|
Meeting of Experts on Ambient Factors at the Workplace |
MEAFW/1999/1
|
|
| |
Report
1. At its 271st Session (March 1998), the Governing Body decided to convene a Meeting of Experts on Ambient Factors at the Workplace and approved the Meeting's agenda. The Meeting was held in Geneva from 27 January to 2 February 1999.
Agenda of the Meeting
2. The agenda of the Meeting consisted of a single item: Examination and adoption of a Code of practice on ambient factors at the workplace.
Participants
3. Fifteen experts were invited to the Meeting, five of them appointed by the Governments of Brazil, Canada, India, Poland and South Africa, five after consultation with the Employers' group and five after consultation with the Workers' group of the Governing Body. The Meeting was attended by all 15 experts invited.
4. Several observers also attended the Meeting, representing the World Health Organization (WHO); the International Organization of Employers (IOE); the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU); the World Confederation of Labour (WCL); the General Confederation of Trade Unions (GCTU); the Arab Labour Organization (ALO); the International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF); the International Construction Institute (ICI); the International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA); the International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH); and the International Council of Nurses (ICN).
5. The list of the participants is annexed to the report.
Opening address
6. The Meeting was opened by Mr. Assefa Bequele, Director of the Working Conditions and Environment Department of the ILO. On behalf of Mr. Michel Hansenne, Director-General of the ILO, he welcomed the participants to the Meeting and expressed his gratitude to them for having made their expertise available to the ILO. He further expressed appreciation for the attendance of representatives from international governmental and non-governmental organizations. Mr. Bequele pointed out that the Meeting was an important event in the continuum of ILO activities concerning the protection of workers against occupational hazards. He referred to relevant ILO international instruments (Conventions and Recommendations) and underscored the considerable influence that these instruments had exerted on the laws and regulations of ILO member States. The ILO had prepared and published a series of codes of practice related to various sectors of economic activity and various types of dangerous equipment or agents which provided practical guidance for applying international labour standards.
7. He emphasized the importance of the Meeting in contributing to the protection of workers' health against hazardous ambient factors at the workplace. The draft Code of practice which the experts had before them was prepared by the Office with a view to updating the ILO's codes of practice on the Protection of workers against noise and vibration in the working environment (Geneva, 1984) and on Occupational exposure to airborne substances harmful to health (Geneva, 1980). This Code was intended to consolidate earlier documents on all types of air pollutants and other ambient factors in the working environment and to contribute to the application of the Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention No. 148 and Recommendation No. 156, as well as other international standards. He stressed the important and challenging task ahead requiring in-depth consideration of scientific knowledge in the social field taking due account of ethical aspects, individual and collective risks, allocation of duties and responsibilities, quality of services and cost-efficient solutions. He reminded the participants that they were attending the Meeting in their personal capacity as experts.
8. Dr. Takala, Chief of the ILO's Occupational Safety and Health Branch and representative of the Director-General at the Meeting, welcomed the participants to the Meeting and noted with pleasure the presence of representatives from other international organizations. He highlighted the importance of the Meeting which could have significant impact on the protection of workers' health against hazardous ambient factors at the workplace. He recalled important statistical data on occupational accidents and diseases provided by Mr. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, based on ILO and WHO estimations. He underlined the importance of maintaining a safe and healthy working environment for achieving sustainable development.
Election of Chairperson
9. Dr. Danuta Koradecka, expert nominated by the Government of Poland, was unanimously elected as Chairperson of the Meeting.
Presentation of the working document
10. Dr. Takala expressed his confidence in the experts' experience and cooperation for building consensus on the Code of practice. He pointed out the laborious task of preparing the preparation of the Code given the magnitude of technical aspects that were linked with social policies and economic considerations. The diversity of situations was so large that universal solutions did not exist. It was, however, possible to identify some basic overall principles on which a consensus could be built and various options used to balance competing interests. It was also possible to determine practical solutions in terms of procedures and allocation of responsibilities. He highlighted the significance of the Code of practice in implementing the provisions of relevant ILO Conventions and Recommendations, as well as corresponding codes of practice and safety standards. The draft Code dealt with setting up legal, administrative and other effective frameworks for the protection of workers against hazardous ambient factors, assessment of hazards and risks to workers' health, preventive measures to eliminate or control the risks, workers' health surveillance, training and information. The Code of practice would be conducive to the implementation of preventive measures to control exposures arising from hazardous ambient factors and to the protection of workers' health. The experts' views would make a valuable contribution to the joint effort of governments, employers and workers to control such hazards at places of work.
