Opinion on the General framework for action by the Commission of the European Communities in the field of safety, hygiene and health protection at work (94/C 195/26)

On 19 November 1993 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the General framework for action by the Commission of the European Communities in the field of safety, hygiene and health protection at work.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 14 April 1994. The Rapporteur was Mr Etty.

At its 315th Plenary Session (meeting of 28 April 1994) the Economic and Social Committee adopted unanimously the following Opinion.

1. General comments

1.1. The Committee understands that the Commission's communication is a 'General framework for action' and not an action programme, outlining concrete policies and measures for the next few years. The Committee calls on the Commission to come forward shortly with a proposal for an action programme to the Council, Parliament and itself. This proposal should include the financial basis for the action programme.

1.2. The four fields chosen by the Commission [(1) implementation, consolidation, rationalization and completion of Community legislation, (2) promotion of the Community's work in the field of safety and health at work outside the Community and of international cooperation, (3) information, training and education, and (4) the development of non-legislative accompanying measures intended in particular to supplement and consolidate legislative objectives] can be approved and supported.

1.3. The Committee nonetheless has two general concerns:

- The suggestion by the Commission to include these proposals as a supplement to the 'Green Paper on the future of European Social Policy' may introduce uncertainty and unnecessary delay as to the results to achieve. Health and Safety at the Work Place is an integral part of European social policy and, as such, should have its proper place in the Green Paper.

- The ideas expressed by the Commission are general and vague.

The more specific recommendations by the Advisory Committee on safety, hygiene and health protection at work for a new action programme (January 1993) seem to have been discarded. Apparently, the Commission has also not yet paid great attention to relevant suggestions given by the Economic and Social Committee in recent Opinions.

1.4. Proposals for continuing development of EC occupational health and safety legislation remain unclear. The Commission appears to be moving away from Directives towards non-legislative measures. Whilst the Committee acknowledges the importance of non-legislative measures, it sees several areas for further legislation, as has been expressed in earlier relevant Opinions of the Committee (for example: health and safety training at the workplace, occupational medicine, etc.).

1.5. Monitoring of the implementation of Community legislation by Member States should be an important element in the future social dialogue on occupational safety and health in the Community.

1.6. The Committee urges the Commission to include in its future activities work on possible implications of European normalization policies (based on Article 100A) for the field of occupational safety and health. Workers' and employers' representatives should be properly informed, involved, and supported to play their role. The Commission is requested to make appropriate proposals to bring this into effect. When assessing normalization policies with a view to safety and health at the workplace, knowledge and expertise of national institutions dealing with occupational accidents (like the 'Berufsgenossenschaften' in Germany) should be taken into account.

1.7. The Committee requests the Commission to develop proposals seeking common approaches in the field of occupational safety and health, e.g. with a view to risk assessment, training and enforcement.

2. Specific comments

2.1. Social dialogue

2.1.1. The Committee endorses the importance that the Commission attributes to the role of social dialogue in the preparation of measures in the field of occupational safety and health.

2.1.2. At the same time the Committee recalls its concern expressed in recent Opinions (most recently in its Opinion on chemical substances of November 1993) (1), about a possible weakening of the role of the Advisory Committee. The way the Commission has dealt with the earlier mentioned unanimous recommendations of the Advisory Committee for a new action programme has helped to intensify this concern.

2.1.3. The Advisory Committee must be provided with adequate resources.

2.2. Links with other programmes

2.2.1. The Committee welcomes the extra attention accorded by the Commission to such links with environmental and consumer protection, agriculture and research.

2.2.2. The Committee welcomes that certain Community research and development programmes identify the need to address working environment issues (e.g. the new programme on industrial and material technologies, bio-medicine, and health and the environment). It encourages the Commission to continue this line of action and to develop it further.

2.2.3. The Committee refers to the use which can be made of research and development funds for telematics and Trans-European Networks, together with the establishment of data bases for workplace accidents and occupational diseases.

2.3. Economic and social impact on SMEs

2.3.1. The Committee reiterates the point it has made on various previous occasions that it is not acceptable to exempt SMEs from Community legislation on occupational safety and health. Risk, and not size, should be the criterion for safety and health control. In developing policy instruments in the field of occupational safety and health, the Commission should pay special attention to the feasibility and applicability as regards SMEs.

2.3.2. Impact evaluations are important. However, they cannot replace social and political judgement as a basis for policy making in relation to SMEs - or for that matter all businesses.

2.3.3. There must be openness and transparency in the development of any methodology to be used for impact evaluations. Current methodologies used in the area of occupational safety and health are extremely imprecise and incorporate many contentious assumptions. No methodology should be adopted without full consultation of workers' and employers' representatives and the development of a consensual approach.

