ILC90 - Report V (2A) Recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and ILO list of occupational diseases

Argentina. Internationally speaking, the quality of accident statistics could be definitely improved if the International Labour Office was to act as the coordinator and nexus among the various countries when adopting one or more international instruments on recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, together with a mechanism for updating the list of occupational diseases.

The Argentine Industrial Union (UIA) draws attention to the few ratifications of Conventions relating to safety and health which it believes is not due to lack of interest but the difficulty of adapting the singularities and standards of individual countries to international provisions. Great care is therefore required in drafting an effective standard that can be generally applied.

Austria. Like many other member States, Austria has not ratified the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), the Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161) or the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121). The harmonization of data on occupational accidents and diseases in the member States is under consideration in discussions currently taking place in Europe on future indicators for quality of work. Unfortunately, however, experience in Europe to date has shown that the harmonization of the statistics on occupational accidents and diseases is a very complicated task and therefore is currently impossible. Working groups at Eurostat have been examining this problem for a number of years.

Barbados. The Barbados Employers’ Confederation (BEC) considers that the Office should prepare for a tripartite consultation on the list of occupational diseases prior to the 2002 session of the International Labour Conference. The present list was drawn up at an informal consultation in December 1991 at which no employer experts participated.

Belgium. The National Labour Council (CNT) positively endorses the ILO’s dual objective, namely the strengthening of procedures for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and the periodic updating of the list of occupational diseases. The CNT considers that the initiative designed to strengthen the recording and notification procedures and to harmonize statistics relating to occupational accidents and diseases is very significant and forms part of a highly relevant dynamic approach. This initiative can only promote an increase in the number of notifications of occupational accidents and diseases and thus contribute to greater appreciation of the risks and therefore to an improvement in prevention strategies.

The CNT is also in favour of the proposal to update regularly the list of occupational diseases as long as it forms part of a reasoned, analytical approach and leaves the member States, in collaboration with their social partners – where their involvement is provided for, as is the case in Belgium – the necessary room for manoeuvre to conduct discussions on this subject at their level. Nevertheless, it wishes to be sure that the procedures to be put in place retain their coherence in terms of a guarantee of effectiveness and also in relation to a concern for balance between the gathering of statistical data and the administrative burden that this might entail for enterprises.

Czech Republic. The Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic (SPCR) supports the adoption of an instrument regardless of its form. Such an instrument should provide for at least minimum standardization of criteria for occupational accidents and diseases in member States’ statistics. Such a system should not increase the administrative and bureaucratic tasks of employers.

Denmark. Salaried Employees’ and Civil Servants’ Confederation (FTF): The severity of occupational injury/disease should be classified by the competent authorities on the basis of information on consequences, including medical, professional, social and financial consequences. The causes of the injury/disease should be classified by means of data concerning a person’s exposure to hazards including hazardous substances to which the injury or disease is related and the consequences of such exposure. It is of decisive importance that there is an assessment of the seriousness of the injury or disease. It is important in this connection to bear in mind that many of the most serious injuries or accidents do not lead to absence from work due to sickness, cost for treatment or incapacity for work. A comprehensive system for recording occupational accidents notified by employers and work-related injuries or diseases notified by doctors would be an important source for identification of the consequences of a poor working environment.

Finland. The notification and recording of occupational accidents and diseases is an important way of promoting work safety and monitoring the implementation of occupational health and safety measures at workplaces. The ILO should have at its disposal an instrument regulating the notification and recording of occupational accidents and diseases. It would be useful to establish international, widely recognized uniform procedures for notification and recording and for the compilation of statistics.

It is crucial that when decisions and recommendations are made, in the ILO for instance, on required occupational safety measures to abolish or reduce occupational accidents and diseases, there is sufficient knowledge available on the trends of occupational accidents and occupational diseases and their occurrence both nationally and internationally.

Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK): Provisions on the compilation of statistics should also require the authorities in charge of national statistics to produce more detailed, specific statistics by sector, company size and other variables. Statistics should always be based on actual accidents and occupational diseases and not only those indemnified by insurance companies.

Notification and recording principles should be expanded beyond occupational accidents and occupational diseases to cover work-related psychological and psychosomatic illnesses such as work-related stress which can lead to cardiovascular diseases or mental illnesses. The same applies to the health effects of work arrangements, such as working hours or methods, or other risks related to working life, such as violence or the threat thereof, or, for instance, repetitive work, which is the cause of a marked increase in the number of disabilities.

France. Movement of French Enterprises (MEDEF): Before considering the recording and notification systems for occupational accidents and diseases, the objective and the extent of application of these procedures need to be strictly defined. It is important, in particular, to define whether this implies establishing an inventory procedure for occupational risk that is appropriate to lead on to prevention measures involving the enterprise, the sector of activity, national or even international institutions, or whether this implies establishing a procedure for notifying accidents and illnesses likely to be attributed to work for compensation purposes in conditions fixed by national social security systems.

In this respect the report under consideration is somewhat ambiguous if we look at the answers recorded for France. For the notification of occupational accidents, there is reference to the employer being required by statute to notify the insurance institution (page 5 of Report V (1) et seq.). Page 9, on the other hand, states that “commuting accidents are not included in notifiable accidents in France ...”. In fact, French employers are required to report commuting accidents to the insurance institution just as they are required to report occupational accidents. In the section on the notification of occupational diseases on page 10 of the report, it states that “in France it is the physician who is responsible for reporting cases of prescribed diseases or diseases or conditions which are suspected of being occupational in origin”. In fact, it is the employee who is responsible for reporting occupational diseases to the insurance institution rather than the employer, who is responsible for reporting commuting and occupational accidents. These statements regarding compensation are distinct from those that require doctors to notify risks of occupational diseases in view of updating the national list of occupational diseases that are compensated.

Statements with regard to compensation and statistics for compensation set by insurance institutions for occupational accidents, commuting accidents and occupational diseases should be distinct from risk statistics that can be targeted by the nature of the risk and refer more broadly to accidents involving personal injury and accidents that cause purely material damage.

