28.11.79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 297/5 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the protection of workers from 
harmful exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 89 of 5 April 1979, page 6. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 16 March 1979, the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
171st plenary session, held in Brussels on 26 and 27 September 1979. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 100 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 16 March 1979 for an 
opinion, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
22 March 1979, instructing the Section for Social 
Questions to draw up an opinion and a report on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the 
abovementioned Section at its meeting on 13 
September 1979, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Blasig, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 171st plenary 
session, held on 26 and 27 September 1979 (meeting 
of 26 September 1979), 
Whereas life and good health are the most precious 
human possessions; Whereas it is a consequence of technological advance 
that increasing use is made in traditional working 
environments of materials whose effects on human 
health are unknown to both employers and workers 
and in whose use no one has been trained; 
Whereas the development of technology is 
continually leading to the discovery of new materials 
whose effects on human health are as yet unknown; 
Whereas the risks to which workers are exposed at 
their workplaces have consequently increased 
considerably, and whereas the possibilities of 
controlling these risks have, however, also improved; 
Whereas there is a need to align regulations 
governing worker protection, since the costs of 
implementing protective measures would place a 
considerable burden on the economies of individual 
Member States and inevitably lead to competitive 
disadvantages (or cost advantages in other countries), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
with no votes against and one abstention: 
No C 297/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 11.79 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee fully supports the aim of the 
proposed Directive, namely to protect workers from 
exposure to harmful agents at their workplace. The 
Directive will speed up the coordination of existing 
regulations in the Member States and bring them 
suitably into line with the most recent requirements in 
the areas of industrial medicine, hygiene and safety. 
1.2. The present proposal is a follow-up to the 
Council resolution of 28 June 1978 on an action 
programme of the European Communities on safety 
and health at work ('), on which the Committee has 
already issued an opinion (2). The Committee would 
draw attention to the principles set out in this opinion 
as regards health and safety at work. 
1.3. The Committee would like to make the 
following fundamental comments with regard to the 
proposal for a Directive. 
1.4. The Committee notes that the proposed 
Directive is concerned solely with protecting workers 
from dangers at their workplace. This protection 
applies to dangers arising both from the manufacture 
and the use of harmful agents. 
But environmental protection should not be 
overlooked either, and suitable measures should be 
taken in due course to protect the general public from 
any dangers that might arise from the manufacture or 
use of harmful agents. The Committee would also 
draw attention in this context to its opinion on the 
Commission's first environmental protection 
programme and the current discussions on the 
implementation of the second environmental 
protection programme. 
1.5. Because of the rapid pace of technological 
development, worker protection, in particular, is 
continually faced with new challenges which are not 
always easy to meet. It is especially necessary to adapt 
work to man and at the same time encourage safety-
consciousness amongst employers and workers. The 
Committee recognizes that a conflict could arise 
between maximum protection for workers on the one 
hand, and technical progress and economic growth, 
on the other. In the Committee's view, priority must 
(') OJNoC 165, 11.7. 1978, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No C 283, 27. 11. 1978, p. 19. be given to protecting the health of workers. 
Solutions should, however, be sought which provide 
workers with maximum protection without 
jeopardizing technical progress, and consequently 
economic growth, any more than is necessary. Such 
solutions should also take account of the need to 
maintain the Community's competitiveness vis-a-vis 
other industrialized countries. 
1.6. A meaningful degree of worker protection can 
only be achieved through the cooperation of all 
concerned, especially in the form of consultations 
between employers and workers in planning and 
implementation the measures necessary. It is par­
ticularly important that there should be cooperation 
in the training and education of workers and an 
exchange of information on preventive measures to 
safeguard workers, including information on the right 
way to use protective equipment. 
1.7. The Committee welcomes the Community 
programmes to promote the safety and protect the 
health of workers. It would, however, urge that these 
programmes should not lead to the abolition of 
existing, proven national regulations and institutions 
but should merely supplement them where necessary. 
1.8. All measures should aim at creating humane 
working conditions. This requires not a flood of 
legislation but rules which are clear and technically 
sound and which can be understood and implemented 
in practice by employers, workers and their rep­
resentatives. 
1.9. The Committee considers that the 
Commission's proposals must use clear and under­
standable concepts and definitions. In this connection 
proposals must also be put forward on the standard­
ization of statistics and statistical methods, as well as 
accident reports, particularly regarding the effects of 
dangerous substances. 