Examination of the draft Code of practice
11. In the general discussion, the experts agreed that the document prepared by the Office reflected best practice around the world and constituted a good basis for discussion. The experts considered that the draft Code of practice was prepared basically on the concept of risk which, in the opinion of some experts, was not always the best path to follow in preventing hazards at work. It was felt that the concept of hazard should be fully considered. In some parts, the text moved directly to the control measures rather than identification of hazard and risks. It was the general feeling that priority should be given to prevention rather than to control, and that hazards be addressed taking into account a precautionary principle. The experts considered that the draft Code placed too much emphasis on health surveillance as a general tool and that the existing infrastructure in many countries was not adequately developed for this. There was general consensus that the Code should provide useful guidelines for the protection of workers' health against hazardous ambient factors and not attempt to replace national laws or regulations. The role of cooperation in the implementation of recommendations made in the Code and the importance of establishing relevant frameworks was underscored by the experts.
12. In discussing the objectives of the Code of practice, the experts recommended to use throughout the document the term "eliminate or control hazardous ambient factors" on the understanding that controlling would include minimizing. In discussing the scope of the draft, the experts agreed that the provisions should apply to all branches of economic activity, all enterprises, and to any work activity in which workers may be exposed to hazardous ambient factors. It was also agreed that the Code could refer to the protection of the general public and the environment. It was suggested to introduce definitions of the terms hazard, risk, hazard assessment and risk assessment. Some experts expressed viewpoints that many problems related to the protection of workers' health, hazard identification, exposure control, and risk assessment derived from the insufficient cooperation between the social partners. Lack of expertise was recognized as a factor impeding the organization of training and workers' education in many countries.
13. The Meeting punctuated that a national policy for eliminating or controlling hazardous ambient factors should be an integral part of an overall national policy on occupational safety and health, and provide adequate and appropriate frameworks for practical action. The role of tripartite cooperation was especially highlighted for the implementation of such a policy. A thorough discussion took place on the order of priority in taking preventive and protective measures. It was agreed that the order of priority for the introduction and application of these measures should be the same as that reflected in the ILO Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176) but that the concept of "risk" used in the Convention should be extended to "hazardous factor or risk". Parts of the text taken from ILO standards and codes of practice should follow closely their source.
14. The Meeting gave particular importance to the necessity of keeping exposure levels to hazardous ambient factors as low as reasonable and practicable, in addition to compliance with occupational exposure limits, as the latter did not always provide a required level of protection. This was also included in the chapter addressing general responsibilities of employers. It was pointed out by the Employer experts that a safe working environment without any risks to workers' health was unrealistic, and that the application of all available protective and preventive measures could not ensure zero risk. The validity and importance of the application of approaches and recommendations formulated in the ILO Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy in relation to the protection of workers' health employed in multinational enterprises was agreed upon.
15. The Meeting elaborated considerably on the provisions of the text regarding the rights of workers in relation to the protection of their health against exposure to hazardous ambient factors. Some experts noted the insufficiency of provisions in national laws and regulations reflecting workers' rights and that it was important to encourage the competent authorities to give full consideration to this issue while establishing and developing occupational safety and health policies and programmes. Several experts strongly expressed the need for national laws to protect workers against reprisals in cases where workers exercise their rights recommended under the Code. The rights of workers to be consulted concerning the organization of workers' health surveillance was given particular emphasis by the Worker and Government experts. In this context, the Meeting acknowledged the importance of the use of the ILO Technical and Ethical Guidelines for Workers' Health Surveillance. The experts elaborated on specific considerations concerning the rights of women workers in the case of pregnancy or breastfeeding. It was felt that a special level of protection was needed for this category of workers to prevent any undue risk to the health of the unborn or nursing child from exposure to hazardous ambient factors. Adequate measures should, therefore, be used to protect pregnant or breastfeeding women workers and alternative employment without undue risk to their health should be given due consideration.