The above observations serve for the discussion of the updating of the list of occupational diseases. In fact, we cannot go down this road if we do not first define whether we are talking of supervising a list of diseases that are liable to be attributed to work or a list of diseases to be recognized as occupational diseases in the sense of the list annexed to Convention No. 121.

In the first case, the process should allow States to implement procedures for the notification of such diseases, leaving them the possibility to carry out the necessary medical and technical inquiries needed to include, or not, these diseases on their national lists of occupational diseases for which there is compensation. In the second case, this list should be incorporated in the national lists of occupational diseases for which there is compensation. The report and the questionnaire are ambiguous in this regard referring, on the one hand, to the 1996 ILO code of practice on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and, on the other, to the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121).

The list proposed for “occupational diseases” is very broad, listing all types of diseases with no precision as to the nature of these diseases and their appearance, and all kinds of toxic agents, with no indication of the conditions of occupational exposure. It is emphatically not acceptable as a model national list of occupational diseases.

Germany. In principle, Germany has an elaborate system for recording and notifying occupational accidents and occupational diseases within the framework of statutory accident insurance. Further rules result from the harmonization process within the European Union, which also comprises harmonization of data on occupational accidents and diseases. Statistics on occupational accidents and/or diseases are currently being compiled by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) for that purpose.

Although the harmonization efforts of the ILO are welcomed on the whole, additional requirements concerning the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases within the framework of a harmonization process at the international level should be avoided for countries such as Germany for which, as stated above, other international harmonization rules already exist whose results are accessible to the ILO. It is impracticable and inefficient to attend to and maintain different systems for the national and/or EU level and international level. Rather, the object should be to achieve a universal and compatible system of statistics at the national level, at the level of the EU and at the level of the International Labour Office. The ILO’s information needs could thus be met from sources which already exist. The database of Eurostat is a particularly obvious source in this context, where a start has already been made to bring about harmonization at least at the European level.

The terms “occupational accident”, “commuting accident” and “occupational disease” have been standardized in Germany for the work of the statutory accidents insurance scheme. The terms “dangerous occurrence” and “incident”, on the other hand, are not defined in German law. They lack terminological precision and it is to be feared that widely varying events/occurrences will be subsumed under these terms in the national notification systems. The terms “dangerous occurrence” and “incident” would therefore seem to be unsuitable for statistical recording and should not be the object of an ILO instrument. The three-day rule should be laid down in the ILO instrument as the “notification threshold” for occupational and/or commuting accidents, also in order to preclude a regulation on the notification of “occurrences” or “incidents” which have not resulted in any impairment of workers’ health.

Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA): Comparable statistics on occupational accidents and diseases are a desirable objective for it has transpired repeatedly in the social debate that conclusions are drawn unduly from statistics which cannot be compared. The question of whether benefits in the event of damages, occupational accidents and/or occupational diseases are treated in a separate social security system or are treated in the same way as other diseases and accidents is crucial for the relevance of data. In the former case it generally depends on notification as the precondition for entitlement, which is relevant for the “completeness” of statistics.

Since employers in Germany already have to meet extensive notification requirements, there is no need to expand the content of this task. The extension of recording and notification to the grey area of “dangerous occurrences” and “incidents” is to be rejected at all events.

The questionnaire lacks clarity in places. If the member States opt for the form of a Recommendation it does not seem altogether reasonable also to comment on the content of a Protocol. We are setting out our comments below nevertheless, but only because several questions could not otherwise be answered properly. As a fundamental principle we only consider a Recommendation to be appropriate for this field.

Italy. Most of the replies to questions are in the affirmative since these are matters already addressed and substantially resolved in our country. Furthermore, it should be noted that such events are recorded not merely for purely statistical purposes but prove valuable when comparing the preventive measures adopted by enterprises and the competent authorities in order to reduce occupational accidents and diseases.

In this respect, as far as Italy is concerned, there is no need to underscore the importance of prevention, since the social security system follows the strategy laid down in the Constitution. Indeed, the latest insurance provisions place workers’ health at the centre of protection concerns, deeming it a primary benefit and advantage for the entire community.

Clearly, however, any instrument that can provide better, more recent and more accurate information about accidents, their causes, the working environment in which they arise, possible injurious events at work, and so on, would be highly useful for helping to correct risky work habits, and endowing the workplace with more advanced safety measures. In this way, recurrences can be avoided or at least their effects mitigated by comparison with the past.

The informative instruments discussed above will be valuable as they will form the only national or world data bank, computerized, of course. Once in place, they can be considered and correlated so that those interested and concerned (be they workers, enterprises, authorities or member States of the ILO) can access them in order to enhance their safety and prevention systems.

General Confederation of Italian Industry (CONFINDUSTRIA): The ILO report suffers from a number of gaps and inaccuracies that should be pointed out. When mentioning comparative data among countries, very often no reference is made to Italy (page 7 concerning notification of non-fatal occupational accidents, page 8 on how and when information is notified, and page 9 concerning the countries where commuting accidents are notifiable).

On page 15, it is erroneously stated that “in Italy, as a result of a decision in 1988 by the Constitutional Court, the list of occupational diseases is no longer operational”; whereas in fact the judgements of that Court (No. 179 and No. 206, of February 1988) introduced into the Italian legal order a mixed system. Under this system, in addition to the old listing system where there was a legal presumption that the origin of the diseases lay in occupational hazards, there is the possibility of having diseases deemed occupational that are not listed. In that case, the burden of proof is on the worker to show the causal link, or again if the list of diseases is used but the notification goes beyond the limits of the list definitions.

Chapter 2 presents as “new occupational diseases” situations that have been around for a long time and, indeed, have been studied, for instance, continuous repetitive movements, tobacco smoke pollution (passive smoking), stress, night work and rotating shift work.

Japan. Systems on the recording and notification of occupational accidents should be arranged in accordance with the social and economic factors and labour practices of each country, as the occurrence of such accidents mostly depends on social and economic factors such as the educational and technological level of domestic workers and the industrial structure.

Current systems on the recording and notification of occupational accidents in Japan function effectively and the reporting system for occupational accidents assists research. Provisions should be flexible and universal with sufficient attention paid to various domestic factors to enable many countries to adopt the document and to arrange recording and notification systems in accordance with the document despite national differences.

