Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work (exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency)
Date: 2022-01-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU strategy, digital transformation, humanisation of work, labour law, occupational accident, occupational disease, occupational health, social dialogue (EU), teleworking, workplace








C_2022194EN.01005001.xml










12.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/50






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work
(exploratory opinion requested by the French presidency)
(2022/C 194/09)






Rapporteur:



Franca SALIS-MADINIER











Request by the French presidency of the Council


Letter of 21.9.2021




Legal basis


Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted in section


16.12.2021




Adopted at plenary


20.01.2022




Plenary session No


566




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


172/32/70




1.   Conclusions and recommendations









1.1.


The EESC shares the view of the Commission in its 2021-2027 strategy on occupational safety and health (OSH), and sees social dialogue (SD) as instrumental in achieving the three key objectives: anticipating and managing change in the world of work brought about by the green, digital and demographic transitions; improving prevention of workplace accidents and work-related illnesses; and being prepared for any potential future health crises.












1.2.


The pandemic is an opportunity to create a new collective ability to tackle future crises and mitigate their impact on OSH. The recovery plan should make it possible to strengthen the role of the social partners in the Member States where they have the least influence.












1.3.


The EESC recommends a comprehensive and integrated forward-looking analysis of the impact of the digital transition on labour market in order to anticipate the upheavals it will entail and develop a long-term OSH strategy.












1.4.


The 2002 European Framework Agreement is not suited to meeting the new challenges posed by teleworking. The EESC recommends that new guidelines be drawn up, with a particular focus on preventing psychosocial risks (PSR) and musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs).












1.5.


The EESC invites the labour inspectorates to perform inspection of teleworking conditions, at the employee’s request and with due regard to privacy in accordance with the national rules.












1.6.


The EESC recommends that the cost of work-related illnesses such as heart disease and burnout be thoroughly monitored in order to pinpoint appropriate measures at the appropriate level in line with Vision Zero.












1.7.


The EESC calls for a culture of prevention to be developed; this should involve training the parties involved in the SD, raising awareness of emerging risks and bolstering and disseminating the resources available.












1.8.


The EESC considers that, under Article 155(2) TFEU, agreements between the social partners shall be implemented in the Member States. The EESC asks the Commission to discuss with the social partners the implementation of autonomous agreements and the process of joint request for Council decision, respecting the autonomy of social partners and following the procedure of article 155 TFEU.












1.9.


The EESC encourages the development of benchmarks and ready-to-use risk assessment tools, which are particularly useful for very small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs need the right guidance, training and financial support to comply with OSH obligations.












1.10.


The EESC calls for a system to be put in place to assess the impact of the legislative initiatives, collective agreements and European action plans in this area, and reiterates its recommendation (1) of one labour inspector for every 10 000 workers.












1.11.


The EESC calls for a more proactive Vision Zero campaign, focused on prevention and the elimination of risk, in line with the Framework Directive.












1.12.


With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC calls for a more ambitious position covering the 50 priority carcinogens, as well as reprotoxic substances and hazardous medicinal products, and including stress (2) and shift work (3).












1.13.


The EESC calls for EU legislation on PSR. An effective preventive approach requires action to be taken with regard to the working environment rather than focusing solely on the mental health of the individual.












1.14.


The EESC considers that the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated prevention policy requires the reactivation of the draft MSD Directive.












1.15.


The EESC calls for the Artificial Intelligence Act (4) to be amended. The EESC recommends making third party conformity assessments obligatory for all high-risk AI.












1.16.


The EESC calls for platform workers to be included in the scope of the strategic framework. The right to organise, be represented and to engage in collective bargaining should be guaranteed, and social protection rights extended to these workers.




2.   Background









2.1.


Ahead of its forthcoming EU presidency, France has asked the Committee to draw up this opinion to explore the issue of the effectiveness of SD (5) as a tool to promote OSH.












2.2.


The Commission has proposed a new strategic framework on OSH, which sets the following three key objectives: anticipating and managing change in the world of work brought about by the green, digital and demographic transitions; improving prevention of workplace accidents and work-related illnesses; and being prepared for any potential future health crises (6). The Commission is putting a particular emphasis on SD in terms of achieving these three objectives.












2.3.


The strategic framework has adopted the ‘Vision Zero’ approach, aimed at eliminating work-related deaths in the EU, and puts a focus on gender equality in OSH.












2.4.


Combating work-related cancer is set as a priority. The framework also includes a commitment from the Commission to establishing binding occupational exposure limits for additional carcinogens.




3.   General comments

3.1.   Social dialogue as an essential tool in risk prevention









3.1.1.


Bipartite negotiations between the European social partners are of paramount importance when it comes to tackling OSH problems. However, the application of autonomous agreements is sometimes uneven, varying in line with the relative strength of the SD and the diversity of the industrial relations systems in the Member States (7). Agreements leading to Council directives following a request from both signatory parties seem more effective as they ensure specific action plans in the Member States. The EESC asks the Commission to discuss with the social partners better implementation of autonomous agreements and the process of joint request for Council decisions, respecting the autonomy of social partners and following the procedure of Article 155 TFEU.












3.1.2.


Both at cross-industry level (work-related stress (8), and workplace violence and harassment (9)) and at sectoral level (MSDs in agriculture (10), health protection in hairdressing salons (11), crystalline silica in the chemicals sector and mining (12), the prevention of sharp injuries in hospitals (13)), European SD has delivered improvements to workers’ working conditions.












