Occupational Safety and Health in Estonia

Summary

Most of the questions in this questionnaire were strongly industry-related. For example, answers to the questions concerning health and safety issues and controls depended on the industry. However, the number of cases in the Estonian sample was so small that comparison of industries was not possible. Only the main sectors of industry – primary production, manufacturing, construction and energy and related industries, and services – could be compared.

The small number of cases also limited the comparison of different property forms, and made the comparison of ownership forms impossible. Almost all workplaces were domestically-owned privatised or public-owned enterprises.

The average trade union membership level was below 50% in service industries, and above 50% in all other sectors. Trade union membership level was highest in primary production.

Occupational accidents were most common in primary production, but in general, accidents were rare. The average percentage of recorded accidents in the surveyed workplaces in 1997 was 1.5%.

Falls, lighting and fire risks were the three most common safety problems in the workplaces. These varied according to sector: in primary production, the most common serious problems were fire risks, electrical hazards and welding hazards; in manufacturing, lighting, condition of floors and cold temperatures; in construction and energy, electrical hazards and falls were the most common serious problems and in the service sector, lighting, cold temperatures and humidity.

Health hazards were experienced as problems more often than safety issues. The most common problems were eye strain, dust and fumes, and noise. Vibration was the most common serious problem in primary production. It was also an outstanding problem in the manufacturing industries, but here noise, repetitive movements and dust and fumes were considered more often as serious problems. All in all, serious health problems were more typical of manufacturing than other sector workplaces. In the construction and energy industries, health hazards were considered much less often as serious problems. The most common serious problem was burns. In the service sector it was uncomfortable working position.

Organisational issues were considered as problems less often than were health and safety issues. Eating facilities and job security were the most common problems. Considering the most serious problems, shift work was by far the most common in primary production. Monotonous work, followed by speed of work and job security were the most common serious problems in manufacturing. The latter two were considered much more often as serious problems in manufacturing than in other industries. In construction and energy, long work hours was the most common serious problem. In services, long work hours, shift work and speed of work were the most common serious problems.

Waste of energy was the most common workplace issue cited as a problem in relation to its impact on the general environment. In primary production over-exploitation of the environment was by far the most serious problem, whereas in manufacturing the most common problems were noise, bad smells and dust. In construction, energy, electricity, gas and water supply, only four issues were considered as serious problems - risk of major industrial accidents, waste of energy, over-exploitation of the environment and liquid waste. In services, dust, air pollution and waste of energy were the three most common serious problems.

Many symptoms and signs - including such serious symptoms as coughing, sore throat, cuts or bruises, ringing in the ears, allergies, sore eyes and gastro-intestial disturbances - were observed sometimes or frequently in more than 60% of the workplaces surveyed. Frequent suffering from various symptoms and diseases was more typical of manufacturing than other industries. Only in manufacturing workplaces did workers frequently suffer from deafness, skin irritation, pain, tingling or numbness or allergies.

While the effects of workplace conditions and exposures are resulting in many symptoms and signs of ill-health, the survey also showed that monitoring of exposure levels, health examinations, the availability of PPE, training and information are widespread in Estonian workplaces:

Monitoring of exposure levels of chemicals, dust, noise, vibration, temperature and/or outside pollution caused by the workplace took place in 78.1% of the units surveyed. Compared to all units in the Estonian sample, monitoring was more common in those workplaces where the respondents reported having problems with the issue concerned. Usually, the monitoring was carried out by a government inspector. Most of the respondents assessed that some improvements were made after monitoring.

Health examinations were carried out in 81.5% of the workplaces. Usually, they were carried out by a private health professional. Nearly half of the respondents said that no improvements were made to the workplace after the reslts of health examinations.

In those workplaces where the respondent felt that a certain personal protective equipment was needed, it was usually provided by the employer, and almost always used by the workers.

Training in OSH-related issues (those needed to perform a job safely, safe handling of materials, safety procedures) was common and usually given by the management. Usually management had also produced some education material.

In spite of these positive activities, there were other obvious problems in OSH matters in the workplaces surveyed:

While it was estimated that work stations were usually designed with safety in mind, premises were kept clean and access to some hazardous areas was restricted, adequate ventilation was often lacking. In those workplaces where ventilation was missing, many symptoms and diseases were showing up more than average. Work station design was much more often a problem in manufacturing, and ventilation was much more often a problem in the service sector rather than in others.

Only one-third of the workplaces had a management policy to reduce dangerous substances, and workers were rotated to different parts of the workplace in an effort to limit exposures to hazards in 40% of the workplaces.

In most workplaces, containers of materials were labelled, and in a language understandable to workers. Likewise, in most workplaces workers and unions had access to the full list of substances used. However, workers’ access to chemical data sheets was much less common, and usually the information contained in the data sheets was assessed not to be adequate for workers to perform their job, nor to be understandable for workers.

Compared to their rights and other conditions, trade unions could be more active in OSH matters. The proportion of respondents who did not know what their union was doing was surprisingly high. (80% of the respondents were worker representatives, 12% were health and safety representatives, and 8% were of some other position.)

In most workplaces, trade unions had access to:

results of monitoring of exposure levels;

company reports on work-related injuries and illnesses to the national authorities; and

full lists of substances used in the workplace.

In most workplaces, worker representatives had the following rights:

to stop dangerous work on behalf of workers;

to inspect the workplace for hazards;

to investigate incidents;

to call in government inspections;

to carry out health and safety duties during working hours;

to receive health and safety training during working hours;

to give health and safety training during working hours;

to receive information on OHS from the management;

to consult with the management on OHS;

to participate in joint decision making on OHS.

In contrast to these favourable conditions for trade union activity:

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 give much health and safety training;

most of the respondents knew little about the functioning of the workplace health and safety committee;

compared to management, trade unions had fewer policies and programmes related to occupational health and safety and environment;

less than half of the respondents gave some figure for the average number of hours per week they spend on health and safety duties. 14% said that they spend no time at all;

only some 70% of the workplaces surveyed had a collective agreement that addressed occupational health and safety matters, and only 14% had a collective agreement addressing environmental matters. Usually the agreement was a local level agreement.

In larger workplaces many OHS matters were better than in smaller workplaces. For example, monitoring of exposure levels, training and availability of information on substances used in the workplace were more common 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