Federation of Employers’ Associations (NIKKEIREN): There are significant differences among countries with regard to the actual circumstances surrounding the industrial structure, mode of work engaged in by workers, occurrences of work-related accidents and occupational diseases, occupational safety and health measures, and the like. It is therefore necessary to have an international instrument related to the “recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and ILO list of occupational diseases” with regulations of a flexible character that can allow a flexible response in accordance with the actual circumstances of each country.

Netherlands. According to the questionnaire the recording includes dangerous occurrences, incidents, commuting accidents, etc. The Netherlands Government does not agree to include these additional aspects. The Netherlands Government can only agree with the recording/registration, recognition, etc., of occupational accidents and occupational diseases and the gathering of statistics relating to them.

Spain. Recording and notification procedures for occupational accidents and diseases should be linked to procedures for categorizing risks, which are incorporated in, or, as appropriate, associated with procedures for recognizing the right to social security benefits. Otherwise there would be a lack of coordination between notification and categorization procedures.

In Spain, occupational accidents and diseases are covered by social security and, consequently, the social security system is responsible for defining these concepts and determining in each specific case whether the circumstances exist for the concepts to be applied – in other words, for characterizing the common or occupational origin of the risks.

Sri Lanka. Lanka Jathika Estate Workers’ Union (LJEWU): As far as the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases are concerned Sri Lanka is still at the stage of organizing the reporting and recording procedure. It has not, as far as the LJEWU is aware, ratified any of the ILO Conventions related to this subject.

Sweden. The ILO Committee notes that knowledge concerning work accidents and work-related illnesses is one of the most important preventive instruments. This makes it essential for rules on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases and for the publication of national statistics to exist in all countries and to be as uniform as possible to facilitate comparisons. The Committee regards the creation of an international instrument for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases as a matter of urgency.

The ILO list of occupational diseases, last updated in 1980, is paramount in the majority of countries. Although Sweden is one of the few countries applying a general work-injury concept, and thus applies the alternative indicated in Article 8(b) of Convention No. 121, the ILO Committee considers it essential that a mechanism be devised for continuously updating the list.

The form of the new instrument, i.e. the choice between a Protocol and/or Recommendation, should be decided according to an assessment of the alternative having the biggest international impact where these issues are concerned.

The ILO Committee notes the observation by the International Labour Office that a Protocol alone cannot accommodate the decision by the Governing Body, since a Protocol can only be attached to one Convention. Thus the International Labour Office presupposes a Protocol and an autonomous Recommendation, in which case the Recommendation would not only supplement the Protocol but, independently of the latter, could deal with questions relating to the recording and notification of, and compensation for, occupational accidents and diseases and could be linked both to the Protocol and to the list of occupational diseases appended to Convention No. 121.

The ILO Committee recalls the final provision of the three Protocols adopted during the 1990s (to Conventions Nos. 81, 89 and 147), whereby “a Member may ratify this Protocol at the same time as or at any time after it ratifies the principal Convention”. This provision has a bearing on the impact which a Protocol can be expected to have over and above that of the Recommendation. The Committee notes that Convention No. 155 has been ratified by 36 members.

United Kingdom. A fundamental revision of the incident-reporting legislation is about to be undertaken. This is planned to commence in the first half of 2002 and will not be completed until 2004 at the earliest. It is therefore difficult to provide a considered response at this stage – thinking on the scope and content of the review is still at an early stage and it is impossible to predict how the final shape of any new or revised legislation might look. It would be useful to have an indication of the timescale for the ILO work in this area in order to consider how best to provide a constructive and timely input.

The questionnaire takes a prescriptive approach in many cases to an international instrument. If the ILO is to proceed, the development of any instrument will need to take account of the significant differences in national practice.

Office commentary

The general observations reveal a broad consensus of opinion as to the need for an international, widely recognized system for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases. The information which can be provided by such a system is thought to be essential to a proper understanding of occupational hazards and, as a result, the development of prevention strategies and improvements in the working environment. The increasing availability of comparable statistics will encourage the exchange of knowledge, research and advice between member States.

There is mention of the need for reconciliation of recording and notification procedures which may have differing primary purposes, for example those associated with entitlement to social security and insurance benefits. Also referred to is the work on the harmonization of statistics being undertaken by the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) and which member States which are also members of the EU wish to be taken into account in the adoption of recording and notification procedures and the preparation of future ILO lists of occupational diseases. It is believed that such lists should have regard to work-related conditions of a psychological and psychosomatic nature which are not obviously occupational diseases, and to their medical, social and financial consequences. There is some discussion, which will emerge more fully in the answers to relevant questions, as to the recording and notification of dangerous occurrences, incidents and commuting accidents, about which national laws and practices vary.

Total number of replies: 75.

Affirmative: 73. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Other: 2. Spain, Switzerland.

Brazil. National Confederation of Industry (CNI), National Confederation of Financial Institutions (CNF), National Confederation of Transport (CNT): Yes. Except for the reference to a mechanism for updating the list of occupational diseases.

Chile. The instruments should be flexible so that the list of occupational diseases can be constantly and efficiently updated.

Cuba. The single instrument adopted should be sufficiently flexible so that all countries and enterprises might adopt it.

Ecuador. The adoption of an instrument that serves as a reference and guide, rather than an obligation, on how to carry out recording and possibly create mechanisms for the notification of occupational accidents and diseases.

Finland. It is important to revise the ILO Schedule I of occupational diseases at suitable intervals. With regard to revising national legislation on occupational diseases this should provide a useful tool.

France. General Confederation of Labour-Force Ouvrière (CGT-FO): Yes.

Ghana. Ghana Employers’ Association (GEA): Yes.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: In establishing an international instrument it is necessary to have regulations with a flexible character that can allow a response in accordance with the actual circumstances of each country. In addition, updating the list of occupational diseases may become a factor in impeding the adoption and application of the said international instrument(s). Therefore, careful consideration is called for.

Mauritius. There is a need to respond to the growing demand for more analytical information about the cause of occupational accidents and injuries and to modernize the classification.

Morocco. General Confederation of Enterprises (CGEM): Yes.

