12.1288 C^fficialjournal of the European communities ^oCh318^B 
Opinion on the proposal foraC^ouncil directive on the minimum health and safety required 
ments for handlmg heavy loads where there is a risk of back injury for workers (fifth 
individual directive within the meaning of Article 1^ of directive ...)(^) 
(88^M318^ 
C^n2^ Aiarch 1988,the C^ouncildecidedto consult theEconomic and SocialC^ommittee, 
under Article 118AoftheTreaty,on the abovementioned proposal. 
The section for social, family,educationalandculturalaffairs, which wasresponsible for 
preparing the C^ommittee^swork on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 15 Septemberl988, 
The rapporteur was Air Vidal, 
At its 258th plenary session (meeting of 28 September 1988) the Economic and Social 
committee adopted the following Opinion by^9 votes to^l,with9abstentions. 
1, General comments 
1,1, ^Be endorse the C^ommission^sproposedlOirec 
tive,whichisinlinewiththefoirectiveonthe safety 
and health of workers at the workplace, but would 
make the following comments. 
1,2, Backcomplamts are one ofthe main causes of 
unfitness for work in the community, it would be 
useful to define the scope of the directive, as it should 
not be limited to the lumbar vertebrae, ^dandling heavy 
loads can cause inmry to many organs and other parts 
of the body^ back complaints are amongst the most 
serious,however. 
1,^, The present proposal deals exclusively with the 
risk of back injury. In addition to weight, the reference 
termsusedtodescnbeloadsmclude dimensions,type 
of manual handling, balance and method of carrying. 
perhaps the commission ought, therefore, to reconsider 
the title of its proposal,the term^heavy^bemg some 
what restrictive. 
The adjective ^heavy^could in fact be omitted through 
out, for there areother aspects of loads, apart from 
their weight,which may presentanskof back inrury, 
as listed in Anne^P 
If it is rechmcally impossible to changethe title, the term 
should at least be used in invertedcommas (dieavy^. 1,^, ^e would stress that all workers should be 
coveredby theP^irective, irrespective of the sectoror 
si^e of the firm in which they work. 
nevertheless, we do agree that special consideration 
should be given to the special features of small and 
mediumsi^ed firms and to how developments in 
national legislation in this area will affect them, Aiem 
berStatesshouldactively strengthenformsof associ 
ation and cooperation between small and medium^si^ed 
firms, with the aim of reducing occupational hazards. 
1,5, The proposal isama^or step forward inborn 
munity terms,inthat it lays down minimum require 
ments for the carrying of loads which maycause back 
injuries to workers. 
The recommended measures are wide-ranging, allowing 
Aiember States to adopt a flexible approach, Aiuch 
work remains to be done, however,to deal with con 
verging or diverging applications of the Poirective in its 
various stages,The two sides of industry haveacrucial 
role to play both in the initial phase of application and 
in the development of further measures. 
These measurescanonly bedeveloped if agenumely 
dynamicoutlookisadopted^pnontyshouldbe given 
to informing and training workers, and also to raising 
awareness of the problem in schools. 
2, Specific comments 
2,1, The final partofthe fourth recital (page^of the 
commission document) should be reworded as follows 
^oie^etrs^i^,^ 5,,,aPOirective on protection against the risks result 
ing from the handling of^eavyMoads which present 
No C 318/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
characteristics and/or conditions which make them 
unsuitable for handling and which may be a risk to 
the safety and health of workers.' 
2.2. A new recital should be added, reading: 
'Whereas the objectives of the proposed Directive 
seek primarily to reduce or eliminate processes 
which present a risk of back injury, thereby limiting, 
wherever reasonably practicable, the handling of 
loads without mechanical assistance.' 
2.3. Another new recital should be added, reading: 
'Whereas the manual handling of loads entails a 
variety of risks which may affect a number of organs 
and/or parts of the body and, in many cases, may 
cause back or other injuries.' 
2.4. The seventh recital should be reworded in the 
following way: 
'Whereas, in order to guarantee a high degree of 
protection for workers, which is vital for their safety 
and health, they should be provided with regular 
information and training with regard to risks.' 
2.5. The eighth recital should be reworded to read: 
'... must be strengthened in a genuine endeavour to 
prevent risks and enhance safety at work.' 
2.6. The ninth recital should be reworded as follows: 
'Whereas employers must keep abreast of technical 
and technological progress, particularly in the fields 
of ergonomics and medicine, ...' 
3. Comments on the various provisions of the 
Directive 
3.1. Article 1 
We propose that the Article be amended to read: 
'This Directive, which is an individual Directive 
within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive (...), 
lays down the minimum health and safety require­
ments for workers for the manual handling of loards 
which, owing to their unfavourable ergonomic 
characteristics and/or conditions, may present risks, 
resulting chiefly in back complaints for workers.' 3.2. Article 2 
'The Member States shall take the necessary meas­
ures to ensure that, as far as possible, employers 
provide mechanical assistance for the handling of 
loads, in order to protect the safety and health of 
workers. 