16. In discussing the periodic assessment of hazards and risks to safety and health from hazardous ambient factors, the experts noted the importance of reducing such factors to the lowest reasonable and practicable level. The experts also noted that while there is a wide variety of situations resulting in diverse occupational exposures to hazardous ambient factors, the draft Code of practice was not intended to and could not cover all of them, rather it was designed to provide within its scope general principles of prevention those hazardous ambient factors that the Governing Body of the ILO directed the Meeting to consider. The experts agreed to avoid the introduction of unnecessarily detailed technical specifications. It was agreed, where appropriate, to replace the wording "risks to workers' health" by "hazards or risks to workers' safety and health" throughout the text. Considering the three stages of assessment, the experts highlighted the importance of comparing exposure levels not only with exposure limits prescribed by the competent authority, but also with internationally recognized standards. The non-availability or insufficiency of occupational exposure limits produced by national competent authorities in developing countries was recognized as an obstacle for the overall process of assessment.
17. The experts discussed different means of elimination and control of hazards and risks. It was crucial for employers to seek the advice of competent or technically capable persons in organizing control processes and to make wide use of available professional expertise. Extensive discussion took place on the selection, suitability, compatibility, and maintenance of personal protective equipment. Some Worker experts expressed concern regarding the wording "workers should be required to make proper use ... of the personal protective equipment", which was too strong a requirement. The Employer experts disagreed. On the grounds that a similar provision with the same wording was already included in existing ILO documents, the other experts felt it was best to maintain the existing text while noting the Workers' concerns. It was particularly emphasized by some Worker experts that the use of personal protective equipment sometimes had the risk of introducing new hazards for workers which could create dangerous situations and lead to occupational accidents. In view of the variety of conditions requiring the use of personal protective equipment, the important role of training and information was punctuated. The experts gave particular mention to the fact that the use of personal protective equipment holds last place in the hierarchy of controls and should never be used as a substitute for effective preventive or control measures. The Employer experts preferred the words "not routinely" to "never".
18. The experts discussed various problems associated with the organization of workers' health surveillance. It was stated that this should be carried out or supervised by qualified occupational health professionals. They noted that biological tests and other investigations used in workers' health surveillance should not introduce unnecessary new hazards to workers and should be justified on medical grounds. While discussing the obligations of employers, the Employer experts raised concern regarding the over-prescription of employers' responsibilities. They expressed the view that increased compliance costs jeopardize jobs and employment opportunities. Some Worker and Government experts underlined the importance of employers keeping proper records of training programmes for better future planning and assessment of training needs.
19. Following a detailed discussion of the provisions of the draft Code concerning the protection of workers against heat and cold, the experts agreed that coverage of working conditions with exposure to these hazards was extensive and there was no need to expand this section. With regard to the control of heat stress, some experts emphasized the importance of the timely recognition and prevention and control of factors which could be precursors to heat stress. The experts noted that the inclusion of relevant ISO standards or other international standards was not appropriate because it could overload the Code with technical specifications. In the majority of cases, the standards used for hazard or risk elimination or control were prescribed by the competent authority and such standards should be placed in the appropriate sections in the annex.
20. In order to be able to complete the body of work in the allotted time, the experts broke into small tripartite groups, dividing Chapters 4 to 10 of the Code among the various groups, with experts on various subjects designated to the relevant groups. This method of working proved to be extremely valuable, without which the experts would not have been able to complete their discussion of the Code in the reduced number of days.
21. The use of market mechanisms was noted by some Worker experts as a progressive move in advancing the application of occupational safety and health. The use of market mechanisms reflects economic reality and should be considered alongside regulatory and voluntary measures. Setting appropriate standards for equipment manufacturers would be a suitable use of this mechanism.
22. In discussing the prevention and control of exposure to hazardous substances, one expert wished for the text to reflect the particular risk to undamaged skin from the penetration of certain chemicals, although the other experts agreed that the concept was adequately reflected without further specification.