Namibia. Namibia Employers’ Federation (NEF): Yes. Information on occupational accidents and diseases is valuable for preventative planning and monitoring and evaluation purposes. Having the information available would contribute significantly to addressing problems relating to occupational accidents and diseases. It is, however, to be noted that the prescribed methods and procedures should be straightforward and simple so that very small employers in developing countries are able to participate in the compilation of reliable statistics.

Peru. Yes. To standardize the information available at the international level and to obtain highly reliable statistics that will allow the corresponding ratifications to be made.

Portugal. Enhancing the quality of life cannot be dissociated from development and, hence, the increasing validity of the concept of human development in which quality of life indicators are considered in conjunction with economic indicators. The promotion of occupational health and safety calls for global and integrated action, involving public authorities, employers and workers and their respective representative organizations, together with international organizations.

Confederation of Trade and Services (CCSP) and the Confederation of Portuguese Industry (CIP): No, national and international standards already exist, including Convention No. 155.

South Africa. Business South Africa (BSA): Great care should be taken to ensure that the new ILO instrument is sufficiently simple to ensure that very small employers in developing countries are able to participate in the building up of reliable statistics.

Spain. Of the ILO instruments cited in the report, Spain has ratified the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), but not the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121).

Article 4 of the first of these instruments establishes the obligation for each Member, in the light of national conditions and practice, to formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent national policy on occupational safety and health; while Article 11(c), (d) and (e) envisage that guarantees shall be provided for the establishment of procedures for the notification of occupational accidents and diseases by employers or other designated bodies, inquiries shall be conducted thereon, and statistics prepared and published annually in such cases, as well as for other damage caused to health during work or in relation thereto. In principle, the proposed aims of the proposed future instrument appear to be achievable through greater development of the Articles cited.

Moreover, the European Union regulations on current occupational diseases are reflected in a Recommendation currently being revised and until the revision has been completed it will be difficult to respond to this point.

Confederation of Employers’ Organizations (CEOE) and Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (CEPYME): Yes.

General Workers’ Union (UGT): Yes.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. Reliable work injuries statistics are an important part of preventive work, environment management and of the evaluation of measures taken in various risk zones. International comparisons of work injuries statistics can yield vital information of great benefit to individual countries. This being so, it is reasonable that the ILO should work to bring about a system for the gathering of reliable work injury statistics.

A list of occupational diseases must not be static but must be continuously adapted to research and development in the field concerned.

Switzerland. We believe that, although it is necessary to reinforce safety and health at work, this can be implemented by a means other than a new formal international instrument, such as a Protocol to Convention No. 155 or a Recommendation. At this stage we consider that the questionnaire raises such precise and technical points that it would prove practically impossible to guarantee the implementation of all these aspects via national law once they were incorporated in a binding national instrument. To date, only 36 countries have ratified the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155). The introduction of additional provisions that are technical and precise will not facilitate the ratification of this instrument, even with a Protocol or Recommendation added.

The recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, as well as a mechanism for updating the list of these diseases, might therefore be covered by the 1996 ILO code of practice on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, even if this entails revising it by seeking to give it a slightly more binding character. In view of the above, we have refrained from adopting a stance on the specific points of the questionnaire.

Confederation of Swiss Employers (UPS): Yes. It should be flexible so that it may be applied by the maximum number of countries.

Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (USS): Yes.

United States. United States Council for International Business (USCIB): Yes.

Office commentary

Almost all the replies to this question received from governments and employers’ and workers’ organizations were in the affirmative. The two governments and the two employers’ organizations which responded otherwise did so not apparently in principle but because they believe that the subject can be dealt with adequately under existing instruments. They refer specifically to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and the 1996 ILO code of practice. While in favour of the adoption of new instruments, some responses appear to suggest that these should be limited to the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases. There was general emphasis on the need for regular updating of the list of occupational diseases so as to reflect continuing research and development. Echoing comments to be found in the general observations, there was reference to the value of reliable work injuries statistics in building vital information about the cause of occupational accidents and diseases, and to the benefits to individual countries to be gained by the international comparison of such statistics.

In view of the overwhelming affirmative response to this question the Office proposes the adoption of new instruments as set out in draft in Report V (2B).

Affirmative to clause (a): 56. Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Affirmative to clause (b): 9. Argentina, Bahrain, Ecuador, Germany, Greece, Japan, Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, United Kingdom.

Affirmative to clause (c): 6. Cuba, Republic of Moldova, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore, Suriname.

Other: 4. Australia, Czech Republic, Costa Rica, Switzerland.

Argentina. UIA: Supports (c).

Barbados. BEC: Supports (b).

Belgium. The workers’ organization considers that the instruments should take the form of a Protocol and an autonomous Recommendation, which might open the way for a progressive adaptation of the list of occupational diseases. Whilst not formally opposed to the possible adoption of a Recommendation in addition to a Protocol, the employers’ organizations have reservations regarding the degree of feasibility of the procedures that a Recommendation proposes to initiate and about the analysis of costs that would be incurred by the updating of the list of occupational diseases by experts.

Brazil. Single Central Organization of Workers (CUT), Força Sindical (FS), General Confederation of Workers (CGT), Social Democracy Union (SDS): support (a); National Confederation of Agriculture (CNA): supports (b); CNI, CNF, CNT: support (c).

Bulgaria. The workers’ organization considers that the most appropriate instrument is a Recommendation.

Colombia. National Association of Manufacturers (ANDI): Supports (b).

Costa Rica. A Recommendation or Protocol independent of the 1981 Convention.

Cyprus. Cyprus Employers’ and Industrialists’ Federation (OEB) and the Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI): Support (b).

Czech Republic. Union of Agricultural and Food Workers (OSPZV): Supports (c); Czech-Moravian Confederation of Trade Unions (CMKOS): supports (a); Confederation of Employers’ and Entrepreneurs’ Unions (KZPS): supports (b).

Ecuador. This should take the form of a Recommendation as there are a number of ILO Conventions that encompass recording and notification, and these are complemented by other Conventions that support the procedures and obligations thereto.

Egypt. Federation of Egyptian Industries (FEI): Supports (b).

Finland. The employers’ organizations support (b).

