• Index  • Regional Summary  • Bulgaria  • Czech Republic     • Index     • Part 1     • Part 2     • Part 3     • Part 4     • Part 5     • Part 6     • Part 7     • Part 8     • Summary     • Lists  • Estonia  • Hungary  • Lithuania  • Russia  • Slovakia  • Ukraine  • Data

Summary

Most of the answers to the questions in this Czech survey concerning health and safety issues and controls depended on the industry in which the respondents worked. Different industries were represented very unevenly, with mining and quarrying being very dominant. Other industry samples were relatively small.

Likewise, different property forms and ownership forms of the units, and workplace sizes were very unevenly represented. The majority of the survey units were privatised, domestically-owned and small workplaces (less than 50 employees). Most had decreased the workforce in the three years preceding the survey.

The average trade union membership level was above 50% in workplaces in all four sectors (primary production, construction and energy, electricity, gas and water, manufacturing and services).

Falls, lifting, transport of materials and the condition of floors were the most common safety problems. The most common health hazards were noise, dust and fumes, vibration and eye strain. Although safety and health problems were industry-specific, most problems were overrepresented in primary production, and they were assessed much more often as serious problems than in other industries.

Organisational issues were often considered as problems, but in most cases not as serious as health or safety issues. However, job security was an exception. Taking into account that most workplaces had reduced the number of workers over the last three years, it is not surprising that respondents felt that job security was a priority concern. Interestingly, work overload was the second most common organisational problem in the workplaces surveyed, and can only point to the fact that the workload of the remaining workforce has increased.

Noise, dust and over-exploitation of the environment were the most common work-related environmental issues. Usually they were considered as minor rather than serious problems, but in primary production, half of the respondents considered that over-exploitation of the environment was a serious problem.

Many symptoms – including serious ones such as coughing, breathing difficulties, cuts and bruises, pain, tingling or numbness, deafness, depression, skin irritation, allergies - were observed sometimes or frequently in more than 40% of the workplaces. Symptoms were clearly related to the frequency of problems in workplaces. For example, in workplaces where noise was considered as a serious problem, workers frequently suffered from deafness. A correlation between issues of major concern and frequent suffering from symptoms and diseases was much more common in primary production than in other industries.

Monitoring of the workplace and of workers' health was common in the Czech survey. In 78.3% of the workplaces surveyed, monitoring of exposure levels of chemicals, dust, noise, vibration, temperature and/or outside polution caused by the workplace took place. Health examinatons were carried out in almost all workplaces (91.4%). Several conclusions can be drawn:

• Monitoring of exposure levels was more common in workplaces where the issue concerned was experienced as a problem. For example, exposure levels of noise were monitored in 70.9% of those workplaces where the respondents considered noise a minor or serious problem. In most cases, monitoring was carried out by a government inspector.
• Usually, health examinations were carried out by a company doctor/nurse or a private health professional. However, it was estimated that results of the health examinations led to improvements only in one-third of the workplaces. Monitoring of exposure levels led to improvements much more often.

In those workplaces where the respondent felt that certain personal protective equipment was needed, it was almost always provided by the employer, and almost always used by the workers. Somewhat problematic was the fact that some PPE which would normally be expected to be necessary for all workers in certain industries, was assessed not to be necessary. For example, in the construction industry, the percentage of respondents who said that foot or head protection was needed, was surprisingly low.

Most of the respondents were satisfied with the working environment. Usually 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 - only two-thirds of the respondents said that the ventilation was adequate.

Preconditions for safe handling of materials were somewhat missing. Containers of materials were labeled in only 71% of workplaces, although this was higher for those workplaces where handling of hazardous materials was common. Where available, labels were usually in a language understandable to workers. Workers’ access to chemical data sheets and a full list of substances used in the workplace was much less common. Usually the information contained in the data sheets was assessed adequate for workers to perform their job, but much less often understandable for workers.

In industries where dangerous substances were extensively used, it was common that the management had a policy to reduce dangerous substances, and that workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace to limit exposures to hazards. However, there were exceptions, the most notable of which was agriculture.

• Training in occupational safety and health and related issues – performance of tasks, safe handling of materials, safety procedures – was given in almost all workplaces and it was usually assessed by the respondents to be adequate.
• Hazard pay was very common – more than half of the workplaces had it for some percentage of workers. Surprisingly, hazard pay was most common in the health services industry – in 95% of the workplaces surveyed – and in addition, a larger proportion of the workforce than in any other industry was covered by the hazard pay.

The average trade union membership level was 79.3% in primary production, 62.2% in construction and energy-related industries, 61% in manufacturing and 59.3% in services. Trade unions had quite an important role in occupational safety and health matters:

In most workplaces, trade unions had access to the

• results of monitoring of exposure levels,
• company reports on work-related injuries and illnesses declared to the national authorities, and
• full list of substances used in the workplace.

In most workplaces surveyed, the respondent's trade unions participated in the development of national OHS regulations.

In most workplaces, worker representatives had the following rights (in decreasing order):

• to inspect the workplace for hazards,
• to receive health and safety training during working hours,
• to stop dangerous work on behalf of workers,
• to call in government inspections,
• to time to carry out health and safety duties during working hours with no loss of pay,
• to give health and safety training during working hours,
• to investigate incidents,
• right to participate in government inspections.

Concerning their consultative or participatory role, worker representatives also had the right to:

• receive information on OHS from management,
• consult with the management on OHS, and
• participate in joint decision making on OHS.

In contrast to these favourable conditions for trade union activities:

• trade unions seldom kept health records, and the respondents were often not aware for how long various trade union records were kept,
• workers seldom reported their symptoms or diseases to trade unions,
• trade unions did not provide much safety and health training,
• the functioning of the workplace health and safety committee was not well known to the respondents,
• compared to management, it was much less common that trade unions had policies or programmes related to occupational health and safety and environment,
• only less than half of the respondents gave some figure when they were asked the average number of hours per week they spend on health and safety duties, and many said that they spent no time at all.

In almost all workplaces, health and safety was addressed in a local level collective agreement. Environmental issues were addressed much less often than were health and safety issues.

Health and safety matters seemed to be more extensively addressed in workplaces with at least some degree of foreign ownership: monitoring of exposure levels was more common, as was availability of full lists of substances used in the workplace, and access to chemical safety data sheets. Regulations were put into practice more often, resorting to firing of workers after health examinations was much less common, more educational material was produced, and the trend to decrease the number of workers over the preceding three years was less obvious, etc.

In public-owned enterprises, many areas were not as well implemented as in privatised enterprises: firing after health examinations was more common, the percentage of workplaces that were not designed with safety in mind was higher, hazard pay was more common, labelling of materials was less common etc.

[ Index | Regional summary | Bulgaria | Czech Republic | Estonia | Hungary | Lithuania | Russia | Slovakia | Ukraine | Data ]
[ Index | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Part VII | Part VIII | Summary | Lists ]