1.10. It is unsatisfactory that the level of 
knowledge in the sphere of industrial medicine should 
still diverge considerably from one Member State to 
another. There are also differences as regards 
legislation, generally recognized rules of technology, 
rules on occupational hygiene and rules based on 
proven knowledge in the area of work studies. 
The Committee had hoped that a draft Directive 
would lead to a greater degree of alignment here. In 
the Committee's view, however, the draft is lacking in 
clear definitions and statements by the Commission. 
28. 11.79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 297/7 
The Committee also thinks that industrial medicine 
and the training of specialists in this field should be 
promoted to a greater degree by Commission 
measures. 
1.11. The Committee intends to prepare separate 
Directives for individual agents to supplement the 
present outline Directive. The Committee considers 
that employers and workers must be involved in the 
framing of these Directives. 
1.12. Some passages in the proposal ought to be 
redrafted to remove any risk of conflicting interpret­
ations. This applies particularly to the passages 
concerning the scope of the Directive and the powers 
of the Industrial Medicine and Hygiene Committee. 
1.13. On the basis of the above, the Committee 
approves the Commission's text, subject to the 
comments which follow on the individual articles in 
the proposal. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The proposal's title 
The Committee notes that the title of the proposal for 
a Directive gives rise to different interpretations in the 
various languages. It proposes that the title be worded 
in such a way as to indicate clearly in each language 
that the draft Directive deals with the protection of 
workers at the workplace. In the Committee's view 
'workplace' should be taken to mean not just the 
actual place where a person works in a factory, etc. 
but also the immediate surroundings of the place 
where the work is carried out. The terms which 
should be used are: English: 'at the workplace'; 
French: 'Lieu de travail'; German: 'am Arbeitsplatz'. 
2.2. Article 1 
After considerable discussion the Committee 
concluded that Article 1 of the proposal for a 
Directive had not been drafted clearly enough to 
avoid misunderstanding as regards the aims of the 
proposal. It therefore requests the Commission to 
review the wording of this Article in the various 
languages. For the rest, the Committee is in 
agreement with the objectives of the first and second 
indents. 
2.3. Article 2 
As indicated earlier in the general comments, the 
Committee considers that the definitions given in this 
Article for 'agents' and 'limit values' are not clear 
enough and, as was apparent from the discussions in the Committee's section for social questions, these 
definitions may give rise to considerable difficulties in 
interpretation. This applies both to the translations in 
the various languages and to the use of technical 
terms. The Committee therefore suggests that the 
Commission review the wording of this Article, 
taking into account the following comments: 
(a) Agents' 
The term 'agents' should cover chemical, physical 
or biological substances (effects) present at the 
workplace which are recognized to be health 
hazards or judged to be harmful. This recognition 
or judgement of substances as harmful should be 
based on expert scientific knowledge and not, as 
might be deduced from the current version of the 
Article, merely on presumption. 
The Committee thinks that it would make for 
greater clarity to refer to 'chemical, physical 
and/or biological effects' and not simply 'agents'. 
The text would then read as follows: 
' "agents" shall refer to chemical, physical 
and/or biological effects present at work and 
likely to be harmful to health'. 
(b) The Committee agrees with the definition of 
'workers'. 
(c) Limit values 
The Committee notes that the Commission has 
deliberately left this term vague. The Committee 
does not regard the definition given as adequate, 
however: 
— when the text is being revised attention should 
be paid to ensuring that this term is in keeping 
with accepted international definitions; 
— in the Committee's view, 'limit values' refers 
to the exposure limits in the appropriate 
medium/media, depending on the agents; and 
— 'biological indicators' mean the amounts of 
harmful substance absorbed by the worker 
during one shift; 
— it should be made clear that the definition 
applies to quite specific chemical, physical or 
biological agents with characteristic proper­
ties; 
— the limit values should indicate the exposure 
limits for specific chemical, physical or 
biological agents; 
— it should be made clear that 'limit value' refers 
to the exposure period which must not be 
exceeded in the case of unprotected workers; 
No C 297/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 11.79 
— the wording should be such as to allow a very 
accurate definition of 'limit values' for the 
specific Directives to be issued on the basis of 
the present Directive; 
— it should also be made clear that the aim of 
this Directive can be achieved by limiting the 
period for which workers are exposed to 
harmful agents. 
(d) Appointed doctor 
The Committee agrees with the definition given. 
It takes the definition to mean that the appointed 
doctor is the doctor responsible for the medical 
care of the workers in the plant in question. The 
free choice of doctor, which is a recognized ' 
principle in some Member States, must not, 
however, be restricted. 
