Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 318/32 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 work with visual display units (fourth individual Directive within the

meaning of Article 13 of Directive ...) _(_ _[l]_ _)_

(88/C 318/13)

On 23 March 1988 the Council, acting in pursuance of Article 118 A of the EEC Treaty,
asked the Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal.

The Committee instructed its section for social, family, educational and cultural affairs to
prepare its work on this matter. The Section adopted its Opinion on 14 September 1988.
The rapporteur was Mr Meyer-Horn and the co-rapporteur was Mr Etty.

The Committee adopted the Opinion set out below at its 258th plenary session (meeting of
28 September 1988) by 71 votes to 56, with 1 abstention.

1. Introduction

1.1. The present draft Directive is based on
Article 118 A of the EEC Treaty and the Commission's
programme concerning safety, hygiene and health at
work( [2] ). The Directive is the fourth of the individual
Directives covering a specific subject announced in
Article 13 and Annex I of the proposed Framework
Directive of 7 March 1988 ( [3] ). It relates to minimum
safety and health requirements in respect of work with
visual display units (VDU).

This fourth individual Directive dealing with VDU
work should therefore be taken together with the framework Directive. The latter Directive sets out a large
number of general health protection provisions applicable at the workplace which are complemented by the
minimum requirements concerning VDU work set out
in the present draft Directive. The two Directives thus
both apply together to the field of VDU work.

1.2. In order to take account of the specific nature
of small and medium-sized undertakings it is pointed
out in the Explanatory Memorandum that there is to
be a certain flexibility as regards the implementation of
the Directive, depending on the size of the undertakings
concerned. Account is also to be taken of 'socio-econ
omic factors'.

As was already observed in the Committee's Opinion
on the framework Directive ( [4] ), this does not in any
way imply that different safety and health protection
requirements in respect of VDU work are to be laid
down depending on the size of the undertakings concerned. The flexible approach with regard to the minimum requirements should rather be embodied in
accompanying measures designed to make it easier for
small and medium-sized undertakings to observe the
minimum requirements and the timetable for their
introduction.

1.3. In drawing up the draft Directive the Commission consulted the Advisory Committee on safety,
hygiene and health protection at work set up under

( [!] ) O J N o C 113,29.4. 1987, p. 7.
( [2] ) OJ No C 28, 3. 2. 1988.
( [3] )( [4] ) ESC Opinion of 28 April 1988 (OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988,
p. 22).

Council Decision 74/325/CEE of 27 June 1974. The
Opinion of that Committee is however not published.

1.4. Under the draft Directive Member States are to
adopt the necessary legal and administrative provisions
by 1 January 1991 are to inform the Commission of
the standards and technical specifications adopted and
are to report to the Commission on the practical application of the Directive, indicating also the views of the
two sides of industry. The Commission is to be assisted
by a committee, which still has to be set up, in the
implementation of the supporting measures set out in
the draft Directive.

It would be advisable for that committee to include
expert representatives from the interest groups concerned, in particular employers and employees. The
Advisory Committee on safety, hygiene and health protection at work should also be involved, as should the
Economic and Social Committee and the European
Parliament, when amendements are being made to the
Directive (see ESC opinion, points 2.12 and 2.13) ( [5] ).

2. General comments

2.1. The following observations complement those
set out in the Committee's Opinion on the framework
Directive ( [6] ). The views expressed in the latter Opinion
also apply to safety and health protection in respect of
VDU work.

The draft Directive sets out minimum health and safety
requirements for VDU operators. The Committee welcomes the fact that this proposal will bring about a
further improvement in the health protection afforded
to workers in some Member States where comparable
national provisions do not exist or fall short of the
proposed minimum requirements. The Committee also
welcomes the proposed retention of higher levels of
health protection in other Member States where the
rules which go further than the proposed minimum
requirements have been in force for many years.

( [5] ) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 22.
( [6] ) OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 28.

12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/33

2.2. The draft Directive contributes towards the
standardization of the health protection provisions
applicable to VDU work. As a result of the broad
definition given in the draft Directive, future EC provisions will apply to all VDU work: this is to be welcomed. However, care should be taken to ensure that
the draft Directive covers VDU units and their accessories but not other equipment such as calculating
machines with displays.

2.3. The provisions laid down in the Annex to the
draft Directive cover only a few fields of application.
They do not cover, for example, the following areas:
working document, food rests, the lay-out of equipment, space needed for working with VDU, and the
whole body of regulations relating to the minimization
of exposure to X-rays, low-frequency electromagnetic
fields, ultraviolet rays, electrostatic charges and ultrasound. Moreover the essential requirements set out in
Annex I are far from complete.

