No C 318/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive concerning the minimum safety and health 
requirements for the use by workers of machines, equipment and installations (second 
individual Directive within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive ...) (*) 
(88/C 318/11) 
On 23 March 1988 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 118 A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
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 15 September 1988. 
The rapporteur was Mr Flum. 
At its 258th plenary session (meeting of 28 September 1988) the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following Opinion with eight votes against and three abstentions. 
1. General comments 
1.1. On 28 April 1988 the Economic and Social Com­
mittee issued an Opinion on the proposal for a Council 
Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage 
improvements in the safety and health of workers at 
the workplace (Framework Directive). The Committee 
saw the proposal as a major advance in the protection 
of workers' health and safety and the harmonization 
and improvement of working conditions in the Member 
States in accordance with Article 118 A of the EEC 
Treaty. The Committee praised the Framework Direc­
tive as an important instrument, in the run-up to 1992, 
for putting humanization of the working environment 
—a vital aspect of social policy—on a par with econ­
omic harmonization and for helping to reduce social 
security costs in the medium and long term. 
1.2. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Com­
mission has now given practical expression to the 
Framework Directive by submitting the present pro­
posal on the minimum safety and health requirements 
for the use by workers of machines, equipment and 
installations (the Use-of-Machinery Directive). This is 
a necessary addendum to the proposal for a Council 
Directive on the approximation of the laws of the 
Member States relating to machinery [Doc. COM(87) 
564 final — the General Machinery Directive]. How­
ever, the General Machinery Directive (based on Article 
100 A of the EEC Treaty) and the Use-of-Machinery 
Directive (based on Article 118 A) must be made legally 
consistent. This applies in particular to the legal links 
between Annex II of the Use-of-Machinery Directive 
(which contains only a non-binding check list) and 
Annex I of the General Machinery Directive (which 
sets out binding essential safety requirements). To this extent, the need for clarity is also in the interests of the 
Use-of-Machinery Directive's implementation by plant 
operators. 
1.3. The Committee recognizes that the proposal on 
the use of machines, equipment and installations marks 
an important departure in the field of occupational 
health and safety, but it thinks that further protective 
measures are necessary. 
1.4. A self-contained body of safety requirements for 
machinery in the Community also requires the adoption 
of a Directive, in accordance with Article 100 A of the 
EEC Treaty, on existing, as opposed to new, machines 
and their placing on the market, commissioning and 
use. This is necessary in order to prevent the develop­
ment of a market for old machines which, in view of 
the lack of safety provisions, could lead to distortions 
in competition. Such a Directive would have to pre­
scribe the same safety requirements for old machines 
imported from non-EC countries. 
1.5. The Directives on placing machines on the mar­
ket and their use must come into force simultaneously. 
1.6. In addition, reference should be made to the 
Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee of 
28 April 1988 on the proposal for a Council Directive 
on the introduction of measures to encourage improve­
ments in the safety and health of workers at the work­
place (Doc. CES No 454/88). 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Article 1 
OJNoC 114,30.4. 1988, p. 3. It should be made clear that the Directive is to apply 
not only to workplaces in an undertaking and/or estab­
lishment but also to workplaces in general, e.g. places 
outside an establishment where assembly or repair work 
is carried out. 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/27 
In connection with Article 1 (2) there would seem to 
be a need to clarify whether more stringent national 
provisions, e.g. retrofitting obligations, are a barrier to 
trade. The relationship between Articles 100 A and 
118 A of the EEC Treaty is affected by this. 
2.2. Article 2 
The reference to the safety or health hazard for workers 
should be deleted in the definition of work equipment 
so as to prevent this from being used as a reason for 
not applying the Directive. 
'Worker' should be defined as follows: 
'All employed persons, including public employees, 
students undergoing training and apprentices' {cf. 
Committee Opinion on the Framework Direc­
tive) i1). 
In addition, the definition of 'workplace' should read 
as follows: 
'All places where workers need to be or to go by 
reason of their work and which are under the direct 
or indirect control of the employer' {cf Committee 
Opinion on the Framework Directive) (2). 
The words 'Work equipment (machines, equipment and 
installations)' at the end of Article 2 should be deleted. 
