Graft allegations untrue, says CLA

The Council of Labor affairs (CLA) rejected the accusations of a legislator yesterday that it had relaxed safety standards to help a Japanese contractor escape civil liability in connection with two defective gas containers.

In a quick response to PFP legislator Hsieh Chang-chieh's (謝章捷) accusations made at a press conference yesterday morning, CLA officials said that Hsieh had simply misunderstood some highly technical terms from the CLA's report to the Taipei District Court and that the CLA had done nothing corrupt in favoring Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (三菱重工).

Hsieh yesterday accused CLA chief Chen Chu (陳菊) of helping Mitsubishi avoid civil liability by lowering standards for inspection of gas tanks the Japanese company was contracted to build for Chinese Petroleum Corp's (中油) plant in Kaohsiung.

Hsieh alleged that, while results of CLA inspections between 1996 and 1999 showed two gas containers made by Mitsubishi to be defective, the council had dramatically changed its tone since the new chief took over last May, claiming that the containers did comply with safety standards after all.

The changed attitude, which Hsieh said was in a reply to inquiries from the Taipei District Court in December last year, has put Chinese Petroleum in a difficult position as it seeks NT$12.8 billion in compensation from the Japanese company for the defective containers, the legislator said.

"It's not only an indication that the new government is ignorant of labor safety issues, but that CLA chief Chen Chu is guilty of perjury in order to assist the Japanese company to escape liability," Hsieh alleged.

The CLA responded later yesterday, however, that it had never changed safety standards relating to the two containers, which remain classified as defective and barred from use.

In 1991 the Japanese company won a contract from Chinese Petroleum to build three gas containers and completed construction five years later. The labor authorities issued certificates following inspections certifying that the containers were safe to operate.

A year later the CLA found a little "seepage" from two of the containers in a routine inspection but the situation was determined "allowable" as the seepage did not exceed an international limit.

The seepage was found to be over the limit in another inspection in April last year, however, and the CLA determined that the two containers in question had failed to comply with safety standards and warned Chinese Petroleum not to use them. In fact, the containers have never been in operation since their construction in 1991.

Chinese Petroleum filed suit against Mitsubishi last year, demanding NT$12.8 billion compensation from the company, for what it alleges are defects in the containers.

In its reply to inquiries made by Taipei District Court, the CLA specified the difference between leakage and seepage, saying that while "leakage" is a very serious defect, "seepage" is a minor one and "allowable" as long as it is within safety limits.

It is the word "allowable" that has prompted the legislator to accuse the CLA of reversing its previous judgements against Mitsubishi and adopting lower standards which are favorable to the Japanese contractor.

Fu Huan-juan (傅還然), director of the CLA's labor inspection department, said yesterday that it is easy to misunderstand if one only looks at a small portion of a highly-complicated text without taking its context into account.