The Member States shall, on the basis of current 
technical and scientific criteria, establish the mini­
mum ergonomic safety conditions for the handling 
of loads wherever it is not possible to provide mech­
anical assistance.' 
3.3. Article 3 
The two indents (paragraph 1) should be listed the 
other way round, i.e. in the order in which they 
appear in Annex I. 
3.4. Article 4 
Should be amended to read: 
'Employers must take account of the individual 
characteristics of the workers when organizing man­
ual handling work on the basis of Annex I. Workers 
should have regular medical check-ups. 
The frequency and advisability of medical check­
ups should be established either by the doctor at 
work, or by the employer, or by the worker. 
The constant values set out in Annex IV are purely 
indicative and are not intended as maximum 
weights or binding requirements. Their purpose is 
to help to establish a set of ergonomic criteria for 
handling loads. 
As ergonomic handling conditions will probably 
vary from one Member State to another, differences 
could be classified upon entry into each 'receiver' 
Member State in accordance with its own national 
laws. 
To this end a 'Table of Equivalence' of ergonomic 
conditions for handling loads in all Member States 
will be drawn up, for use in each Member States.' 
3.5. Article 5 
The first indent of Article 5 (2) should be reworded as 
follows: 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/39 
'— the weight of a load under the conditions 
described in Annex I.' 
A third paragraph should be added: 
'3. The Member States shall promote the surveys 
and measures required in order to be able to 
mark and label loads.' 
3.6. Article 6 
Amend to read: 
'Workers or their representatives must participate, 
alongside the employer, in drawing up the measures 
to be taken pursuant to this Directive, in accordance 
with national practice.' 
3.7. Article 7 
Article 7 (1) should be worded as follows: 
'The Commission shall adapt the annexes of this 
Directive to take account of technical and techno­
logical progress and the development of inter­
national regulations or specifications on the manual 
handling of loads under the conditions laid down 
in Article 1, always in accordance with ergonomic 
principles.' 
3.8. Article 8 
Article 8 (3) should be amended to read: 
'... on the handling of loads under the conditions 
laid down in Article 1, indicating the views of the employers and workers. The Commission shall 
inform the Economic and Social Committee and the 
tripartite committee.' 
3.9. Annex I 
The last indent of paragraph 1 should be read: 
'— located in a position requiring it to be held or 
manipulated at an unsuitable or insufficient distance 
from the trunk, or with the trunk in a harmful 
position.' 
3.10. Annex 111 
The title and wording of Annex III should be amended 
as follows: 
'Title: Workers referred to in Article 4 (1) 
The worker may be at risk if he/she is: 
— insufficiently informed or trained, 
— wholly or partly unable, physically or physiol­
ogically, to carry out the task in question, 
— too small or tall for the task, 
— inappropriately dressed, including unsuitable 
footwear, 
— working in unfavourable environmental con­
ditions.' 
3.11. Annex IV 
The following additional annex could be useful: 
'Annex IV — Indicative values for loads to be handled by the individual worker 
The values contained in the following table apply to the lifting and carrying of loads 
without external assistance. The weights given are purely indicative (they are neither 
maximum weights, nor are they binding), as there are other factors involved in the 
handling of loads, in addition to the characteristics of the load itself (outlined in Annex I), 
such as age, physical and physiological characteristics of the worker, stamina, distance 
involved and the number of repetitions of handling. The Commission should take these 
additional factors into consideration, with a view to completing the Directive. 
No C 318/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88 
Table 
Adults 
Men Women Pregnant 
women Young people 
aged 16-18 
Men Women 
Infrequent Mass (kg) 
Force (N) 
Regular Mass (kg) 
Force (N) 50 
490 
25 
245 25 
245 
10 
98 10 
98 
5 
49 20 
196 
15 
148 12 
118 
9 
88 
Done at Brussels, 28 September 1988. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/41 
APPENDIX 
to the Economic and Social Committee Opinion 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments were rejected during the debates, but received at least 25 % of the votes cast. 
Point 1.3. 
Delete paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of point 1.3. 
Reason 
The definition proposed in the text of the Directive is sufficiently clear and precise. 
Result of vote 
For: 49, against: 72, abstentions: 7. 
Point 3.4. 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The second paragraph lays down a general and sweeping procedure for medical check-ups without any 
criteria for establishing frequency or the degree of risk involved. 
The third paragraph seeks to establish some presumed ergonomic criteria which are completely at odds with 
the Directive's aims and of no practical use. 
The last two paragraphs present hypotheses which are practically impossible to apply in practice. 
Result of vote 
For: 53, against: 75, abstentions: 3. 
Point 3.11, Annex IV 
Delete. 
Reasons 
It is obvious from the text itself: the weights given are not maximum loads, nor are they binding, nor do 
they have any known technical justification, they have to be considered and modified in the light of various 
circumstances and conditions and, last of all, it is not known whether they are of any practical use or can be 
applied. 
Result of vote 
For: 45, against: 69, abstentions: 7.