SAK: Supports (a) and comments that in practice several countries have already adopted nationally binding regulations which the ILO decisions would now harmonize.

France. CGT-FO: The advantage of a Protocol is that it imposes more obligations on the States than the Recommendation. The Recommendation provides the necessary flexibility for the permanent evolution of the list of occupational diseases, as well as the possibility of better developing the subject.

The persistence of the wide differences still evident in the coverage of statistics and classifications and concepts used (page 12 of Report V (1)) implies that the discussion should be confined, at this early stage, to a simple Recommendation with the aim of reducing the differences between national policies.

Ghana. GEA: Supports (b).

Germany. A Protocol to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and an autonomous Recommendation (clause (a)) could only be ratified by Germany if they did not give rise to any additional requirements pertaining to the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases which go beyond the regulations existing in Germany. From the German point of view, the adoption of a Recommendation (clause (b)) is thus considered sufficient.

German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB): Supports (a).

Greece. National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce (ESEE): Supports (b).

Honduras. Honduras Council of Private Enterprise (COHEP): (b) Because a Protocol could provide detrimental for relations between employers and workers in the immediate future.

Italy. CONFINDUSTRIA: Supports (c).

Jamaica. (a) The Protocol and autonomous Recommendation may be used to simplify the reviewing and updating procedures of Convention No. 121.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: Supports (b).

Mauritius. The Protocol would supplement Convention No. 155 which calls on ratifying member States to establish and apply procedures for the notification and publication of occupational accidents and diseases. The new Recommendation would, for its part, lay down basic principles and help member States to achieve progress in the field without the need to comply with all the obligations put on them by a ratified instrument.

Morocco. CGEM: (c).

Namibia. NEF: (b) Considering the low number of ratifications of this Convention, the development of a Protocol would be a waste of time. An autonomous Recommendation would ensure the necessary flexibility and freedom that would result in the largest number of countries being prepared to and actually gathering the required statistics.

Netherlands. Confederation of Netherlands’ Industry and Employers (VNO-NCW): (b) The question is rather misleading because it is not possible to adopt a Protocol alone. A Protocol is a binding instrument aimed at supplementing a Convention – in this case Convention No. 155 – and cannot be ratified independently of the Convention. As only 36 member States out of 175 have ratified this Convention, it would be preferable to adopt a Recommendation.

New Zealand. Convention No. 155 should specify the requirements for reporting in more detail than is presently provided. An autonomous Recommendation would provide a flexible means of renewing the list of occupational diseases.

Norway. Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO): Supports (b).

Singapore. National Trade Union Congress (NTUC): (a).

South Africa. The Recommendation should not be autonomous as it will hamper application.

BSA: (b) An autonomous Recommendation would ensure the necessary flexibility and freedom that would result in the largest number of countries being prepared to and actually gathering the statistics required to build a global picture. Considering the low number of ratifications of Convention No. 155 the development of a Protocol would be a waste of time.

Spain. The current status of our substantive law, within which the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), is in force, would lead us to indicate that response 2(c) is the most appropriate, but, in our opinion, the extension and the content suggested in a number of questions in the questionnaire are not acceptable. We have therefore settled on response 2(b) which as a whole causes fewer problems, i.e. a Recommendation alone.

UGT: (a).

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: (a).

Sweden. Employers’ organizations: In order for a Protocol to have any effects, it has to be ratified by the Members of the ILO. We do not expect this to happen to any notable extent, because work injury statistics are primarily constructed with reference to national needs. A Recommendation has the best prospects of actually influencing the framing of work injury statistics in member countries and facilitating comparability between them.

Switzerland. UPS: Supports (b). There is little point to a Protocol as Convention No. 155 has had little success.

USS: Supports (a).

Syrian Arab Republic. (b) The Recommendation would allow Members to adopt a special scheme to record occupational accidents and diseases in a manner compatible with standards adopted at the national level, which may be compatible with Conventions ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic, on the one hand, and with legal concepts of occupational accidents in accordance with the Social Insurance Act and the national adopted list of occupational diseases.

Federation of Trade Unions (FTU): The instrument should take the form of a Convention or a Recommendation.

United Kingdom. (b) The Health and Safety Executive is unable to support the adoption of binding instruments – it is unable to support an approach that would specify particular approaches, as these may vary according to national custom and practice. There is little need for international harmonization of data collection when the primary purpose of collecting the data is the prevention of harm at a national level.

United States. USCIB: A Recommendation alone is the only appropriate instrument. Just one-fifth of the ILO membership has ratified the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155). Consequently, a Protocol would only have a limited effect because, in order to ratify the Protocol, 80 per cent of the ILO membership would need to ratify Convention No. 155 first. A Recommendation, on the other hand, would have immediate advisory effect.

Office commentary

A significant majority of responses favour both a Protocol to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), and an autonomous Recommendation. A Protocol imposing binding obligations is seen as creating greater certainty as to the recording and notification procedure required by Article 11, subparagraph (c), of Convention No. 155 at national level, and through the publication of information under subparagraph (e) facilitating comparative analyses at the international level to assist in devising preventive strategies. Unlike the Protocol, the autonomous Recommendation proposed can relate to Conventions other than Convention No. 155, in particular the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 (No. 121), which in Schedule I contains a list of occupational diseases, and so an autonomous Recommendation could provide the flexible updating mechanism sought by the Governing Body for the revision of the list of occupational diseases in future.

The support for a Recommendation alone from some member States and substantially from employers’ organizations, relies upon the greater flexibility and freedom a Recommendation is seen as providing in accommodating national customs and practice. Attention is drawn to what is regarded as relatively few ratifications of Convention No. 155 and the inability of member States to ratify a Protocol independently without first ratifying the Convention it supports.

Those responses which support a Protocol alone do not discuss how this would satisfy the intention of the Governing Body regularly to update the list of occupational diseases in addition to standard setting for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases.

Reflecting the substantial majority of replies in favour of a Protocol and an autonomous Recommendation the Office has drafted the proposed text accordingly.

Total number of replies: 65.

Affirmative to (a): 62. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 1. Spain.

Other: 2. Germany, Portugal.