They are clearly intended to serve as a descriptive title 
for Articles 3 to 6 but they do not appear to fit in with 
these Articles' content. 
2.3. Article 4 
2.3.1. Under Article 4 (1) existing equipment in use 
has five years in which to comply with Annex I. No 
distinction according to the health hazards facing wor­
kers is planned for this transitional period. It is obvious 
that this five-year period cannot apply, for example, to 
serious equipment-related health hazards. Is should be 
borne in mind in this connection that serious accident 
or health hazards caused by machinery, equipment and 
installations can often be eliminated cheaply. It would 
be inconsistent with Article 118 A of the EEC Treaty 
and the Framework Directive on occupational safety to 
tolerate hazards during this five-year period which 
might result in fatal accidents or diseases, such as the 
hazards posed by electricity, fire, explosion, radiation 
(') (2) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 22. and dangerous substances. Therefore, the conversion 
of existing equipment before the end of the five-year 
period must be made compulsory if the protection of 
workers' health so demands. The fact that the proposal 
lays down minimum requirements is another reason 
why this 'escape clause' for the protection of workers 
is indispensable. Without an escape clause, there could 
be legal discrepancies between (a) the Use-of-Machinery 
Directive and (b) other occupational safety Directives, 
e.g. the Council Directive on 27 November 1980 on the 
protection of workers against exposure to chemical, 
physical and biological agents at work (80/1107/EEC). 
2.3.2. Article 4 (2) states that only Annex I is to 
apply to equipment which is placed on the market again 
after the Directive has entered into force. The protective 
measures applicable to such equipment should be strict­
er in some cases than those governing equipment in use 
in establishments, e.g. a safety certificate should be 
required. This matter should, however, be dealt with 
in accordance with Article 100 A of the EEC Treaty in 
a Directive on old machinery (see 1.5). 
2.3.3. The wording of Article 4 (3) is unsatisfactory. 
(This may be due to the German translation.) It should 
be made clear that it is the employer's responsibility 
to identify health and safety hazards facing workers, 
including those caused by the working environment, 
work organization or any other circumstances relating 
to the establishment. For each application the employer 
should also be obliged to acquire the technical equip­
ment which poses the least risk for workers' health and 
safety. Article 4 (3) should include the provision that 
the employer is responsible for guaranteeing the safety 
and health protection of workers. 
2.3.4. It should be specified in Article 4 (4) that the 
employer is obliged to take the corresponding measures. 
The expression 'The employer shall ensure that' falls 
short of stipulating the responsibility of the employer 
for the safety and health protection of the workers. 
Article 4 (4) should also oblige employers to bear 
aspects of occupational health and safety in mind at 
the planning phase, so that these aspects can be incor­
porated in the construction plans. This applies in par­
ticular to equipment designed and built on the 
employer's premises. 
2.3.5. Article 4 (5) should specify that Annex II not 
only serves as a guide but also sets out legally binding 
minimum standards in respect of workers. See the com­
ments on Annex II below. 
No C 318/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
2.3.6. Article 4 should also provide for a partial 
or general ban on equipement being used for certain 
purposes in establishments. 
2.4. Article 5 
2.4.1. From the point of view of worker protection 
it is pointless to supply workers in all cases with full 
written instructions if they are of no relevance to health 
and safety. The aim must rather be to ensure, by means 
of written and oral instructions issued by the employer, 
that safety provisions are observed and the health and 
safety of workers is protected. The employer should 
therefore be obliged to adopt provisions for his estab­
lishment which cover all aspects of the protection of 
workers' health and safety. Written instructions should 
be included in these provisions. 
2.4.2. Article 5 (2) should specify that the employer 
must also issue operating provisions for equipment 
already in use. The 'as far as possible' proviso should 
be deleted, since there is no plausible reason why the 
obligation to provide information about health hazards 
in operating instructions should not exist. 
2.4.3. Article 5 (3) should expressly state that the 
occupational health and safety provisions for the estab­
lishment should refer to all factors specific to the estab­
lishment, e.g. the risk factors arising from the working 
environment, the work organization or any other 
specific circumstances. 