3.1.3.


Sectoral agreements setting minimum standards or establishing general guidelines on OSH are particularly important for SMEs, as SMEs do not always have the resources to come up with plans for improving working conditions. SMEs need advice, training and financial support in order to implement them.












3.1.4.


SD is an invaluable tool for businesses and for society as a whole. OSH measures carried out through SD contribute positively to workers health, can improve the profitability of businesses, and reduces healthcare costs and absenteeism (14). The cost to society of work-related injury and illness is estimated at 3,3 % (15) of EU GDP (EUR 476 bn), amounting to more than half of the recovery plan funds. This percentage varies widely between Member States, depending on the industrial landscape, the legislative context and the prevention measures in place.












3.1.5.


In the emergency phase of the crisis, the measures taken by authorities had major sectoral impacts: the closure of schools, shops, etc. Many businesses feared going under, particularly in the hospitality and cultural sectors (16).












3.1.6.


The negotiations that took place successfully ensured business continuity and the survival of the European economy. In sectors such as transport, business and agriculture, the European social partners played a vital role when it came to the measures that needed to be taken to adapt to the situation, the temporary shutdowns, and even closures, and the impact on employment. Lessons will have to be learned with a view to possible future crises.












3.1.7.


The results achieved should not conceal important shortcomings. The quality of national SD mechanisms is uneven (17). In many Member States, measures were adopted without the timely and meaningful consultation of the national social partners. Some governments adopted emergency measures restricting their autonomy, as though they were a hindrance rather than a source of solutions. The health crisis has revealed a need to better manage and coordinate the necessary measures taken in the Member States. A strengthened dialogue between Member States, European institutions as well as national and European social partners is necessary to provide solutions in managing the crisis.












3.1.8.


The EESC notes that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU of September 2021 stated that the Commission is not obliged to act on the social partners’ requests to implement the agreements concluded and calls on the Commission to establish clear criteria for the implementation of the agreements signed by the social partners (18). The EESC considers that, under Article 155(2) TFEU, agreements between the social partners should be implemented in the Member States.




3.2.   Specific comments

3.2.1.   The digital and climate transitions and new vulnerabilities









3.2.1.1.


The European Central Bank has highlighted the macroeconomic and financial risks (19) entailed in global warming (economic losses caused by rising sea levels and changing precipitation patterns) and in the green transition (rising stranded assets, rising structural unemployment, price volatility and inflation).












3.2.1.2.


Robotisation, AI, and the development of new business models, forms of subcontracting and remote work will have a long-term impact on the labour market, as well as on up-skilling, work organisation, workstation design, and occupational risks and the ways of preventing them.












3.2.1.3.


Although open-ended contracts remain the benchmark, we are seeing an increase in flexible or non-standard forms of employment, such as on-call and platform work. Because they have little influence on the way they work, workers in such forms of employment generally have to contend with poor working conditions (uncomfortable posture, excessive work rate, severe work pressure, lack of autonomy and little variety in their tasks) (20).












3.2.1.4.


These transitions will lead to a shift in occupational risks. Firstly, to the margins of the workforce, through the combined development of subcontracting and precarious contracts, which are less protective in terms of OSH. Then towards new vulnerabilities linked to working conditions, through the hybridisation of flexible forms of organisation and new forms of the old Taylorist practices. And finally towards new work-related problems, reflected in the endemic rise in occupational stress and related illnesses.




3.3.   The challenges for OSH in the digital ecosystem









3.3.1.


Information and communication technologies are gradually shaping a new digital ecosystem, with teleworking at its centre. The wholesale shift to teleworking is meeting a need: 80 % (21) of employers and 76 % of European workers want to continue teleworking beyond the crisis. While providing greater flexibility, teleworking poses new challenges: inadequate equipment, a sense of isolation, difficulties in disconnecting psychologically from work and a lack of support from management. Some 25 % (22) of workers say that they are constantly emotionally exhausted from their work on a regular basis — a core feature of burnout. Teleworking has also meant new challenges to employers regarding e.g. increased telework equipment purchases, challenges of remote work management and organisation.












3.3.2.


Progress in different areas of robotics is leading to a shift from working on actual production to monitoring automated processes. It is estimated that 22 % of jobs in the EU could be automated by 2030, amounting to 53 million jobs (23). Automation can either improve working conditions (job safety and ergonomics, making the job more interesting, eliminating arduous and dangerous tasks). Naturally, it is also important to monitor and prevent any possible OSH risks following from these developments which might, if they are solely finalised to productivity, lead to their deterioration of working conditions.












3.3.3.


Many of the advances brought about by AI are still at an embryonic stage, such as algorithmic management in the platform economy and in some logistics giants. There are two issues here: taking over the tasks of the supervisor in terms of performance oversight and monitoring, and increasing productivity by streamlining work, which is sometimes taken to the extreme. According to scientific studies on which the European Trade Union Institute made a comprehensive summary, in terms of OSH, these practices mean that on top of the ‘traditional’ risks linked to streamlining (more intense and onerous work, hollowed-out jobs) we have the ‘emerging’ risks associated with digitalisation (mental overload, hyper-connectedness, social isolation) (24).












3.3.4.


Algorithmic management is gradually taking hold in companies, where it helps address the challenges posed by remote working. Constant monitoring and evaluation are posing a risk to the mental health of workers (25), in particular through the Big Brother effect and the removal of the boundaries between home life and work. Without the necessary safeguards, these technologies can undermine the fundamental rights of privacy and dignity.












