their advice Corinne Morival. They worry for themselves, but also for their families. All returned with their clothes potentially covered in fibers at home. “Their blue was washed with the rest of the family clothes. All the women on the benches behind me are worried, ”says the lawyer.
New exhibitions between 2016 and 2018?
These agents began to realize the problems related to asbestos in 2008, when they had already been working on this equipment for years. “We tell them that we will remove asbestos from ships only in 2015”, emphasizes Maître Morval. If there is a prescription for earlier periods, it indicates that potential exposure was subsequently identified from June 2016 to January 2021. go to work without a mask.’ In 2018, asbestos is again found. And in 2021, the tank will resume asbestos removal…”
She insists with her colleague, moreover, on “a key piece” corroborating according to them the negligence of the department: the testimony of the assistant foreman after the 2015 site. On April 17, it was he who decided to stop the work on discovering “all the dust in the engine room”. “A subcontractor had exercised his right of withdrawal shortly before,” recalls Master Bebra.
The prosecutors’ lawyers are hopeful that this “technical, but very factual file” will lead to favorable conclusions from the court. However, the public prosecutor’s office did not launch a prosecution after the 2015 complaint, pushing the civil parties to set up a direct summons procedure. The deputy prosecutor even reveals during the hearing that she does not know if the case is still in progress, having found no trace of the file.
“The Department does not do anything”
The Department’s lawyer, Emmanuelle Dugué-Chauvin, does not question “the scourge” of asbestos, nor its dangerousness. She also does not deny “the fact that there was potential exposure”, but at “low levels”. On the other hand, it denies the deliberate aspect of the violation of the obligations of which the community is accused. “The Department has not been inconsistent, passive and inert in the face of the asbestos problem”, she assures us, granting the adoption and implementation of measures “little by little”, a commitment to “a comprehensive risk investigation”.
On the 2015 episode, she evokes “a disorganization” and concedes that “it does not happen as it was supposed to happen”, but assures that “the Department does not do anything and surrounds itself with specialists”. The Board recalls that the operating procedures were subsequently updated. As for the prejudice of anxiety, she considers that the notion of repeated exposure is missing, as well as documents justifying this prejudice, such as medical certificates or testimonies from relatives. She asks the court to release her and not to publish the judgment. ” [Le Département] shouldn’t be ashamed of what he did. He is on the way to progress. »
For their part, the agents’ lawyer is claiming 18,000 euros for each of his clients. The CGT departmental union, which became a civil party at the hearing, and which accompanied the CGT of the Department in the legal and training procedures, is asking for €20,500. This rather unusual trial was a showcase for the union to discuss the asbestos issue. Gérald Le Corre, who invented the UD CGT, said he wanted to “take advantage of this hearing so that the leaders of this local authority become aware of their criminal responsibility”. An exemplary condemnation would be important to allow better prevention on the part of private and public employers. The court will deliberate on May 10.
Was this article helpful to you? Note that you can follow 76actu in the My News space. In one click, after registration, you will find all the news of your favorite cities and brands.