2.4.4. The safety provisions for the establishment 
and adequate oral instructions should be in the 
languages of the workers concerned, insofar as the type 
of hazards so requires. 
2.4.5. Article 5 should stipulate that the occupational 
health and safety provisions or instructions for an estab­
lishment should also apply to workers from outside 
firms. 
2.5. Article 6 
Article 6 (1) restricts the workers' right to be consulted 
since it relates solely to Annexes I and II. This right— 
involving the employer-worker consultations provided 
for this purpose—must be extended to all aspects relat­
ing to health and safety, including those not covered in 
the Annexes. It should be made clear in the second indent of 
Article 6 (1) that the 'second-hand equipment placed 
on the market' refers to second-hand machines used in 
the undertaking. 
Article 6 (2) should be amended so as to stipulate that 
the workers or their representatives may only appeal 
to the responsible authorities after they have given the 
employer an opportunity to remedy the shortcomings. 
2.6. Inclusion of operating provisions 
The following particular aspects of the use of equip­
ment in undertakings should be dealt with in a new 
Article which could be inserted between Articles 5 
and 6: 
— demands on individuals (training of workers, 
instruction and supervision, powers of workers), 
— use of equipment for its intended purpose (equip­
ment must be used only for its intended purpose 
and in accordance with the operating and other 
safety instructions), 
— use of protective equipment and equipment with a 
protective function (equipment may only be oper­
ated if the necessary protective equipment, equip­
ment with a protective function and interlocks and 
couplings are used and are in good working order. 
These devices must not be bypassed or rendered 
ineffective), 
— setting-up of equipment, running repairs and main­
tenance (work must not be started unless hazardous 
movements have come to a halt and the unauthor­
ized, erroneous or unexpected activation of equip­
ment or the triggering by stored energy of hazardous 
movements is precluded; appropriate operational 
and personal measures to cover exceptional cases), 
— operation of warning devices (removal of the risk of 
unexpected hazardous movements; rules governing 
danger signals). 
2.7. Article 7 
Article 7 should provide for consultation of the Advis­
ory Committee on safety, hygiene and health protection 
at work, the Economic and Social Committee and the 
European Parliament. This is necessary, because in legal 
terms amending the Annexes means amending the 
Directive. See also the comments on Article 14 of the 
Framework Directive contained in the Committee's 
Opinion of 28 April 1988. 
2.8. Article 8 
Article 8 (3) should provide for notification of not only 
the Advisory Committee on safety, hygiene and health 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/29 
protection at work but also the Economic and Social 
Committee and the European Parliament. 
2.9. Annex 1 (old machines) 
2.9.1. At the moment Annex I is confined to machin­
ery. The Committee therefore trusts that it will be 
extended speedily. 
2.9.2. Even as far as machinery is concerned, Annex I 
is not suitable for safeguarding the safety and health of 
workers adequately. On the one hand, it is focused 
exclusively on accident hazards and ignores factors 
which induce illnesses (e;g. vibrations, radiation, noise 
and dangerous substances); and on the other hand, 
inadequate reference is made to the accident hazards 
themselves (e.g. explosion risks). 
2.10. Annex 11 (new machines) 
Annex II, which applies to new machines, contains only 
a non-binding list of features (see fourth paragraph of 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1988. point 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the draft 
Directive). The Commission has explained in this con­
nection that the purpose is to provide workers with 
greater protection than Annex I of the General Machin­
ery Directive provides with regard to new machines. 
This aim of the Commission is to be welcomed. How­
ever, it cannot be achieved with the aid of a non-
binding list. Therefore, the express purpose of the list in 
Annex II of the Use-of-Machinery Directive should be 
to bring about, where possible and by means of the 
criteria listed, a higher level of safety and health protec­
tion than that afforded by Annex I of the General 
Machinery Directive. 
For the sake of the two machinery Directives' legal 
consistency, it should be clearly stated that Annex I of 
the General Machinery Directive is always to apply to 
new machines in conjunction with the Use-of-Machin­
ery Directive. This is borne out by the stipulation in 
Article 8 of the General Machinery Directive that its 
provisions also apply to anyone constructing machinery 
for his own use. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT