Occupational Safety and Health in Bulgaria

Summary

Almost all of the respondents in the Bulgarian sample were worker representatives. Only 7.1% were health and safety representatives. Both trade union organizations, CITUB and PODKREPA, were well represented.

The Bulgarian sample was dominated by manufacturing, but primary production, services and construction and energy were also well represented. Individual industries were also quite well represented. A sample of more than 20 units was available on nine industries.

Most of the units were public owned enterprises, but privatized enterprises and budget sector units were also well represented. Enterprises with at least some degree of foreign ownership accounted for 10.6% of the sample.

In the Bulgarian sample, workplace size varied considerably in all sectors. Except for in primary production, the size ranged from a couple of employees to more than a thousand employees in each sector. Most of the workplaces were small, but belonged to large companies. Most of the workplaces had decreased the workforce over the last three years.

Accidents were seemingly quite rare in the Bulgarian sample. Almost half of the units did not record accidents at all in 1997, and most of the respondents said that the accident figures were not underrepresentative. Fire risk and falls were the most common safety problems in the workplaces surveyed. More than 50% considered these as minor or serious problems. Safety issues in general usually caused only minor problems. Health hazards were a much more common concern, and they were experienced much more often as serious problems. Most common problems concerning health hazards were noise, eye strain and irritants. Health hazards were related to the frequency of symptoms and diseases in many cases. The most common symptoms from which workers suffered sometimes or frequently were tiredness, high blood pressure and headaches. Usually, workers suffered from the symptoms or diseases only sometimes.

Job security, workplace design and sanitary facilities were the most common organizational problems. A risk of major industrial accidents, noise, air pollution and dust were the most common workplace issues considered as problems in relation to their impact on the general environment.

In 79.7% of the workplaces, the monitoring of exposure levels of chemicals, dust, noise, vibration, temperature and/or outside pollution caused by the workplace took place. Noise, dust and temperature were the most common areas of monitoring, and outside pollution the least common. Compared to all units in the Bulgarian sample, monitoring was more common in those units where the respondents reported having problems with the issue concerned. The difference was most obvious in the monitoring of chemicals.

Most of the respondents were satisfied with the working environment. Work stations were designed with safety in mind, premises were kept clean and access was restricted to some hazardous areas. The only issue causing problems in most workplaces was ventilation. Adequate ventilations systems were installed in only 47.7% of the workplaces. However, there seemed to be some shortages in the preconditions for the safe handling of hazardous materials. In most workplaces, a full list of substances used in the workplace was not available to workers or union representatives; workers did not have a full access to chemical safety data sheets; the information contained in the data sheets was not considered adequate for workers to perform their jobs safely, and the information was not understandable to the workers. Training in safety matters, on the other hand, was well-established: training in the safe handling of materials was received in 84.9% of workplaces, and training in safety procedures in 82.9%. Usually, the respondents considered the training as adequate. In addition, management had a health and safety policy and a health and safety training programme for workers in most workplaces.

Concerning the use of personal protective equipment, when the respondent felt that a certain personal protective equipment was needed, it was usually provided by the employer. But only in 75.9% of the workplaces, was PPE generally used when it was provided. The most common important reason for not using the provided PPE was "neglect" on the part of workers. Naturally, the need for PPE depends on the industry, but a surprisingly low percentage of respondents said that PPE is needed for some jobs. For instance, only 66.7% of the respondents in the construction industry said that head protection is needed, and only 75% said that foot protection is needed.

Hazard pay was very common in Bulgarian workplaces. In 89.2% of the workplaces, workers received hazard pay. There were a number of industries where hazard pay was paid in all survey units, and the proportion of workers that received hazard pay was high in many industries. In 65% of mining and quarrying workplaces all workers received hazard pay, and in all mining and quarrying workplaces more than 50% of the workers received hazard pay.

Health examinations were carried out in 77.7% of the workplaces. Usually, health examinations were carried out by a company doctor or nurse, and they usually also checked the general hygiene of the workplace and advised workers on health issues. However, most of the respondents said that improvements were not made to the workplace after the results of health examinations. Instead, transferring the worker to another job after health examination was quite common.

The average trade union membership level was 67.9% in the Bulgarian workplaces. Trade unions had quite an important role in the occupational health and safety matters:

In 91.9% of the workplaces, health and safety was addressed in the collective agreement. In five industries, health and safety was addressed in the collective agreements of all survey units.

79.8% of the workplaces had a joint union and management health and safety committee, and 17.8% had a union health and safety committee.

The monitoring of workplace exposure levels was carried out by a trade union inspector in 34% of the workplaces. In 62.6% of the workplaces, the monitoring results were given to the union. In 50.2% of the workplaces, the respondents assessed that some improvements were made after monitoring. The percentage was much higher (65.6%) when the results of the monitoring were given to the union.

In 32.1% of the workplaces, health examinations were carried out by a union doctor/nurse. Results of the health examinations were given to the union in 33% of the workplaces. 78.8% of the respondents said that their union has access to the information on work related injuries and illnesses which was reported to the authorities at the national level.

In 40% of the workplaces, workers registered a complaint with the union when they had work-related symptoms or diseases.

81.6% of the respondents said their unions had a health and safety policy and 66.4% a health and safety training programme for worker representatives.

In 25.8% of the workplaces, OHS training was given by the union. 67.7% of all respondents considered the OHS training -given by the company or trade union - as adequate. The percentage was higher (85.3%) when the training was given by the union.

33.1% of the respondents said that their union had produced some education materials on occupational health and safety, and 11.5% said that their union had produced some education materials on environmental issues.

Along with health/environmental professionals, the most common outside source of information concerning health and safety hazards was the national union: 56.7% of the respondents had requested information from the former and 53% from the national union.

In 45.9% of the workplaces, the union of the respondent participated in the development of the OHS regulations. 32.9% of the respondents were aware of the ILO conventions on occupational health and safety.

Trade unions' rights to receive information from the management, consult with management and participate in the joint decision making were common. In occupational health and safety matters, unions had somewhat more rights than in environmental matters. But even in environmental matters, trade unions had all these participation rights in more than 60% of the workplaces.

The rights of worker representatives to give and receive training were quite common in the Bulgarian sample. In more than 70% of the workplaces, they had the right to receive health and safety training during working hours, carry out health and safety duties during working hours and give health and safety training during working hours.

Considering the number of activities of trade unions and worker representatives, the respondents - who were mostly worker representatives - spent surprisingly little time on health and safety duties. Only 41.8% of the respondents gave some figure when they were asked the average hours per week they spent on health and safety duties. 20.6% of them said that they spend no time at all (0 hours). Most of those who spent some time, spent 1-5 hours. Only in 31.3% of the workplaces was the time spent on health and safety duties paid. (But some of those whose time was paid, did not spent any time on health and safety duties.)

A number of OHS matters were better organized in workplaces with some degree of foreign ownership and in larger workplaces. In workplaces with some degree of foreign ownership health examinations were more common and the results were given to the union more often; the working environment was usually more adequate, record keeping and reporting to national authorities was more common, as were management policies, training, and paid time off for health and safety duties. Monitoring of exposure levels, health examinations, record keeping, and labeling of containers were more common in larger workplaces. Trade union participation rights and paid time off to perform health and safety duties were more extensive in larger workplaces.


		International Labour Organization - Central and Eastern European Team For further information, please contact the Central and Eastern European Team by e-mail at budapest@ilo.org
Copyright © 2000 International Labour Organization (ILO) - Disclaimer