Australia. The State of Victoria notes that the Victorian health and safety regulatory regime refers to “incidents” rather than “accidents”. As a matter of policy, all incidents are viewed as preventable. The word “accident” on the other hand implies that some events are unavoidable. In Victoria, the word “incident” is defined under the Occupational Health and Safety (Incident Notification) Regulations 1997 and means any accident (fatal or non-fatal occupational injury) or dangerous occurrence.

Austria. In national law the term “occupational accident” includes, inter alia, injuries resulting from altruistic activities.

Bulgaria. In the term “arising out of, or in the course of, work”, the conjunction “or” should be replaced by “and” because it is possible for the accident to be in the course of work but for it to have no relation to work for which the injured person is employed. Accidents which have arisen in conjunction with work which is in the interest of the enterprise should be covered. It is important that the injury has arisen suddenly to make clear the difference between occupational accidents and disease.

Canada. The term “occupational injury” should be defined to clarify that occupational injury can be either an injury or a disease.

Chile. (ii) Consideration should be given to the loss of at least one working day to distinguish non-fatal injuries from incidents.

Cyprus. (ii) Provided that such injury disables the worker for more than three days from earning full wages at the work at which he was employed at the time of such accidents.

Czech Republic. OSPZV: No.

Denmark. The term “occupational accident” should cover an occurrence in the course of work or a sudden unintended event occurring out of or in the course of work, which results in fatal or non-fatal injury.

Estonia. The term “occupational accidents” should be internationally comprehensible for employers, workers and governments.

(i) and (ii) The term “occupational accident” should be an accident which takes place in a working process. It is not important whether it is fatal or non-fatal.

France. CGT-FO: The term “occupational accident” should cover any accident arising out of, or in the course of, work which results in physical or mental suffering, fatal or not.

Germany. According to German law, an “occupational accident” is an occurrence in which an insured person suffers an accident “as the result of an insured activity”, i.e. there has to be a causal connection between the accident and the insured activity. The proposed formulations “arising out of work” or “in the course of work” are definitely narrower in comparison. In (a)(i) and (ii) the word “occupational” should be replaced with “work-related”.

An “accident” should be defined as “an occurrence which is limited in time and influences the body externally and which has caused injury to health or death”.

Confederation of German Employers’ Associations (BDA): Both, but in the case of non-fatal injury the accidents must involve at least three days’ incapacity for work.

DGB: Clauses (i) and (ii) should read “work-related” rather than “occupational”.

Greece. ESEE: (ii) Yes, but add the word “serious” before “non-fatal”.

India. The definition of occupational accident should include poisoning.

Italy. The cause and the work occasion should be identified.

Jamaica. The use of agreed common terms would provide international standards for the comparison of national statistics.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: The definition of an occupational accident is given as “an occurrence arising out of, or in the course of, work”. However, as the definition of the term varies from country to country, the wording should be “Each Member shall prescribe a definition of ‘industrial accident’ in accordance with its laws and regulations”, as stated in Article 7 of Convention No. 121.

Kenya. An additional clause should be added to the Protocol: “(iii) damage to or loss of property”.

Republic of Korea. Korean Employers’ Federation (KEF): Yes to (i).

Lebanon. Yes. If “in the course of” does not include accidents that occur as a result of the work or on the occasion of the work, the definition should be extended.

Malta. The term “occupational accident” should also cover incidents in which no injuries occur, such as near misses and property damage.

Morocco. CGEM: Yes.

Netherlands. (i) and (ii) Both fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries should be included. One might, though, consider a differentiation in the degree of severity of the injury in terms of medical attendance or number of days of disability to work.

VNO-NCW: Only non-fatal occupational injury.

New Zealand. The distinction between fatal and non-fatal injury is a useful one to make, and the inclusion of both in the definition is appropriate. But the use of the term “occupational accident” is more problematic. “Accident” suggests chance, and this is no longer a suitable mental “hook” to use when thinking about accidents. However, given that the Convention at present uses the term it should be retained, until it is revised.

Poland. Polish Confederation of Private Employers (PKPP): Yes.

All-Poland Trade Union Alliance (OPZZ): Yes, without mutual exclusivity.

Russian Federation. Yes, but refer to the period of incapacity arising from the accident; one day is suggested.

Slovakia. Confederation of Trade Unions (CTU): An “occupational accident” should be defined as “the damage to health sustained by an employee while discharging his/her work tasks or in direct relation to them, independent of his/her will, by short-term, sudden and forceful effects of external influences”.

South Africa. Substitute “and” for “or”.

Spain. In national legislation (listed) notification models are established and instructions laid down for their implementation. The definition of occupational accident is not acceptable as it does not refer to external factors.

UGT: The concept of occupational accident must encompass those which cause both fatal and non-fatal injuries.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Switzerland. UPS: Yes, within the meaning of the federal law on accident insurance.

USS: Yes.

United States. USCIB: Yes, as to both fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. The injuries encompassed by this instrument are those resulting from “accidents”. As such, the Recommendation does not include ergonomics and other injuries that are not the result of accidents.

Yugoslavia. The term “injury at work” should cover all injuries at work, whether resulting in death or not, and these lethal injuries should be dealt with separately.

Office commentary

Of those countries which replied to this question, which is concerned only with the scope of the proposed instruments, there is virtual unanimity in the affirmative response to what is the substance of the question. Comment was confined to specific issues, proposing some qualification of the wording.

Some issues raised, for example whether the scope of non-fatal accidents should be specified in terms of seriousness, or the number of days’ absence from work, are thought to be better dealt with under subsequent questions relating to recording and notification. Similarly, those which refer to events which injure property, rather than the person, are discussed as dangerous occurrences or incidents. Convention No. 121, referred to in one response, is limited to accidents attracting benefits.

Two responses suggest the replacement of the conjunction “or” with “and”; however, the former is believed by the Office to make it sufficiently clear that both types of injury are covered.

There is reference to the need for an accident to be caused by a sudden event. The term “accident” has been used frequently in previous instruments without definition and it appears to have been well understood.

