 |
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |
ILCCR: Examination of individual case concerning Convention No. 155, Occupational Safety and Health, 1981 Spain (ratification: 1985) Published: 2007Description:(ILCCR Individual Observation) Convention:C155 Country:(Spain) Published:2007 Session of the Conference:96 Document:22 Subject: Occupational Safety and Health Subject classification: Occupational Safety and Health Display the document in: French Spanish Document No. (ilolex): 132007ESP155 A Government representative thanked the Committee for giving his Government the opportunity to address the Committee regarding what it referred to as an individual case of progress, but which he preferred to term "good practice". Without wanting to reopen the debate on the working methods of the Conference Committee, he stated that at the next session of the Governing Body, he would propose an amendment concerning the terminology used and the need for cases of progress and cases of non-compliance with standards to be clearly distinguished. Therefore, there would be greater adaptation to the objective of the Conference Committee and the Committee of Experts, which was to ensure decent work for all. The speaker stressed the development of legislation and practice in two essential fields: occupational health and safety, and equality, free of all discrimination, for all workers without distinction. Such development was the practical consequence of a constitutional mandate agreed upon some 30 years before by all the political parties and accepted in a referendum by the Spanish population. It established the monitoring of occupational health and safety as the driving force of Spanish socio-economic policy. Any improvements to the body of law and administrative practice in that field resulted from the strengthening of social democracy by the Government. From that social commitment came the current Act on the Prevention of Occupational Risks that included the European Union acquis and the provisions of Convention No. 155. The Committee of Experts stressed the significant change that the law had introduced in the preventive culture of occupational accidents and diseases. There was a genuine and exacting social demand in Spain for safe and healthy workplaces, with Parliament and the administration responding to that demand. In that regard, the Government representative recalled that the central administration of the State shared competences with the local government of the autonomous communities, and stressed that both fully agreed on accepting the obligations imposed by the constitutional mandate, which facilitated coordination and cooperation. The speaker indicated the generalized nature of Spanish labour inspections, which enabled ensuring good occupational health and safety conditions to be linked with the other standards that also influenced respect for workers' rights, such as non-discrimination and full equality at work. That issue had been examined on several occasions by the Committee of Experts given that combating discrimination at work was one of the main roles of the ILO, since this issue constituted a distinctive indication of contemporary society and an indispensable requisite for social justice. The issue was expressed in 1889 by Spanish legislators in article 27 of the Civil Code, which provided for foreigners in Spain to enjoy the same civil rights as Spanish citizens. Furthermore, the Act on the Prevention of Occupational Risks did not contain any rules governing its scope of application, meaning that it applied to all workers, with the exception of special laws applying to military centres and penitentiaries. Public officials were also covered by the law. Nevertheless, despite showing a positive trend, statistics on occupational accidents were unsatisfactory and the matter had been the subject of a particular demand by trade unions during the celebrations of 1 May. The Government shared their concern, as could be seen from the significant number of existing health and safety regulatory provisions, some of which were included in the Committee of Experts' report, and the severe penalties in case of non-compliance. For example, in order to promote a suitable culture of prevention among the working population, the Ministry of Labour launched a state media campaign particularly targeting employers and workers, and also encompassing the population at large, at a cost of some 4 million euros. The initiative was an integral part of the health and safety strategy forged by the Government and the social partners, which was integrated into the Plan for the Improvement of Occupational Safety and Health and the Reduction of Accidents. The Government representative further indicated that on 4 May, the Council of Ministers had approved, on the proposal of the Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs, a Royal Decree on the form of publishing penalties for very serious offences concerning the prevention of occupational risks. The speaker also cited an example from the Andalusian Administration, which had implemented the immigrant PREVEBUS campaign, aimed at preventing risks and targeting the immigrant population (particularly from the Maghreb, Ecuador and Romania). It includes a bus containing 15 computer stations, where training was provided by teachers from Romania, Poland, Spain and from the Maghreb, and a meeting room with space for 15 people was made available. The scheme combined prevention, risks and social, labour and personal integration for the immigrant population. Another example was the publication in five languages of the collective agreement and salary scales of collective agreements for sectors and activities with a significant foreign workforce. This demonstrated the efforts undertaken to continue reversing the trend in terms of occupational accidents. Nevertheless, the Government remained firm in its wish to surpass the target set by the European Union Employment and Social Affairs Commission of reducing the number of occupational accidents by 25 per cent during the period 2007-12. The Government representative further stressed the efforts of the trade unions and the employers' associations, which, as a result of collective bargaining, had progressively adapted more general standards to the particular nature of companies and industries. It should be recognized that, in many cases, occupational accidents occurred in clandestine or marginal labour sectors. Therefore, and in the name of equality, the labour inspectorate had launched campaigns affecting the irregular economy, which in 2006 in Andalusia alone saw some 100,000 inspections with corresponding penalties to a value of 14 million euros. Nevertheless, the best ways of solving those problems was through training and social dialogue. Social dialogue was a well-known government action. The new 2007-10 strategic plan for citizenship and integration, for which the Government had earmarked over 2 billion euros, influenced participatory issues, education, employment, housing, health and co-development. It could not be stated that migrants were the primary victims of accidents, but given the status of illegal migrants, they could suffer more than others. Therefore, the regularization of migrants undertaken by the Government had significant social effects on the equality of workers, because there was no greater discrimination than that which separated legal and illegal migrants. The speaker stressed that 578,375 illegal migrants had been regularized. The issue of migration had been of great concern to the Spanish delegation at the Governing Body, the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, in the discussion on technical cooperation at the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference (May-June 2006) and the European Regional Meeting in Budapest in which the Government and the Secretary-General of the General Union of Workers (UGT) stressed the need for the ILO to become involved. The regularization or normalization procedures undertaken in Spain had been recognized by the ILO as a very good practice. Lastly, the drive for equality had given rise to the criminal offence of racial