2.3.4. The Commission must initiate the development of new activities which can help the SMEs to comply with minimum standards for occupational safety and health. This must be done, inter alia, by supporting the establishment of national work environment funds. It should not be assumed that the problems of SME's (and of organizations in the field of the social economy) can be solved simply by providing more guidance. Developing the role of 'intermediaries' (individuals or entities which operate between regulating authorities and the SMEs, such as trade and employers' organizations, training institutions, banks and insurance companies, suppliers, and main contractors) is a key issue.

2.4. Actions

2.4.1. Implementation, consolidation, rationalization and completion of legislation

2.4.1.1. Member States must strictly implement current EU legislation on occupational safety and health. The Commission must make transparent what is the actual state of affairs. It must produce an early report on the situation to the Economic and Social Committee and Parliament, and consult the Advisory Committee on this report.

2.4.1.2. In the future, the Commission must also report on measures it has taken to stimulate correct transposition and implementation of European legislation in Member States and on the effects of such measures.

2.4.1.3. The Commission must clarify what will be the mandate of the 'Committee of senior labour inspectors'. It must consider the admission of workers' and employers' observers in this Committee.

2.4.1.4. Priorities in the technical development of existing Directives proposed by the Commission must be developed in dialogue with the Advisory Committee.

2.4.1.5. As underlined in earlier Opinions of the Committee, consolidation of legislative texts ought to involve simplification of standards without any lowering of standards or diluting of existing requirements.

2.4.1.6. There must be a review of the existing body of Community occupational safety and health legislation to see which major risk issues are still not addressed by specific Directives. Some examples, on which the Commission must take action, can be indicated right away:

- accidents related to transport at the work site;

- upper limb disorders, related to repetitive work;

- work related stress; and

- prevention of violence at work (experienced by workers who, by the nature of their job, come in contact with the public, as well as regarding problems such as sexual and racial harassment at work, bullying and verbal abuse).

2.4.2. International cooperation and promotion

2.4.2.1. The Commission must clarify which measures it will take to implement its proposals, which funds it has available, and how the latter will be allocated. Encouraging the adoption of Community standards by countries of Central and Eastern Europe is to be welcomed. The Committee wishes to be informed how this will be done. The Commission must also clarify what the implications will be for '100A - Directives' ? Finally, the Committee draws the Commission's attention that its efforts vis-à-vis third countries will only be convincing if Member States of the EU implement these standards themselves.

2.4.3. Information, training, education

2.4.3.1. There is a need to review and, as appropriate, to strengthen the occupational health and safety information rights of workers. The Economic and Social Committee's and the Advisory Committee's recommendations have not properly been taken into account.

2.4.3.2. The Commission must follow an integrated approach covering, by various initiatives and instruments, general education of children at school, vocational training, risk related safety and health training at work (in particular in SMEs), and training of relevant workers' representatives and other risk prevention specialists including relevant managerial staff (cf. the Committee's Own-initiative Opinion on Health/Safety at the Work Place - Training, of June 1993) (1).

2.4.3.3. The actions proposed as regards information must be supported; but it must once again be stated that the proposals are lacking in detail.

2.4.3.4. There is a need to review and map out training standards, resources and systems in Member States, both to assess and compare the current level of training provisions. The Committee recommends the Commission to develop Community-wide training standards, e.g. for occupational safety and health professionals, or for certain high risk activities.

2.4.3.5. The Committee strongly supports the development of comprehensive occupational safety and health studies as a component of education at school and further education curricula.

2.4.4. Non-legislative measures

2.4.4.1. There must be a continuing commitment to develop a uniform system of reporting on occupational accidents and safety and health.

2.4.4.2. The question of multidisciplinary preventive services remains a priority and should be the subject of an early special report. In particular, an examination is needed of the range of experts and services which employers need to employ or have access to in order to enable them to understand and apply the requirements of occupational safety and health legislation.

2.4.4.3. The Committee supports the proposals for guidance on risk assessment as a priority. A consistent approach must be developed which can be applied as appropriate to all classes of risk.

2.4.4.4. The list of topics for special investigations needs to be reviewed and extended. Particular attention should be given to upper limb disorders and violence to staff.

2.5. Definition of priorities

The procedure, timetable and funding of priorities for future work remain unclear. This is a matter of serious concern in the light of extensive consultation and discussion which has already taken place in 1992 and 1993. The Committee urges the Commission to come forward with early and clear proposals.

2.6. The Agency

Meaningful consultation on this 'General framework' could be inhibited if more information on structure, function, role and resources of the Health and Safety Agency is not given. The Committee refers, in this context, to its Opinion on the Agency of April 1992 (among others to the discrepancies identified between the extremely high ambitions expressed in the Commission's proposal and the modest funds available).

Done at Brussels, 28 April 1994.

The Chairman

of the Economic and Social Committee

Susanne TIEMANN

(1) OJ No C 34, 2. 2. 1994, p. 42.

(2) OJ No C 249, 13. 9. 1993, p. 12.