Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Serbia (Ratification: 2000)

Other comments on C081

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

With reference to its observation, the Committee would like to raise the following additional points.

Labour inspection legislation. The Committee notes the observations made by the Union of Employers of Serbia, in which it indicates the need for a separate law on the organization and operation of the labour inspection services, providing for closer cooperation with the social partners, particularly in preventive activities with the employers’ representatives. The Committee understands from the information in the Government’s report that, a labour inspection draft law has been prepared within the framework of the project “Modernization and integration of the labour inspection system in the Republic of Serbia in accordance with the ILO and EU standards and practice”, funded by the Government of Norway. The Committee asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any further progress made in the process of adopting the law on labour inspection and to supply a copy of this text once it has been adopted, if possible, in one of the working languages of the ILO.

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b). Preventive role of the labour inspectorate in the field of occupational safety and health (OSH). Risk assessments carried out by employers and private enterprises. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the various preventive activities conducted by the labour inspectorate in cooperation with international and national services and institutions dealing with OSH and in collaboration with the social partners, including the organization of conferences, round tables, workshops and seminars. In this regard, the Committee notes in particular the various activities in the framework of the project “Improving occupational safety and health in Serbia” funded by the Government of Norway, including the training provided by labour inspectors in the area of OSH (also in the area of risk assessments) to a large number of experts and licensed OSH officers and representatives of the social partners in various sectors. In the framework of the above project, various preventive materials (a risk assessment guide, a feasibility study for establishing an OSH Educational Centre, training courses and manuals for the social partners in the textiles, leather and footwear and other manufacturing industries, etc.) have been developed during OSH seminars organized by the labour inspectorate.

The Committee also notes the information contained in the 2010 annual labour inspection report, to the effect that labour inspections have focused in particular on the compliance of employers with their obligations relating to risk assessments. According to the information in the above report, the preventive activities of labour inspectors in this regard have contributed to an increased awareness by numerous employers of their obligations and the procedures to be followed, and improved compliance with these obligations. The Committee also notes the problems indicated in the above report arising in practice in the area of risk assessments, for example, as regards the risk assessment provided by private agencies for employers. The Committee finally notes that guidelines for inspections concerning risk assessments have been issued in pursuance of sections 44 and 48 of the Act on State Administration (a copy has been provided to the Office). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the preventive activities undertaken by the labour inspectorate in cooperation with all the services and institutions dealing with prevention, including the social partners. Please also continue to provide information on the activities of the labour inspectorate concerning prevention, as well as the control of compliance with employers’ obligations relating to risk assessments, and on how private agencies establishing risk assessments for employers are supervised.

Recalling that in its previous comments the Committee welcomed the implementation of a new policy on health and safety in small and medium-sized enterprises, according to which regular inspection visits would focus on prevention through information and education, the Committee also requests the Government to indicate the proportion of regular inspection visits targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises, and to provide information on the education and information campaigns targeted at such enterprises.

Article 5(b). Collaboration with the social partners at the enterprise level. The Committee notes that the Confederation of Autonomous Trade Unions of Serbia (CATUS) in its communication of 28 August 2013, refers to restrictions on the presence of trade union representatives during inspection visits. It notes that the NEZAVISNOST, in its communication of 31 August 2011, also indicated that trade union representatives were not invited to attend inspections and, even in cases where inspections were conducted upon request of a trade union member, they were not present during inspections. The Committee asks the Government to describe the methods of collaboration with the social partners at the enterprise level, where they exist, and draws the Government’s attention to the guidance provided in this regard in Part II of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81).

Article 7(3). Adequate initial and further training of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the indications provided in its previous report. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee once again asks the Government to communicate additional information on the number of participants in the training sessions for integrated inspections, their duration, the topics covered and the evaluation of the results. It also once again requests the Government to continue to provide information on further periodical training for labour inspectors.

Articles 5(a), 17 and 18. Effective cooperation of the labour inspection services with government institutions and with the judicial system. Adequate penalties imposed and effectively enforced. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to comments by the CATUS, concerning the inefficiency of the system of penalties against employers. It further notes that, according to the recent observations by the CATUS as well as the observations made by the NEZAVISNOST in a communication dated 31 August 2011, in a large number of cases labour inspectors fail to apply the administrative means available to them when detecting non-compliance with legal obligations of employers, but instead advise workers who have requested inspections to assert their rights before the courts, despite the long duration of court procedures. According to the NEZAVISNOST, this also occurs when trade unions request inspections, thereby undermining the reputation and stability of unions. The trade union further indicates that numerous proceedings for minor offences are conducted sluggishly, leading to the expiry of the statute of limitations.

The Committee previously noted the information provided by the Government concerning penalties that are well below the minimum envisaged by the Labour Act and the Act on Safety and Health at Work and the need to accelerate judicial procedures so as to overcome problems with regard to the statute of limitations. In this regard, the Committee notes the indications made in the annual labour inspection report for 2010 that punitive policy in court proceedings has become more severe recently and that the complaints of labour inspectors on penalties below the minimum prescribed by the law has contributed to these changes. In this regard, the Committee also notes the statistical information provided by the Government on the total amount of fines imposed in all misdemeanour proceedings, relating to both employment and OSH issues, as well as the number of proceedings that have lapsed due to the statute of limitations (558 in the field of employment and 200 in the field of OSH).

It further notes that the Government reiterates its previous indications on the consultations held between the labour inspectorate and bodies responsible for criminal prosecution in Serbia, in which the need to further intensify cooperation between these bodies and the need to establish a common database was emphasized, with a view to overcoming the problems indicated above. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide statistical data on the average duration of proceedings and to provide information on the average amount of penalties imposed for violations of the Labour Act and the OSH Act in recent years, as well as information on the impact of the steps taken to overcome problems relating to the duration of proceedings and their effective enforcement. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on any further steps taken or envisaged to ensure effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the judicial authorities and to indicate any measures taken or envisaged in relation to the needs identified.

Articles 5(a), 14 and 21(f) and (g). Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the difficulties in the current system of notification and registration of occupational accidents and diseases, despite the existence of a legal obligation for employers in this regard. The Committee notes that the Government again describes the difficulties encountered, including the failure of employers to comply with their obligations, which in the case of individual reporting and registration of cases of occupational disease is partly due to the failure to recognize the relation between occupational diseases and working conditions. It notes the Government’s indications that data and reports on cases of occupational disease are extremely fragmented, due to the absence or inadequacy of reporting. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indications that only three cases of occupational disease were notified to the labour inspectorate in 2012. It also notes that, according to the Government, there is no appropriate exchange of information between the health-care institutions, the National Fund and the labour inspectorate on the number of diseases diagnosed, verified and reported.

The Committee notes that the Government once again refers to a project for the development of a register for occupational accidents and the identification, reporting and registration of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases (based on cooperation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour Employment and Social Policy). The Committee previously noted in this regard that working groups, in which representatives of the labour inspectorate have taken an active part, were established in order to consider proposals for a new list of occupational diseases and an efficient registration system for occupational accidents. It notes from the Government’s present report that efforts are currently being made for the implementation of a relevant pilot project in the Kolubara District. According to the Government, medical doctors have a major role to play in the new system of registration of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases which provides for the revision of the report form and registration through a web-based application. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the 1996 ILO code of practice on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, which offers guidance in this context. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the measures taken or envisaged in order to strengthen the efficiency of the system for recording and notifying occupational accidents and diseases, including through the adoption of a new list of occupational diseases and better collaboration between all institutions concerned for that purpose.