Furthermore, the authors of the draft Directive use
terms such as 'adequate', 'flexible arrangement', 'psycho-social factors' and 'aspects of health' without being
more precise. Generally speaking, framework legislation ought preferably to refer in respect of these terms
to the definitions given in European standards.

2.4. The draft Directive does not regulate the restrictions or breaks in the working time of persons doing
monotonous VDU work on a continuous basis. Such
restrictions are standard practice in some Member
States; in the Netherlands, for example, they are recommended by the industrial safety inspectorate. In the
Commission's view the restrictions or breaks in working time for VDU users may be regulated by national
collective agreements.

2.5. The draft Directive does not contain any provisions with regard to the problem of harmful radiation
which may occur in open-plan offices containing many
VDU, especially where these are older models. According to the EC Commission the level of such emissions
is far below the level of emissions from—much larger
—television screens (though the TV viewer does sit
further away from the screen than a VDU operator). It
would, nonetheless, be appropriate to make a precautionary reference in the draft Directive to radiological protection standards. In Germany, for exemple,
there is paragraph 4.1.12 of the safety rules for office
workstations equipped with a VDU [ref. GUV (statutory accident insurance) 17.8] which regulates protection against X-rays. The establishment of minimum
European requirements on the effects of electrostatic '
charges, ionizing radiation and electromagnetic waves
is not yet possible given the current level of scientific
knowledge in this field.

However, stringent limits have already been introduced
in Sweden in all three areas. The experience of public
administrations in Sweden shows that such limits can
be adhered to. Manufacturs have adjusted to the new
requirements for the Scandinavian market. In the Federal Republic of Germany, strict regulations concerning
X-rays are already in force.

3. Comments on the individual Articles

3.1. Under Article 1 (2) and Article 2 the draft Directive is to apply to any user of a VDU. This field of
application is approved. It ensures that there are no
differing interpretations and rules at national level.

Steps must be taken to ensure that display screens used
outside offices (e.g. those used at airports and reception
deks and for industrial control systems and monitoring
operations in hospitals and in energy supply and distribution undertakings) are also covered by the present
Directive.

The definition of a display screen given in the Directive
is questionable insofar as it embraces all electronic
screens, e.g. pocket calculators, digital watches, cash
registers. This cannot be the intention, hence the need
for a narrowing of the definition.

3.2. For the sake of clarity, reference should be made
in Article 4 to the consultation of workers or their
representatives, as provided for in Article 8.

There are some discrepancies in the different language
versions of Article 4 (1). The German version speaks
of _Gefahren_ (dangers) whilst the French version speaks
of _risques_ (risks).

A list of the various safety and health risks should
perhaps be given in national framework regulations or
standards.

The term 'insofar as is reasonably possible' should be
replaced by 'insofar as this is necessary to protect the
health of workers' (see the Committee's Opinion in
respect of Article 7 of the Commission Directive) (*).

3.3. It is not clear whether the qualification 'insofar
as is reasonably possible' in Article 6 (adaptation of
workstations to comply with the minimum requirements) is meant in a financial or technical sense, particularly as reference is also made in point 9 of the Annex
to the need to take account of the 'psycho-social factors'
applicable to work using VDU. In this case, too, the

(') OJ No C 175, 4. 7. 1988, p. 28.

No C 318/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88

qualification should be linked to health-protection
requirements for employees or other objective constraints, such as the depreciation period for the equipment, with reference being made to the framework
Directive.

3.4. There is a need to make a more precise reference
in point 9 of the Annex ('operator/computer interface')
to the stipulation in Article 7 (2) that workers are to
be informed on 'all aspects' of 'physical or mental
problems'.

3.5. A reference should be made in Article 8 to the

stage in the preparations at which workers or their
representatives are to be consulted on the measures
taken pursuant to this Directive which concern them
directly. As regards definitions, attention is drawn to
the Framework Directive of 27 November 1988 and

the Committee's Opinion on the draft Directive (point
2.2) (i).

_3.6._ An ophthalmological examination of workers
prior to commencing work at a workstation equipped
with a VDU is stipulated in the first paragraph of
Article 9. This is endorsed, although it will cause problems in some Member States with a less-developed
medical infrastructure and—as in other areas of work

—may have social consequences for workers found to
be unsuitable because of eyesight problems. It would
seem doubtful whether these consequences could be
avoided by stipulating that these initial examinations
should be carried out only at the request of the worker.

It would therefore be desirable if the minimum Com
munity rules provided for regular examinations, as is
the case in some Member States, allowing a certain
flexibility in those countries whose medical services are
not yet adequate.

In order to make matters clearer, it should be stipulated
in the second paragraph of Article 9 that employers
have to pay the cost of special glasses for workers,
if the ophthalmological examination shows that such
glasses are necessary for VDU work, bearing in mind
that the focussing distance involved is different to that
for normal reading.