3.3.5.


In its proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act (26), the Commission does not tackle head-on the challenges posed by high-risk applications in the workplace. The EESC has recommended making third party conformity assessments obligatory for all high-risk AI (27). Systems that assess workers’ behaviour, working time and performance and detect their emotions, when qualifying as high-risk AI, should be subject to third-party conformity assessments.




3.4.   Transformations, transitions and ‘new problems’









3.4.1.


We are seeing a shift from a rise in occupational injuries to a rise in occupational illnesses. Between 2000 and 2016, deaths from heart disease and stroke associated with exposure to long working hours increased by 41 % and 19 % respectively worldwide (28). Work-related psychological conditions are also on the rise like depressive disorders. Some 17-35 % of cases of depression can be attributed to work (29), which points to an upward trend in PSR and their impact on workers’ health.












3.4.2.


This shift in work-related problems can also be seen in physical risk factors. The incidence of workplace accidents is falling slightly (30), while MSDs remain the leading cause of unfitness for work worldwide (31). The latest ESENER survey shows that repetitive hand or arm movements and prolonged sitting are the two risk factors to which workers are most exposed (32). Thus, it is no longer so much isolated exposure to highly dangerous situations that threatens OSH, but the prolonged exposure to lower-level risk factors.




4.   Opportunities to improve the effectiveness of SD and mitigate OSH risks









4.1.


The pandemic is an opportunity to create a new collective ability to tackle health, environmental and demographic crises. The social partners are best placed to anticipate change, anticipate new training needs, adapt to new environments, identify emerging risks (33), and prepare for the transformation in production processes.












4.2.


It is important to ensure that the agreements reached through SD are being properly implemented. The EESC reiterates its support (34) for the ILO recommendation (35) of one labour inspector per 10 000 workers and stresses the need to strengthen the role of trade union representatives in OSH. At all levels, the social partners must be sufficiently involved in the design and implementation of the preventive measures, in accordance with the Framework Directive.












4.3.


With the wholesale shift to teleworking, there is a need to extend the remit of labour inspectorates. As is the case in Spain (36), inspectors should be able to carry out checks on the conditions under which teleworking is carried out, at the employee’s request and with due regard to privacy. This should include recording complaints about not being properly equipped, non-compliance with the right to disconnect, etc.












4.4.


The EESC recommends carrying out a forward-looking analysis of the impact of digitalisation on the world of work in the Member States, and in particular on up-skilling, work organisation, and occupational risks and the ways of preventing them.












4.5.


The increasing cost of work-related illnesses such as heart disease and burnout should be thoroughly monitored in order to pinpoint appropriate measures at the appropriate level in line with the Vision Zero (deaths) approach.












4.6.


The current arrangements do not allow for a rigorous assessment of the impact of the autonomous framework agreements. The data available are patchy and the protocols make it impossible to establish a causal link. There needs to be investment in the development of indicators specific to each agreement and in a longitudinal system for establishing cause and effect while fully respecting the autonomy of social partners in the implementation of framework agreements.












4.7.


These specific indicators would be complemented by broader indicators enabling progress made on OSH to be tracked. The ESENER surveys could fulfil this role; the EESC recommends that they be conducted more regularly and that they cover OSH challenges more systematically. This will make it possible to assess the coverage of the initiatives deployed and to propose new measures if necessary.












4.8.


Through the Senior Labour Inspectors Committee, the European Labour Authority (37) could play its oversight role through providing opportunities and recommendations for exchanging best practices and support capacity building on the enforcement of the legislation and on the implementation of SD agreements not converted into directives.












4.9.


A proper joined-up approach to European and national SD will require greater involvement of the social partners in all Member States. Funds could be mobilised for building the capacity of the social partners where this is weak.












4.10.


The EESC encourages any initiative to assist SMEs in their prevention efforts. Examples here include the recent ISO 45003 standard (38) on PSR, the OiRA project (Online interactive Risk Assessment), to which new modules are regularly added, and the Healthy Workplaces portal, which brings resources together in one place for employers. In France, OiRA has been used 61 000 times (39) by 42 000 users, accounting for half of its users. The EESC emphasises the value of these ready-to-use tools for businesses that do not have the necessary resources internally, and points out that risk assessment is an essential pillar of prevention.












4.11.


The Vision Zero approach should be more proactive by focusing on risk elimination, in line with the Framework Directive. All OSH policies should adhere to the principle of prevention, be developed and implemented through SD, and be supported by robust rules.












4.12.


With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC calls for a more ambitious position covering the 50 priority carcinogens. The scope of Directive 2004/37/EC should also be expanded to reprotoxic substances and hazardous medicinal products (40). In addition, chronic stress increases the risk of developing cancer (41), and night-time shift work can be a cause of breast cancer, prostate cancer and bowel cancer (42). A risk-based approach is needed, not a methodology that sees worker protection as a cost.












4.13.


MSDs remain the biggest OSH problem in the EU. At company level, prevention will only be effective if there is high-quality SD and a well-functioning health and safety committee (where these exist). SD at sectoral level can also play its part, through specific guidelines, awareness-raising and the exchange of experience, and the dissemination of good practices. At European level, the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated policy requires the reactivation of the draft MSD Directive.












4.14.