23. Particular attention was drawn to a reference made to pregnant workers who may be exposed to ionizing radiation. While the compromise position was that such workers not be subjected to unwarranted discrimination, a number of Worker experts were of the view that the term "warranted discrimination" does not exist, and that the word "unwarranted" should be removed. The Employer experts disagreed.
24. The observer from the International Occupational Hygiene Association emphasized the need for employers to maintain and retain exposure records for radiation exposed workers, and noted that such records are often not maintained, which creates a variety of problems.
25. In the discussion of work in cold environments, concern was expressed by some Worker experts that weather forecasts should be considered for all outdoor cold work, not only long-duration cold work, as a means of preventing hypothermia. A number of Worker experts felt it important that food and drink provided by employers for workers in cold environments be warm, to prevent both dehydration and hypothermia, and that this provision should appear in the text. It was generally, but not unanimously, agreed that this was implied, through the use of the word "adequate".
26. There was discussion over the request that employers provide toilet facilities for workers in all cold environments (including the outdoors), taking into consideration the design of clothing worn for such work. In general the experts felt this was an undue and unrealistic burden for employers, although general arrangements could be made. The particular difficulty presented to women working in cold environments was mentioned by some Worker experts. The Worker experts considered that physical fitness should not be overemphasized in the Code. However, it was generally agreed that physical fitness had a role to play in work in hot and cold conditions, as it does in all working conditions.
27. It was agreed by all experts that it was inappropriate to refer to ILO documents that had not been adopted by the appropriate ILO bodies. Relevant ILO documents could be referred to in the text only if they had been so adopted.
28. It was agreed by the working group on vibration that any reference to anti-vibration gloves should be deleted as such devices are ineffective and could give a false sense of security to both workers and employers. The Employer experts felt that recommending the retrofitting of older vibration-producing tools, as well as the replacement of old tools which could not be retrofitted, were tasks too onerous to ask of employers, especially in developing countries. Agreement was reached such that retrofitting or replacing was recommended "where appropriate". A number of Worker experts felt concerned that there was no reference to the risk of nervous fatigue from work where there was exposure to vibration, while the Employer experts felt that such risk existed in association with noise exposure but not with vibration exposure. Other experts agreed that it was not appropriate to add nervous fatigue to the chapter on vibration, although the Worker experts maintained their objection.
29. Some extensive discussion took place on the appropriate wording throughout the text of "health and/or safety". Worker experts preferred "safety and/or health" as there can be simultaneous risks to both safety and health. It was generally accepted that the phrase "safety and health" would be used throughout, consistent with ILO documentation.
30. One Government expert noted that the annex to the text did not refer to any document which provided recommended exposure limits for noise exposure, and that such an inclusion was crucial. He recommended adding a reference to the ACGIH threshold limit values publication which was generally accepted.
31. The secretariat explained that in keeping with recent Office policies on gender references in ILO publications, the term "his/her" would be used wherever "his" appeared in the text.
32. Lengthy discussion ensued as how best to indicate that this Code of practice addressed a selected list of hazardous ambient factors at the workplace, but that there were other such hazardous factors which existed but which were not addressed in the Code. It was agreed that reference to this fact would be included in the Preface. A number of Worker experts underscored two important ambient factors which they considered important and which they felt should have been included in the Code but which were not, namely ergonomic hazards and psychosocial factors. The two inclusions to the Preface were: "The provisions of this Code do not apply to hazardous ambient factors such as shift work, ergonomic factors and/or psychosocial factors, such as work intensification, repetitive work, and stress, which may add to the hazards or risks to safety and health associated to the specific hazardous ambient factors covered by this Code" and "More stringent national or international regulations have priority over these recommendations. This Code is not intended to discourage competent authorities from adopting higher standards."
33. The Worker experts and at least one Government expert felt it particularly important that "contractors" should be added to the list of groups for whom the Code was designed to provide guidance, but the Employer experts were against such an inclusion, as they felt that contractors were employers and did not need to be listed separately. Compromise wording was found using the phrase "all other parties involved". The same debate was held over the issue of subcontractors, with no final reference made in the text.