3.7. It is not clear from the wording of Article 11 (1)
whether the 'laws, regulations and administrative provisions' to be enacted by the Member States are necessary in cases where, safety regulations and standards
have been drawn up by professional associations or
standards institutions and have virtually the same
power as laws. It also appears necessary to specify in
Article 11 that, under the draft Directive, the two sides
of industry retain the right to adopt more far reaching
provisions in collective agreements with regard to safety
and health at work.

(') OJ N o C 175,4.7. 1988, p. 22.

4. Comments on the Annex on minimum requirements
concerning work with visual display units (VDU)

4.1. The Annex setting out the minimum requirements contains a number of misleading or unclear
terms. The Commission should add to the Annex a

technical report. This technical report should preferably
be drawn up in collaboration with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) by a standards committee, on which the two sides of industry would play
an active role.

4.2. In the German version of paragraph 1 (display
screen) the rules are mandatory ('shall be'), while other
versions, such as the Spanish, say 'should be'; the different versions should be aligned.

Also, the German _versetzbar_ is not the same as _mobile_
in the French version, which means _beweglich_ in
German (and implies that it can also be rolled).

As well as being rotatable, tiltable and movable, the
screen should also be of a certain minimum size so as

to display a sufficient amount of information.

It should also be explicitly laid down that the screen
should not emit rays that according to the state of the
art are harmful to health (see 2.5).

4.3. The rule in the first paragraph of point 2 that
the keyboard is to be separate from the screen would
mean that portable VDU with directly incorporated
keyboards could no longer be used in an office. Instead
of referring to a 'position avoiding muscle fatigue' and
a 'space (...) sufficient to provide support for the hands
and arms' it would be better to have a drawing showing
an ergonomically designed VDU workstation (see
Appendix), as in point 4.6.8 of the previously mentioned
German safety standard GUV 17.8 or in the _Digest of_
_Working_ _Conditions_ No 5/1986 of the International
Labour Office (ILO).

If the keyboard is to be separate from the screen it
would also be a good idea to refer to standards which
(as in GUV 17.8, point 4.3.1) lay down that the keyboard must not slip or slide about.

4.4. Likewise, the directions about the work desk in
paragraph 3 should be supplemented by the drawing
mentioned in 4.3, which is reproduced in the Appendix.

The rule that the document holder shall be situated on

the desk on the same level as the screen is inappropriate.
It would be better to have a rule like that in point 3.4
of DIN standard 66234, whereby the document holder
is to be situated in such a way as to minimize the need
to maintain awkward positions for long periods and
frequently make unnecessary adjustments when changing one's glance.

12. 12. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 318/35

4.5. The rule in paragraph 6 that neither the screen
nor the operator should be facing a window is unnecessary, especially as glare from windows can be cut out
or reduced by using specially coated windows or blinds.
It would be better to have a rule which specifies the
result to be achieved: VDU workstations should be so
designed that sources of light, such as windows or
lamps, and brightly coloured fixtures or walls cause
no direct glare and, as far as possible, no disturbing
reflections on the screen.

4.6. The rule in paragraph 7 on the noise of the
printer should be supplemented, because there are
soundproofed printers, or laser printers which are virtually silent, and there should be some clarification about
the noise level which does disturb concentration or
understanding of speech. If it is decided to express this
in decibels, it should be borne in mind that the noise
level at the workplace should not exceed 55 dB (A) for
predominantly mental tasks, or 70 dB (A) for simple or
predominantly mechanized office tasks and comparable
tasks; the noise level produced by office machinery, as

Done at Brussels, 28 September 1988.

recorded at the workstation, should accordingly be less
than 70 dB (A).

4.7. The rule about 'an adequate level of humidity'
in paragraph 8 should refer to precise standards. It is
doubtful whether these can be laid down throughout
the Community.

The Directive should therefore only lay down that
in air-conditioned workplaces not only the rules for
temperature but also those for humidity should be laid
down at national level.

4.8. The 'principles of software ergonomics' and
'psycho-social factors' mentioned in paragraph 9, which
are to be taken into account when writing programmes,
should also refer to national or European standards.
These should include principles of 'dialogue management' and guidelines for the adaptation of the properties
of computer programmes (dialogue systems) to the
intellectual characteristics of the people working with
them, having regard, in particular, to cases where workers carry out monotonous procedures on a continuous
basis.

_The Chairman_

_of the Economic and Social Committee_

Alfons MARGOT

No C 318/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 12. 88

_APPENDIX_

_imtrtl_

Example of an economically designed VDU workstation with a working top which cannot be adjusted in
height and with the workstation's equipment arranged one behind the other