The incomplete implementation of the 2004 autonomous framework agreement on work-related stress underlines the need for European PSR legislation. The EESC points out that an effective preventive approach requires action to be taken on the factors involved — namely the organisation of work. An approach focused on the mental health of the individual will not reduce work-related stress.












4.15.


The EESC stresses that both a strong regulatory framework and productive SD are needed. The directives set the general OSH guidelines, while the different levels of SD enable the necessary tailoring to specific sectoral and national circumstances.












4.16.


The EESC is disappointed that self-employed workers have been excluded from the scope of the strategic framework. Some so-called self-employed platform workers are in fact subject to an employer-employee relationship with the platform via algorithmic management. The pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of these workers and the shortcomings of platforms in terms of prevention. The exposure of these workers to uncontrolled risks, as a result of their exclusion from the strategic framework, is a situation that should not continue.












4.17.


The EESC stresses the asymmetric relationships between the platforms and these workers, and points out that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are fundamental rights. Proper organisation and representation are vital in order to facilitate SD and collective bargaining. Moreover, social protection rights should be extended to these workers.












4.18.


It is equally important to give attention to workers with disabilities and chronic diseases. Employment opens the door to decent housing, a fulfilling social and cultural life and integration in society. If the EU’s inclusion objectives are to be achieved, the disparities between Member States should be reduced and policies on employability and economic, social and cultural inclusion standardised.












4.19.


Preventing professional exclusion should be covered by SD and be part of the return to employment (workstation adaptation, returning to work part-time, etc.). Measures to raise awareness of the situation of workers with disabilities and workers potentially at risk of exclusion due to unfitness are recommended.












4.20.


Recognising diversity, including gender differences, in the workforce is vital in ensuring the safety and health of both men and women workers. Whilst some progress has been made in this area, the EESC believes more can and should be done. Gender differences should be considered in the development of OSH policies and prevention strategies. The EESC calls for a gender sensitive approach to OSH to mainstream gender into all areas of OSH. To reap the benefits from the social dialogue, the EESC stresses the importance that women participate equally in the social dialogue.












4.21.


Access to information technology should be made easier for young workers. Lifelong learning is becoming the main source of job security in the digital age. It is also important to include older workers by promoting learning opportunities and protection against age discrimination.












4.22.


The benefits of teleworking depend on how it is organised by the employer. Teleworking should be regulated by collective bargaining in order to prevent the difficulties that have been identified in numerous surveys (43). The European Framework Agreement signed in 2002 is not suited to meeting these new challenges. The EESC recommends that new guidelines be drawn up, with a particular focus on PSR and MSDs.












4.23.


The links between OSH and business profitability should be highlighted. Because of its effects on working conditions and keeping people at work, SD makes it possible to prevent costs arising from workplace accidents and work-related illnesses. This is an investment whereby the benefits outweigh the costs involved (44).












4.24.


A culture of prevention should be developed; this should involve training the various parties involved in the SD, raising awareness of emerging risks and bolstering and disseminating the resources available. The EESC calls for funds from the recovery plan to be deployed for this purpose.





Brussels, 20 January 2022.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG




(1)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.

(2)  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7466429/.

(3)  https://www.cancer-environnement.fr/597-Vol-124--Cancerogenicite-du-travail-de-nuit-poste.ce.aspx

(4)  European Commission (2021), Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts, COM(2021) 206 final

(5)  European social dialogue refers to discussions, consultations, negotiations and joint actions involving organisations representing the social partners (employers and workers). A distinction should be made between tripartite dialogue with public authorities and bipartite dialogue between European trade unions and employers.

(6)  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0323&qid=1626089672913#PP1Contents

(7)  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2021/right-to-disconnect-exploring-company-practices

(8)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=1106

(9)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5000

(10)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=1202

(11)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5460

(12)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=1348

(13)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=521&langId=en&agreementId=5595

(14)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/good-osh-is-good-for-business

(15)  https://visualisation.osha.europa.eu/osh-costs#!/.

(16)  See OJ C 429, 11.12.2020, p. 159, point 2.3.

(17)  Involvement of social partners in policymaking during the COVID-19 outbreak, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)(2021), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

(18)  OJ C 10, 11.1.2021, p. 14.

(19)  ECB (2021), Climate change and monetary policy in the euro area, Occasional Paper Series, No 271/September 2021.

(20)  Bérastégui P. (2021), Exposure to Psychosocial Risk Factors in the Gig Economy: A Systematic Review. ETUI Research Report 2021.01.

(21)  Littler Mendelson (2020), Littler European Employer COVID-19 Survey Report

(22)  Eurofound (2020), Living, working and COVID-19, COVID-19 series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

(23)  https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-in-europe

(24)  Bérastégui P. (2021), Exposure to Psychosocial Risk Factors in the Gig Economy: A Systematic Review. ETUI Research Report 2021.01.

(25)  APPG (2021), The new frontier: Artificial Intelligence at work.

(26)  European Commission (2021), Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) (COM(2021) 206 final).

(27)  OJ C 517, 22.12.2021, p. 61, point 1.10.

(28)  ILO (2021) WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury, 2000–2016.

(29)  Niedhammer et al. (2021). Update of the fractions of cardiovascular diseases and mental disorders attributable to psychosocial work factors in Europe. Int Arch Occup Environ Health.

(30)  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20211012-2.

(31)  Cieza et al. (2020). Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 396: 10267.

(32)  EU-OSHA (2020) European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER 2019) — background briefing.

(33)  https://osha.europa.eu/en/emerging-risks.

(34)  OJ C 105, 4.3.2022, p. 114.

(35)  https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb297/pdf/esp-3.pdf

(36)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/ajax/BlobServlet?docId=23324&langId=en

(37)  The purpose of the European Labour Authority is to support compliance and coordination between Member States in the enforcement of EU legal acts in the areas of labour mobility and coordination of social security systems.

(38)  https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html

(39)  https://oiraproject.eu/en/news/road-transport-france-now-safer-oira

(40)  A chemical which may impair the fertility of a man or woman or impair the development of an unborn child.

(41)  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7466429/

(42)  https://www.cancer-environnement.fr/597-Vol-124--Cancerogenicite-du-travail-de-nuit-poste.ce.aspx.

(43)  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/covid-19/working-teleworking.

(44)  https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---travail/documents/publication/wcms_571914.pdf




ANNEX
The following amendments, which received at least a quarter of the votes cast, were rejected during the discussions (Rule 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure):

AMENDMENT 2


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 3.2.1.3

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




Although open-ended contracts remain the benchmark, we are seeing an increase in flexible or non-standard forms of employment, such as on-call and platform work. 
Because they have little influence on the way they work
, 
workers in
 such 
forms of employment generally have
 to 
contend with poor working conditions (uncomfortable posture, excessive
 work 
rate
, 
severe work pressure
, 
lack
 of 
autonomy
 and 
little variety in their tasks)

 (1).


Although open-ended contracts remain the benchmark, we are seeing an increase in flexible or non-standard forms of employment, such as on-call and platform work. 
Teleworking carries some risks
, such 
as possible challenges related
 to
: the worker becoming invisible in the
 work 
community; missing out on formal and informal support structures
, 
personal contacts with colleagues and access to information
, 
promotion and training opportunities; possible worsening
 of 
gender inequalities
 and 
increased risk of violence and harassment

 (1)

, which shall be further managed to provide OSH for workers in such forms of employment
.





Reason

We propose to delete part of this very general statement and use text from the consensual SOC/662 (1) that states i.a. that teleworking carries some risks, such as possible challenges related to: the worker becoming invisible in the work community; missing out on formal and informal support structures, personal contacts with colleagues and access to information, promotion and training opportunities; possible worsening of gender inequalities and increased risk of violence and harassment.
It should also be recalled that for instance, persons in flexible or platform work often have more liberties to define the hours worked. Whether work is commissioned through a platform has very little to do with work ergonomics etc. It is still the same work performance as it would be without the platform too (for example uber vs taxi driver). Also, excessive work rate-argument is not valid as in reality the situation can be quite the contrary.
Furthermore, there is no causality between having a flexible or non-standard contract and poor working conditions.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


101




Against:


133




Abstentions:


21





AMENDMENT 3


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 3.2.1.4

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




These transitions 
will
 lead to a shift in occupational risks. Firstly, 
to
 the margins of the workforce
, through the combined development
 of subcontracting and 
precarious
 contracts, which 
are
 less protective in terms of OSH. Then towards new vulnerabilities linked to working conditions, through the hybridisation of flexible forms of organisation and new forms of the old Taylorist practices. And finally towards new work-related problems, reflected in the endemic rise in occupational stress and related illnesses.


These transitions 
may
 lead to a shift in occupational risks. 
Those potential risks might be addressed by placing special attention in the process of social dialogue on:
 Firstly, the margins of the workforce 
in case
 of subcontracting and 
uncertain
 contracts, which 
may be
 less protective in terms of OSH. Then towards new vulnerabilities linked to working conditions, through the hybridisation of flexible forms of organisation and new forms of the old Taylorist practices. And finally towards new work-related problems, reflected in the endemic rise in occupational stress and related illnesses.





Reason

By this change we are acknowledging that the shift in the forms of work requires more attention through social dialogue at the appropriate level in regard to both OSH. Also, although there might be some new vulnerabilities linked to working conditions in the new forms of work, it is important to understand that not all non-standard forms of employment, such as subcontracting are automatically less protective in terms of OSH, and might as well have the same level of OSH protection as standard form of employment.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


98




Against:


147




Abstentions:


17





AMENDMENT 4


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.2

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




It is important to ensure that the agreements reached through SD are being properly implemented. The EESC 
reiterates its support

 (1)

for
 the ILO recommendation (2) of one labour inspector per 10 000  workers and stresses the need to strengthen the role of 
trade union representatives
 in OSH. At all levels, the social partners must be sufficiently involved in the design and implementation of the preventive measures, in accordance with the Framework Directive.


It is important to ensure that the agreements reached through SD are being properly implemented. The EESC 
notes
 the ILO recommendation (1) of one labour inspector per 10 000  workers and stresses the need to strengthen the role of 
social partners
 in OSH. At all levels, the social partners must be sufficiently involved in the design and implementation of the preventive measures, in accordance with the Framework Directive.





Reason

We propose to use ‘note’ instead of ‘supporting’. Also, in the second phrase it is correct to talk about social partners in general.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


103




Against:


150




Abstentions:


15





AMENDMENT 5


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.3

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




With the wholesale shift to teleworking, 
there is
 a need to extend the remit of labour inspectorates. As is the case in Spain (1), inspectors 
should be
 able to carry out checks on the conditions under which teleworking is carried out, at the employee’s request and with due regard to privacy. This 
should include
 recording complaints about not being properly equipped, non-compliance with the right to disconnect, etc.