The term “occupational accident” is without qualification as to its nature, cause or seriousness; it is specified only that it should arise out of, or in the course of, work. This is thought to cover the point raised by the Government of India and, similarly, that by the Government of Spain, although it is not clear what is intended by reference to external factors. This part of the question appears as Article 1(a) of the proposed Protocol.

Total number of replies: 66.

Affirmative to (b): 59. Australia, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 3. Austria, Netherlands, Spain.

Other: 4. Germany, Hungary, Norway, Portugal.

Australia. The proposed definition of occupational disease may be too narrow in its current form. No provision exists for work activities to have an effect on “occupational disease” covering diseases contracted as a result of an exposure to risk factors arising from work activity or the recurrence, aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in a person of an existing disease, as a result of an exposure to risk factors arising from work activity. It is suggested that the definition of “occupational disease” include these factors.

Austria. The definition of the term “occupational disease” should be modified to correspond to national legislation and practice in order to make it easier to ratify the Protocol. In many States occupational disease is defined on an individual basis and not under a general clause. For example, the definition of the term “occupational disease” is broader than that used in Austria’s national law, under which not every occupational illness is an occupational disease. In Austria, occupational disease is not defined under a general clause but by means of an extensive list of occupational illnesses. In addition, it is possible to declare as an occupational disease any illness which has arisen exclusively and predominantly as a result of exposure to harmful substances or radiation at work.

Brazil. Yes, but substitute “arising from” with “present at”.

CNI: Substitute “inherent risk” for the risk factors arising from work activity.

Bulgaria. Any aggravation and later consequences of the occupational disease should be related to it.

Chile. Risk factors should be considered rather than conventional risk agents. This makes it possible to incorporate ergonomic and psychological aspects into the causation of occupational ill health.

China. The legal definition of the Occupational Diseases Prevention Law is recommended, i.e. “For the purposes of this Law, the term ‘occupational disease’ means a disease contracted as a result of exposure to dust, radioactive substance(s), other hazardous substance(s), etc. by labourers of enterprises, institutions and private economic organizations (hereafter referred to as employing units) during their occupational activities”.

Finland. Yes, but first and foremost, it should be made clear what is meant by “exposure to risk factors” here.

France. CGT-FO: The term “occupational diseases” should cover any illness contracted as a result of exposure to a risk arising from work activity.

Germany. An “occupational disease” is a disease which the insured person suffers as the result of an insured activity and which can be recognized under national law as an indemnifiable damage.

BDA: A risk factor must be involved which affects the worker to a considerably greater extent than the rest of the population, and a disease must be involved which is caused by special effects.

DGB: An additional definition should be included between points (b) and (c): “the term ‘work-related disease’ covers a disease which is also the result of the effect of risk factors which arise from the work activity but are not included in the list of occupational diseases”.

Greece. ESEE: Yes.

Hungary. Instead of “arising from work activity” we suggest “arising from work activities or work environment” as in clause 2.3.1 of Appendix IV to Report V (1).

Israel. We are of the opinion that the list of occupational diseases has to link the disease with an agent at the workplace which is known to be a potential cause of the disease. This is particularly relevant as far as occupational cancers are concerned, so as to avoid the impression that any cancer could or should be recognized or acknowledged as being due to exposure to a cancerous agent.

We therefore propose that there should be a preamble to the whole list (and not only occurring in specific paragraphs) as follows:

The diseases are recognized when a direct link between the exposure of a worker to an agent and the disease suffered is established, or when established in national legislation.

Italy. The work cause should be identified and must be direct and effective and such as to produce the disease solely or mainly.

Lebanon. Add the term “or because of the work activity” at the end of the clause, for the occupational disease might attack the person exposed to risk factors arising from work activity because of his work, but that should include any other person who could be affected by these factors without having executed that activity directly.

Mexico. Yes. It should cover any pathological condition resulting from the continuing action of a factor arising from work or in the environment in which the worker is obliged to work.

Netherlands. No. The definition of “occupational disease” as it is represented in the questionnaire is not acceptable to the Netherlands Government. The definition should be reformulated as follows: “an occupational disease is a disease which, in accordance with current medical knowledge, is caused by the impact of specific working conditions and occurs more often to workers in certain professions when compared to other workers or non-workers.”

Norway. The term “occupational disease” should cover a disease accepted by the ILO and/or national authority as being contracted as a result of an exposure to risk factors arising from work activity. In addition, the term “work-related disorder” should be defined to cover a disease or a symptom contracted or aggravated as a result of an exposure to risk factors arising from work activity. The term “occupational disease” should cover both what is encompassed by the term “occupational diseases” and what may be called “work-related disorders”.

Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO) and the Confederation of Vocational Unions (YS): The term “occupational disease” should cover work-related disorders.

Portugal. As in other countries, Portuguese legislation is open and provides for the recognition of occupational diseases which are not explicitly listed in any legal instrument, such as a list of occupational diseases.

Under the Portuguese system, occupational diseases are considered to be those on the list in question, in addition to injuries, functional disturbances or diseases which are not on the list, provided that they are the necessary and direct result of the activity in which workers engage and are not the normal wear to which the body is subject. The social partners consider it to be essential clearly to define the concept to be used in the Protocol.

CIP: The terms included in the questionnaire are not very precise, notably in connection with occupational accidents which are not connected with the place of work or with loss of earning capacity or the capacity for work; the definition of occupational disease does not refer to the necessity of the injury, disorder or disease being a necessary and direct consequence of the activity in question.

Russian Federation. Yes. Consider referring also to other illnesses, e.g. physical or mental stress, arising from work activities.

Singapore. Yes, but it should also include work-aggravated disease.

South Africa. BSA: Yes, in principle, but amend the wording of the term “occupational disease” to cover exposure arising out of or in the course of work which results in a disease.

Spain. See comment on Question 5(a). For the same reason, the definition of occupational disease is not acceptable as, in addition to not referring to external factors, it does not take account of the activities or forms of employment in which such a disease may be reported, as established by national legislation.

UGT: Yes, occupational disease should cover all those diseases contracted by the workers in the course of or as a result of work activity.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Switzerland. UPS: It would be better to employ the formula used in article 9 of the LAA (federal insurance law) which speaks of “diseases due exclusively or mainly to particular harmful substances or to particular tasks, in the exercise of occupational activity”.