2.4. Article 3 
The Committee proposes that Article 3 be reworded 
to read: 
'Member States shall take appropriate measures to 
ensure that exposure of workers to agents shall be 
eliminated or kept as low as can be reasonably 
achieved.' 
2.5. Article 4 
The Committee supports the worker-protection 
measures set out in this Article. The Directive is 
addressed to the Member States, and so these outline 
provisions will have to be implemented by means of 
appropriate national provisions. The measures set out 
in this Article must not, however, be regarded as an 
exhaustive list; nor should they be regarded as being 
equally necessary in all cases and for all agents. 
Small firms must observe the same health protection 
standards. As regards technical and organizational 
measures, however, small firms should be subject to 
rules that take account of their organizational 
possibilities. 
The Committee would also propose that the second 
indent of Article 4 (1) be amended to read: 
'— establishment of limit values which shall not be 
exceeded, and of assessment procedures and 
measuring methods'. 
The seventh indent should be reworded to read: 
'— appraisal of workplaces by experts in industrial 
medicine and medical supervision of workers'. 2.6. The Committee also thinks that Member 
States could implement these provisions not merely by 
statute or subordinate legislation but also via regu­
lations laid down by the self-governing bodies which 
exist in some Member States and the provisions of 
collective wage agreements. 
2.7. Article 5 
The Committee thinks it is very important for 
workers to be informed as fully as possible about the 
results of tests and other measurements of exposure. 
But as these results are often very difficult to 
understand they should be communicated by a 
competent person, for example, the works doctor. 
Such information should be presented in an under­
standable form, without concealing dangers to 
workers' health. The results of tests and examinations 
should be made available, on request, to the workers 
on whom they were conducted. 
2.8.1. Article 6, first indent 
In the Committee's view, both workers and employers 
should be involved in implementing the measures. 
2.8.2. Article 6, second indent 
The Committee acknowledges that workers must not 
suffer any undue prejudice through their removal, on 
health grounds, from exposure to harmful substances. 
On the other hand, the compensations attaching to a 
particular kind of work should cease if the worker 
does not do this type of work any more; this applies 
especially to allowances for arduous work. 
2.8.3. Article 6, third indent 
The Committee notes that the Directive is not 
sufficiently clear here, particularly when one 
examines the different language versions. The 
Committee welcomes the stipulation that the 
implementation of the Directive must not have an 
adverse effect on the environment outside the 
workplace. In this context, the Committee would 
refer to paragraph 1.4 of its general comments. 
2.9. Article 8 
Article 8 is unclear and confusing when considered in 
conjunction with Articles 4 and 7. The Committee 
proposes that this Article be redrafted. It should state 
clearly that the detailed elaboration of the provisions 
of Article 4, with the exception of the establishment 
28. 11.79 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 297/9 
of limit values, is to be carried out in accordance with 
the procedure laid down in Article 10. 
This would make it clear that limit values are still to 
be laid down by the generally applicable procedure 
(viz. individual Directives issued by the Commission 
and Council after consulting the two sides of industry 
and the appropriate institutions), and not by the 
Technical Committee referred to in Article 9. 
The Committee would also suggest that the second 
indent of Article 8 be reworded to read: 
'— of the equivalent provisions in individual 
Directives and their adaptations necessary to 
keep in line with developments in the fields of 
industrial medicine, safety and technology shall 
be made in accordance with the procedure of 
Article 10'. 
2.10. Articles 9 and 10 
Basically, the Committee agrees with the setting-up of 
a Technical Committee for the Directive on the protection of workers from harmful exposure to 
chemical, physical and biological agents at work. But 
it doubts whether such a committee should consist 
solely of representatives of the Member States, and 
thinks it is absolutely essential for employers' and 
workers' representatives to be involved in the 
committee's work. It therefore suggests that the 
Industrial Medicine and Hygiene Committee should 
only be able to take a decision after hearing the views 
of employers and workers at Community level. 
3. Comments on Annex 1 
The Committee notes that the list of agents is not 
complete or exclusive. It also believes that harmful 
effects have not been definitely established in the case 
of all of the agents listed. The Committee does not 
regard the list as a priority list either, but rather as a 
guideline for the Commission's subsequent work, to 
be supplemented in due course. 
Done at Brussels, 26 September 1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Raffaele VANNI 
Opinion on the communication from the Commission to the Council on the multi-annual 
programme of the Joint Research Centre 1980 to 1983 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 110 of 3 May 1979, page 4. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 23 March 1979, the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic 
and Social Committee in accordance with Article 235 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and with Article 7 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Atomic Energy Community.