34. The Office legal advisers discussed several issues. They were concerned about deleted references to "minimizing" risks to workers' health replaced by "controlling" exposure, since controlling exposure may or may not minimize risk to health. At least one Worker expert concurred with this comment of the Legal Advisers. The Legal Advisers also felt that certain provisions outlined in Article 19 of Convention No. 155 were not added to enumerated lists of remedial action to be taken by employers; that such actions were covered under the section on workers' rights, but not equally addressed under employers' responsibilities. The Employer experts felt such concern to be unnecessary based on their understanding that if such actions were given as worker rights, then it was understood to be an employer responsibility.
35. There was also legal concern over wording applying to maternity protection. The Legal Adviser felt that the words "where such work is available" could be detrimental to workers where such work was not available. Wording which was to be discussed at the International Labour Conference in June 1999 was proposed by the Legal Adviser, and accepted by the Worker experts who felt this was a human rights issue, but the Employer experts were strongly opposed to including text prior to its approval at the Conference and noted that they had taken the present wording from Recommendation No. 177. The Legal Adviser also felt that "unwarranted discrimination" against pregnant workers did not have much meaning. For the Employer experts, the basis had been "unlawful discrimination" but the absence of relevant laws in many countries precluded such wording. It was suggested that "reprisals" could replace the existing words, but this was not accepted by the Employers and the text remained as it was.
36. A debate ensued regarding the cost of worker training. While the Worker experts felt strongly that training should be provided at no cost to workers, the Employer experts stood adamantly against such an inclusion, despite the fact that all Government experts stated that in their countries training was provided to workers at no cost to the worker. Reference to the cost of training was finally left out of the compromise text. The Worker experts protested this exclusion, stating that it was unacceptable that the Code did not refer to worker training being provided at no cost to the worker. The Employer experts argued there was a difference between training that was "free of charge" and that which was "at no cost".
37. The issue of the cost of worker training was revisited on the final day of the Meeting with Employer experts strongly opposed both to the procedure adopted in reopening and reversing the point, and the wording arrived at against their wishes.
38. The view of the Worker experts was that the revisiting of the issue of cost to workers was right and proper. The provision of training at no cost to workers reflects standard practice around the world.
39. There was discussion on paragraph 36 and the Worker and Government experts did not agree with the view of the Employer experts that the word "finally" should remain in paragraph 36 of the report of the Meeting.
40. The Government experts and the Worker experts unanimously supported the inclusion of the phrase "at no financial cost". This was adopted as a compromise text and is reflected in the Code of practice.
41. After examining the draft Code of practice on ambient factors at the workplace, the experts adopted the Code as amended.
42. After examination of the report, the experts adopted it as amended.
|
2 February 1999. |
(Signed) Prof. Danuta KORADECKA,
|
List of participants
Liste des participants
Lista de participantes
Members representing governments
Membres représentant les gouvernements
Miembros representantes del gobierno
Sra. Ivone Baumecker, Engenheira, Ministério do Trabalho, Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco F, 70059-900 Brasília, Brazil
Mr. Dibya Bibha Deb, Deputy Director General, Directorate General Factory Advice Service and Labour Institutes, Central Labour Institute Building, N.S. Mankiker Road, Sion, 400 022 Mumbai, India
Mr. Edward Khambula, Deputy Director: OSH, Department of Labour, Private Bag X5012, 8300 Kimberley, South Africa
Ms. Danuta Koradecka, Director, Central Institute for Labour Protection, Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warsaw, Poland