harassment law. It could be considered as a form of harassment against which all possible prevention should be taken. Spain was currently a receiving country for migrants, without forgetting that it used to be a sending country, making it sensitive to the foreigners who accounted for 10 per cent of its population. Multiculturalism was fully accepted in Spain and the Alliance of Civilizations proposed by the Prime Minister was a further response to the demands of society, wishing to live together in peace and enjoy social justice, in applying the emblem of the International Labour Organization to which they belonged. The Worker members concurred that Spain should be cited as a case of progress in the context of the application of the Convention. Public opinion could expect no less from a country hosting for a number of years the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. They highlighted the following as particularly positive: the adoption of a new law on occupational safety and health that was mainly based on the concept of prevention; the 2005 governmental plan for the improvement of occupational health; the 2006 national plan for priority measures to reduce risks; and other initiatives. The Worker members hoped that future results would confirm the effectiveness of these measures, recognizing that results were never immediate in this field. Indeed, a policy of prevention was a long-term policy that called, in particular, for a radical change in mentalities and attitudes at work. The Worker members further welcomed the fact that these initiatives had been taken in cooperation with the representative employers' and workers' organizations. This way of proceeding provided undeniable evidence of a global tripartite approach characterized by strongly implicating the social partners in governmental politics: in Europe, the "Spanish model" had begun to become a point of reference. Indeed, this model gave reasons to rejoice in a world where, all too often, governments and employers hid behind the alibis of globalization and deregulation, in order not to establish the legislative framework necessary to guarantee the protection of workers. This positive evaluation also illustrated to what extent international labour standards could contribute to the constant improvement of national legislation and to its application in practice. The Worker members called on Spain to continue to deploy the same energy to ensure that the numerous migrant workers on its territory benefited from the same protection in terms of health as national workers. This approach should be accompanied by the recognition of the right of all workers to unionize, in view of the fact that, from the moment that workers were confronted with an irregular situation from the administrative point of view, this right became undeniably linked to the occupational safety and health issue. In substance, the Worker members conveyed to the Government their congratulations for what it had already achieved and their encouragement for what remained to be done. The Employer members stressed that this was a case of progress. The Committee of Experts had noted with interest the adoption of a new Framework Act, which followed a preventative approach to occupational safety and health. The Employer members stated that measures at the level of the enterprise had to be supplemented by national policies, as envisaged by the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187). They commended the Government for the progress achieved in promoting a culture of prevention under the 1998 Plan of Action, and also for relying on social dialogue in this context. A number of other instruments had been adopted to supplement the Plan of Action, all of which the Committee of Experts had considered to have contributed to improving the implementation of the Convention. Further, the Employer members noted that the legislation on occupational safety and health applied to all workers, irrespective of their legal status. They also noted the Government's great efforts to promote awareness of the relevant legislation, including through the dissemination of information materials in foreign languages, and encouraged the Government to continue its extensive promotional campaigns. The Government representative welcomed the Employer and Worker members' praise. He reaffirmed Spain's commitment to rejecting all forms of discrimination in employment, to forging a policy for occupational health and safety and to protecting migrant workers. Such a pledge resulted from the regulatory will directing the European social model to which the Government was fully committed. Isolated cases of xenophobia could not conceal the fact that most foreigners habitually resident in Spain - even without being active workers - were genuinely and fully enjoying the quality of life prevalent in the country. The Government was active at all levels of the International Labour Organization, which was evidenced by its contribution to the budget and technical cooperation activities. International labour standards, in addition to the Convention's provisions, should be integrated into everyday life and used to promote globalization with decent work. The Worker members, at the end of this by and large positive review, expressed the hope that the Government would report regularly on the progress achieved in the field of occupational safety and health, as well as on the expansion - in consultation with the social partners - of the measures envisaged in favour of migrant workers, in particular for those working in irregular situations (without work permits). The Employer members stated that the Government should continue to report on the measures taken to ensure the Convention's application in law and in practice, as well as their impact.
ConclusionsThe Committee took note of the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. The Committee noted that the issues raised by the Committee of Experts in its observation referred to the efforts by the Government to improve the occupational safety and health situation for all workers in the country, including foreigners, through the adoption and implementation of a coherent national policy of prevention and targeted legislative and follow-up measures. The Committee noted the information provided by the Government in which it underscored that the current national policy and legislative framework, including the shift towards a preventative safety and health culture, was part of a broader policy framework. This framework, which was aimed at the democratization of social progress, had been developed in close consultation with the social partners and rested on popular support articulated in a referendum. The Government also indicated that while the impact of its efforts had yet to be reflected in national statistics, it was a positive trend that reported accidents now tended to be less serious. With reference to its efforts to implement the legislative framework by codifying equal rights between nationals and foreigners in terms of occupational safety and health, the Government indicated that it had taken concrete measures such as launching multilingual information campaigns, carrying out intensified inspections and regularizing the status of more than 578,000 migrant workers. The Committee noted that this case had been included in the list of countries as a case of progress which should serve as an example of good practice. It commended the Government for its comprehensive efforts to improve the occupational safety and health situation for all workers in the country and encouraged the Government to pursue the implementation of its national preventative safety and health policy in close cooperation with the social partners and the ILO. The Committee requested the Government to continue to report on progress made in the implementation of the above policy, including through national statistics, and to provide further information on the results of the campaigns to improve the working conditions of migrant workers irrespective of their legal status. |
| ILO Home | NORMES home | ILOLEX home | Universal Query | NATLEX |
|
Disclaimer webinfo@ilo.org |