With the wholesale shift to teleworking, 
some Member States have seen
 a need to extend the remit of labour inspectorates. As is the case in Spain (1), inspectors 
are
 able to carry out checks on the conditions under which teleworking is carried out, at the employee’s request and with due regard to privacy. This 
includes
 recording complaints about not being properly equipped, non-compliance with the right to disconnect, etc. 
The employers should be required to ensure the availability of teleworking equipment only when the employee is obliged to work from home
.





Reason

While we would agree on describing a system of one particular Member State (Spain) as an example, it is not justified to propose to have that system introduced in other countries as well, given the fact that the organisation and modalities of labour inspection are a matter for the Member States.
If the employer offers already one workplace (normally office) where the employee has all the necessary equipment, there should not be an obligation to duplicate this equipment to home as well if the employer is not requiring the employee to work from home. Especially for small companies duplication of work equipment can be a big cost burden.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


107




Against:


149




Abstentions:


16





AMENDMENT 7


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.12

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC 
calls for a more ambitious position covering
 the 
50 priority carcinogens. The scope of Directive 2004/37/EC should also be expanded to reprotoxic substances and hazardous medicinal products

 (1)

. In addition, chronic stress increases
 the 
risk of developing cancer

 (2)

, and night-time shift work can be a cause of breast cancer, prostate cancer
 and 
bowel cancer

 (3)

. A risk-based approach is needed, not a methodology that sees worker protection as a cost.




With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC 
welcomes
 the 
provisional agreement reached by
 the 
European Parliament
 and the 
Council at
 the 
end
 of 
2021 on better protecting workers from risks related to the exposure to carcinogenic and mutagenic substances by updating the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive
.





Reason

It should be noted that in December 2021 the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on better protecting workers from risks related to the exposure to carcinogenic and mutagenic substances. To improve workers’ protection against cancer, the Commission had proposed in 2020 to further limit their exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. This initiative is also part of the Commission’s commitment to fight cancer under Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. The Commission has underlined that under that agreement to update the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive, around 1 million workers will benefit from greater safeguards due to the setting of the occupational exposure limits for acrylonitrile and nickel compounds and the lowering of the limits for benzene.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


98




Against:


156




Abstentions:


17





AMENDMENT 8


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.13

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




MSDs remain the biggest OSH problem in the EU. At company level, prevention 
will only
 be effective if there is high-quality SD and a well-functioning health and safety committee (where these exist). SD at sectoral level can also play its part, through specific guidelines, awareness-raising and the exchange of experience, and the dissemination of good practices. At European level, the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated policy requires the 
reactivation
 of 
the draft MSD Directive
.


MSDs remain the biggest OSH problem in the EU. At company level, prevention 
can
 be 
more
 effective if there is high-quality SD and a well-functioning health and safety committee (where these exist). SD at sectoral level can also play its part, through specific guidelines, awareness-raising and the exchange of experience, and the dissemination of good practices. At European level, the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated policy requires 
taking measures as indicated in
 the 
Commission EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021 — 2027 Occupational safety and health in a changing world
 of 
work
.





Reason

The Commission strategy i.a. includes the aim of the Commission to make psychosocial and ergonomic risks part of the healthy workplaces campaign.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


95




Against:


161




Abstentions:


16





AMENDMENT 9


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.14

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The 
incomplete
 implementation of the 
2004 autonomous
 framework agreement 
on
 work-related stress 
underlines
 the 
need for European PSR legislation
. The EESC points out that an effective preventive approach requires action to be taken on the factors involved — namely the organisation of work. An approach focused on the mental health of the individual will not reduce work-related stress.


The 
EESC calls for strengthening the role of social partners in awareness raising and prevention measures of PSR. PSRs need to be addressed primarily at work-place/company level, there is no one-size-fits all solution that would work well in all companies or Member States as the problems are also different. According to the
 implementation 
report prepared by the signatories
 of the framework agreement
, despite the different challenges and obstacles, implementation of the European framework agreement and the reports themselves clearly contribute an important added value in the area of
 work-related stress 
and
 the 
development of social dialogue

 (1). The EESC points out that an effective preventive approach requires action to be taken on the factors involved — namely the organisation of work. An approach focused on the mental health of the individual will not reduce work-related stress
. PSRs are a complex issue with different impact factors such as working conditions, workload management, work relationships but also individual capabilities.







Reason

We should here diverge the approach more towards strengthening the role of social partners in awareness raising and prevention measures of PSR. PSRs need to be addressed primarily at work-place/company level, there is no one-size-fits all solution that would work well in all companies or Member States as the problems are also different.
We do not agree with the need for legislation but agree with the approach of the Commission to prepare, in cooperation with Member States and social partners, a non-legislative EU-level initiative related to mental health at work that assesses emerging issues related to workers’ mental health.
Finally, There is an implementation report prepared by the signatories of the autonomous framework agreement on work related stress https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2008-02495-E.pdf, which states i.a. that ‘Despite the different challenges and obstacles, implementation of the European framework agreement and the reports themselves clearly contribute an important added value in the area of work-related stress and the development of social dialogue.’

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


97




Against:


159




Abstentions:


14





AMENDMENT 10


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.16

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
is disappointed
 that self-employed workers 
have been excluded from
 the scope of the strategic framework. 
Some so-called self-employed platform workers are
 in 
fact subject
 to 
an employer-employee relationship
 with the 
platform via algorithmic management
. 
The pandemic has highlighted
 the 
vulnerability
 of 
these workers and
 the 
shortcomings
 of 
platforms in terms
 of 
prevention. The exposure
 of 
these
 workers 
to uncontrolled risks
, 
as a result
 of their 
exclusion from
 the 
strategic framework
, 
is a situation that should not continue
.