Mr. Baily Seshagiri, Industrial Hygiene Engineer, Technical Services Unit, Occupational Safety and Health and Fire Prevention Division, Human Resources Development Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0J2
Members representing the employers
Membres représentant les employeurs
Miembros representantes de los empleadores
M. Jean-Claude Aubrun, Conseiller du MEDEF, 24, rue Lecourbe, 75015 Paris, France
Sr. Leonardo Greco, Coordenador del Grupo de Trabajo de Salud Ocupacional, Confederação Nacional da Indústria-Brasil, Avenida Nilo Peçanha 50-34° Andar-Unidade Juridica, C.E.P. 20.044.900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Mr. Seichi Horie, General Manager, Center for Occupational Health at Keihin, NKK Corporation, 1-1 Minami-Watarida, Kawasaki, Kanagawa 210-0855, Japan
Ms. Anne Knowles, Deputy Chief Executive, New Zealand Employers' Federation, P.O. Box 1786, Wellington, New Zealand
Mr. Christopher Money, Industrial Hygiene Advisor (EUROPE), EXXON Chemicals Ltd., Fawley Refinery, Southampton SO45 ITX, United Kingdom
Adviser/Conseiller technique/Consejero técnico
Mr. Matthew Winokur, Director, Philip Morris Management Corp., 120 Park Avenue, 10017 New York, US
Members representing the workers
Membres représentant les travailleurs
Miembros representantes de los trabajadores
Mr. David Bennett, Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), 2841 Riverside Drive, Ottawa, Canada K1V 8X7
Mr. Fulvio Cavariani, 25 Viale R. Belloni, 00061 Anquillara Sabazia, Italy
Ms. Erika Malekia, Tanzania Federation of Free Trade Unions (TFFTU), P.O. Box 15359, Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania
Ms. Susan Pennicuik, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Trades Hall, 54 Victoria Street, Carlton South, Victoria 3053, Australia
Sr. Hector Roudil, Sociólogo, INCASUR, Alberti 36, 1082 Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Observers
Observateurs
Observadores
Ms. Berenice Goelzer, Occupational Hygienist, Occupational Health Unit, Division of Operational Support for Environmental Health (EOS), World Health Organization (WHO), 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Ms. Barbara Perkins, Deputy Executive Secretary, International Organisation of Employers (IOE), Chemin de Joinville 26, P.O. Box 68, 1216 Cointrin/Geneva, Switzerland
Ms. Anna Biondi, Assistant Director, ICFTU Geneva Office, 46, avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland
Ms. Béatrice Fauchère, Permanent Representative, World Confederation of Labour, rue de Varembé 1, Case postale 122, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland
Mr. Vladimir Kouvchinov, Chief, Occupational Safety and Health Department, General Confederation of Trade Unions (GCTU), 42 Leninsky Prospekt, 117119 Moscow, Russian Federation
Mr. Gueorgui Kanaev, Expert, International Department, General Confederation of Trade Unions (GCTU), 42 Leninsky Prospekt, 117119 Moscow, Russian Federation
Mr. Adnan El Telawi, Arab Labour Organization (ALO), 44, rue de Lausanne, P.O. Box 578, 1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland
Mr. Len Powell, Director, Health and Safety, International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), 54bis, route des Acacias, Case Postale 1516, 1227 Geneva, Switzerland
Mr. Francis La Ferla, International Construction Institute (ICI), Via della Panetteria No. 15, Int. 7, 00187 Rome, Italy
Mr. Paul Oldershaw, International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA), Magdalen House, Stanley Precinct, Merseyside L20 3QZ, United Kingdom
Mr. Ingvar Holmer, International Commission on Occupational Health, c/o Department of Occupational Medicine, National Institute for Working Life, Ekelundsvaegen 16, 171 84 Solna, Sweden
Ms. Mireille Kingma, Consultant, Nursing and Health Policy, International Council of Nurses (ICN), 3, Place Jean-Marteau, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Secretariat
Secrétariat
Secretaría
Mr. Jukka Takala, Representative of the Director-General
Mr. Jürgen Serbitzer, Deputy Representative of the Director-General
Ms. Ellen Rosskam, Committee Secretary (English)
Mr. Igor Fedotov, Committee Secretary (English)
Mr. Ben Alli, Committee Secretary (English)
Mr. Pavan Baichoo, Committee Secretary (French)
Mme Véronique Du Mollard, Committee Secretary (French)
Sr. Alberto López-Valcárcel, Secretario de Comisión (español)
Sr. Juan Carlos Hiba, Secretario de Comisión (español)
Sra. Marta Burgos, Secretaria de Comisión (español)
Ms. Mary Anderson, Document Clerk
Ms. Wilma Graham, Document Clerk