The EESC 
notes
 that self-employed workers 
are not in
 the scope of the strategic framework. 
The EESC has earlier recommended that a study be carried out
 in 
useful time involving the Commission, experts and the social partners,
 to 
find the best solution
 with 
due regard for
 the 
principle that all self-employed must also have a safe and healthy working environment
. 
Furthermore,
 the 
EESC notes that the Council recommendation
 of 
18 February 2003 concerning
 the 
improvement
 of 
the protection
 of 
the health and safety at work
 of 
self-employed
 workers (1)

recommends that Member States promote
, 
in the context
 of their 
policies on preventing occupational accidents and diseases,
 the 
safety and health of self-employed workers
, 
while taking account of the special risks existing in specific sectors and the specific nature of the relationship between contracting undertakings and self-employed workers.







Reason

On 9 December the Commission adopted its proposal on the Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. There will be a separate EESC opinion (SOC/709) prepared on that proposal and therefore the issues should not be addressed in this opinion.
The text should refer to the Council recommendation of 18 February 2003 concerning the improvement of the protection of the health and safety at work of self-employed workers.

Outcome of the vote:







In favour:


99




Against:


162




Abstentions:


14





AMENDMENT 11


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.17

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
stresses the asymmetric relationships
 between the platforms and 
these workers
, and points out that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are fundamental rights. Proper organisation and representation are vital in order to facilitate SD and collective bargaining
. Moreover, social protection rights should be extended to these workers
.


The EESC 
notes that special attention shall be devoted to safeguard a fair relationship
 between the platforms and 
those conducting work through platforms
, and points out that freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining are fundamental rights. Proper organisation and representation are vital in order to facilitate SD and collective bargaining.





Reason

The amendment recognises the need to safeguard fair relationship between platform and those who use platforms to conduct work performances, be it as a worker or as an entrepreneur/self-employed. The amendment also corrects the incorrect assumption that all those working through platforms are workers as they might also be self-employed or entrepreneurs.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:97Against:157Abstentions:15
AMENDMENT 12


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 4.22

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The benefits of teleworking depend on how it is organised by the employer. Teleworking 
should
 be regulated by collective bargaining in order to prevent the difficulties that have been identified in numerous surveys (1). The European Framework Agreement signed in 2002 is 
not suited
 to 
meeting
 these new challenges
. The EESC recommends that new guidelines be drawn up, with a particular focus on PSR and MSDs
.




As stated in the 2002 framework agreement, telework is voluntary for the worker and the employer concerned. Teleworking may be required as part of a workers’ initial job description or it may be engaged in as a voluntary agreement subsequently.
 The benefits of teleworking depend 
i.a.
 on how it is organised 
and agreed upon
 by the employer 
and the employee
. Teleworking 
can
 be regulated by collective bargaining 
for instance
 in order to prevent the difficulties that have been identified in numerous surveys (1). The European Framework Agreement signed in 2002 is 
still valid
 to 
meet
 these new challenges.





Reason

The 2002 European Framework Agreement is still suited to meet the challenges posed by teleworking.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:96Against:157Abstentions:20
AMENDMENT 13


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.4

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The 2002 European Framework Agreement 
is not suited to
 meeting the new challenges posed by teleworking
. The EESC recommends that new guidelines be drawn up, with a particular focus on preventing psychosocial risks (PSR) and musculo-skeletal disorders (MSDs)
.


The 2002 European Framework Agreement
, complemented by the EU SP Framework Agreement on Digitalisation from 2020, provide sound ground for
 meeting the new challenges posed by teleworking.





Reason

The 2002 European Framework Agreement is still suited to meet the challenges posed by teleworking.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:93Against:155Abstentions:17
AMENDMENT 14


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.10

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC calls for 
a system to be put in place
 to assess the impact of the legislative initiatives, collective agreements and European action plans in this area
, and reiterates its recommendation

 (1)

of one labour inspector for every 10 000  workers.




The EESC calls for 
further efforts
 to assess the impact of the legislative initiatives, collective agreements and European action plans in this area.





Reason

There is already systems for impact assessments. Also the framework agreements have their own implementation follow-up.
As stated by the EC, occupational disease is a matter closely linked to social security, which is a national competence. On labour inspectorates: there is also the qualitative aspect and the fact that in ILO language labour inspection is not just health and safety but also other labour inspections (social, undeclared work, labour admin, etc.)
Since the pandemic and as the number of physical labour inspections declined in some Member States due to sanitary measures, digital tools were introduced to facilitate the carrying out inspections virtually (or at least some parts of the inspection can be done virtually). These new working methods can also increase the efficiency of the labour inspections. It is up to the Member States to decide how to organise labour inspections.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:96Against:154Abstentions:16
AMENDMENT 15


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.12

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC 
calls for a more ambitious position covering
 the 
50 priority carcinogens, as well as reprotoxic substances
 and 
hazardous medicinal products,
 and 
including stress

 (1) and 
shift work[2]

 (2)

.




With regard to combating work-related cancer, the EESC 
welcomes
 the 
provisional agreement reached by the European Parliament
 and 
the Council at the end of 2021 on better protecting workers from risks related to the exposure to carcinogenic
 and 
mutagenic substances by updating the Carcinogens
 and 
Mutagens Directive
.





Reason

It should be noted that in December 2021 the European Parliament and Council reached a provisional agreement on better protecting workers from risks related to the exposure to carcinogenic and mutagenic substances. To improve workers’ protection against cancer, the Commission had proposed in 2020 to further limit their exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. This initiative is also part of the Commission’s commitment to fight cancer under Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan. The Commission has underlined that under that agreement to update the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive, around 1 million workers will benefit from greater safeguards due to the setting of the occupational exposure limits for acrylonitrile and nickel compounds and the lowering of the limits for benzene.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:98Against:156Abstentions:17
AMENDMENT 16


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.13

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC calls for 
EU legislation
 on PSR. An effective preventive approach requires action to be taken with regard to the working environment rather than focusing solely on the mental health of the individual.


The EESC calls for 
more attention and extra effort
 on 
strengthening the role of social partners in awareness raising and prevention measures of
 PSR
. PSRs need to be addressed primarily at work-place/company level, there is no one-size-fits all solution that would work well in all companies or Member States as the problems are also different. According to the implementation report prepared by the signatories of the framework agreement, despite the different challenges and obstacles, implementation of the European framework agreement and the reports themselves clearly contribute an important added value in the area of work-related stress and the development of social dialogue
. An effective preventive approach requires action to be taken with regard to the working environment rather than focusing solely on the mental health of the 
individual. However, PSRs are a complex issue with different impact factors such as working conditions, workload management, work relationships but also
 individual 
capabilities
.





Reason

Legislation is not the remedy for everything. We should here diverge the approach more towards strengthening the role of social partners in awareness raising and prevention measures of PSR. PSRs need to be addressed primarily at work-place/company level, there is no one-size-fits all solution that would work well in all companies or Member States as the problems are also different.
We do not agree with the need for legislation but agree with the approach of the Commission to prepare, in cooperation with Member States and social partners, a non- legislative EU-level initiative related to mental health at work that assesses emerging issues related to workers’ mental health.
There is an implementation report prepared by the signatories of the framework agreement https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2008-02495-E.pdf which states i.e. that ‘Despite the different challenges and obstacles, implementation of the European framework agreement and the reports themselves clearly contribute an important added value in the area of work-related stress and the development of social dialogue.’
PSRs are a complex issue with different impact factors such as working conditions, workload management, work relationships but also individual capabilities.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:99Against:152Abstentions:18
AMENDMENT 17


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.14

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC considers that the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated prevention policy requires the 
reactivation
 of 
the draft MSD Directive
.


The EESC considers that the development of a comprehensive, long-term and integrated prevention policy requires 
taking measures as indicated in
 the 
Commission EU strategic framework on health and safety at work 2021 — 2027 Occupational safety and health in a changing world
 of 
work
.





Reason

The Commission strategy i.a. includes the aim of the Commission to make psychosocial and ergonomic risks part of the healthy workplaces campaign.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:95Against:161Abstentions:16
AMENDMENT 18


Tabled by:

ANGELOVA Milena
GAVRILOVS Vitālijs
KONTKANEN Mira-Maria
PILAWSKI Lech
VADÁSZ Borbála

SOC/703 — Social dialogue as a tool to promote health and safety at work


Point 1.16

Amend as follows:






Section opinion


Amendment




The EESC 
calls for platform workers to be included in the scope
 of 
the strategic framework. The right to organise, be represented and to engage
 in 
collective bargaining should
 be 
guaranteed, and social protection rights extended to these workers
.


The EESC 
notes that Commission has adopted
 of 
9 December its proposal on Directive on improving working conditions
 in 
platform work. There will
 be 
a separate EESC opinion (SOC/709) prepared on that proposal
.





Reason

The Commission has adopted on 9 December its proposal on Directive on improving working conditions in platform work. There will be a separate EESC opinion (SOC/709) prepared on that proposal and therefore the issues should not be addressed in this opinion.

Outcome of the vote:

In favour:104Against:152Abstentions:16

(1)  
Bérastégui P. (2021)
, 
Exposure to Psychosocial Risk Factors in the Gig Economy: A Systematic Review
. 
ETUI Research Report
 2021.
01
.

(1)  

OJ C 220, 9.6.2021, p. 13-25

.

(1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.

(1)  
https:/www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/health-safety-work-eu-strategic-framework-2021-2027



(2)  https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb297/pdf/esp-3.pdf

(1)  https://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb297/pdf/esp-3.pdf

(1)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/ajax/BlobServlet?docId=23324&langId=en

(1)  https://ec.europa.eu/social/ajax/BlobServlet?docId=23324&langId=en

(1)  
A chemical which may impair
 the 
fertility of a man or woman or impair
 the 
development
 of 
an unborn child.



(2)  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7466429/



(3)  
https://www.cancer-environnement.fr/597-Vol-124--Cancerogenicite-du-travail-de-nuit-poste.ce.aspx.



(1)  
https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/imported/2008-02495-E.pdf



(1)  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1fd9fbe0-1ee4-4928-a47d-4404b5301bbd



(1)  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/covid-19/working-teleworking.

(1)  https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/data/covid-19/working-teleworking.

(1)  
SOC/698
.

(1)  
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7466429/.



(2)  
[2] https://www.cancer-environnement.fr/597-Vol-124--Cancerogenicite-du-travail-de-nuit-poste.ce.aspx