USS: Yes.

United Arab Emirates. Yes. Reference should be made here to the present list of occupational diseases or to the list that will be adopted during the 90th Session of the International Labour Conference in 2002.

United States. USCIB: Yes, in a Recommendation. But the term “occupational disease” needs to be further defined. For example, in the United States, several states consider ergonomic and mental stress claims to be occupational illnesses, which are not occupational diseases.

Yugoslavia. The term “occupational diseases” and the disabilities resulting from them should be determined more specifically.

Office commentary

Whilst there are proposals to extend or to restrict the meaning of the term “occupational diseases”, and to alter subsidiary words such as exposure to risk factors, the affirmative answers to the question form a substantial majority.

The question of exacerbation of an existing disease by exposure to risk factors arising from a work activity, as mentioned by the Government of Australia, is thought to broaden the term “occupational disease” beyond the parameters used in previous instruments, e.g. Convention No. 121 of 1964, and attention is drawn to the recording and notification of suspected cases of occupational diseases in Question 6.

The use of the word “cover”, which is without a sense of exclusivity, is thought by the Office to meet the objections of those countries which would prefer a direct reference in the question to national lists, often those associated with insurance cover.

It is similarly thought that the reference to exposure to risk factors cannot usefully be enlarged, or qualified, without mention of the various sources or origins of occupational diseases, which would be inappropriate for a short question. The term is not, however, limited to those who contract diseases while engaged directly in a work process, about which the Government of Lebanon is concerned.

The wording of the term has been left unchanged as Article 1(b) in the proposed Protocol.

Total number of replies: 63.

Affirmative to (c): 50. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 8. Cuba, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, Spain.

Other: 5. Bulgaria, Portugal, Slovakia, Sweden, Turkey.

Australia. The legislation administered by Comcare provides that:

(1) If an employer is conducting an undertaking, and there arises out of the conduct of the undertaking or out of work performed by an employee in connection with the undertaking:

(a) an accident that causes the death of, or serious personal injury to, any person; or

(b) an accident that causes an employee who performs work in connection with the undertaking to be incapacitated from performing work for a period prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or

the employer must, in accordance with the regulations, give to the Commission such notice of, and such a report concerning, the accident or dangerous occurrence as the regulations require.

“Dangerous occurrence” is defined by regulation as: any incident resulting from operations and undertakings conducted by the employer, that could have, but did not cause death or serious personal injury to any person, or the incapacity of an employee for a duration of 30 or more consecutive working days or shifts.

Belgium. CNT: The workers’ organizations stress the need to take account of the concept of dangerous occurrences and incidents in order to devise genuine prevention policies. The national system already provides for the recording of accidents which entail only minor medical treatment. The employers’ organizations consider that certain concepts are too vague and might give rise to various problems of interpretation. This applies in particular to incidents or “near accidents”. They are of the opinion that the decision whether or not to report these risks to the competent authority should be for the employer to take, in so far as they do not entail any real danger for the health and safety of workers. They would therefore like only the terms “occupational accident”, “commuting accident” and “occupational disease” to be taken into account in defining the scope of the Protocol.

They consider that the management of incidents and dangerous occurrences (recording procedures, analysis, prevention measures, etc.) comes within the competence of the employer. An obligation to record and possibly notify could give rise to various problems of interpretation (margin of interpretation of definitions) and, more importantly, entails an unacceptable administrative burden (for every occupational accident there are between 300 and 600 incidents).

Brazil. CNI, CNF, CNT: No, to the words “the public”. Since this is to be an instrument that deals with the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases, prevention must be restricted to the working environment.

Bulgaria. There is no clear difference between a “dangerous occurrence” and an “incident” referred to in (d), for example a load falls from an overloaded crane or a building collapses, both without injury to workers.

Cuba. This term, in its current form, might be confusing. We therefore suggest that it be defined as follows: “dangerous occurrence”: all factors readily identifiable as defined under national laws and regulations, with potential to cause injury or disease to persons at work or to the public.

Czech Republic. KZPS and CMKOS: Yes.

Finland. “Dangerous occurrences” should not be included in the Protocol but rather dealt with in a Recommendation, if necessary. Obtaining reliable information on “dangerous occurrences” and setting up a reliable system to monitor them does not seem to be a realistic objective.

SAK: Recording and notification procedures should also be applied to “dangerous occurrences” as appropriate. In order to prevent occupational accidents and diseases, it is important to register occurrences involving a danger or risk of accident. Dangerous occurrences are always a sign of shortcomings in the occupational health and safety measures within the workplace, and indicative of negligence as regards the prevention of safety or health hazards and/or protective equipment. It is, therefore, important that such occurrences are recorded both by individual employers and by authorities. Dangerous occurrences involving the threat of physical violence should be registered by both the employer and authorities so that protection and training can be properly targeted.

France. CGT-FO: The expression “dangerous occurrence” should be understood to mean any event posing an occupational risk with potential to cause physical or mental injury to a worker or to the public.

Germany. This term should not be contained in either the Protocol or the Recommendation. See comments in general observation.

BDA: This should not be taken as a criterion.

Greece. ESEE: Yes, but delete reference to the public.

Hungary. The definition is not accurate, since occupational accidents, occupational diseases and catastrophes are all included. The definition is not supported in this form.

Employers and workers: Yes.

Italy. National legislation does not provide for this.

Lebanon. Yes. Add the following sentence after the word “public” as follows: “regardless of whether the public has a relation to the work or not”. This addition guarantees protection against injuries or diseases for the clients of the enterprise and the public who have no relation to the work and are outside the enterprise.

New Zealand. No. Requiring enterprises to report on “near misses” to a national body will generally be impracticable. The Protocol should focus on what is essential for the generation of useful national statistics that can then be used internationally. Also, the particular definitions suggested above overlap and are therefore potentially confusing.

Norway. Yes. The term “dangerous occurrence” must be a comprehensive one that covers all events with potential to cause injury to workers or others. The requirement that the situation be “readily identifiable” is too strict.

Panama. Yes, but should no clear definition exist in national legislation, then countries should follow the recommendations established by the ILO.

Slovakia. Only to persons at work, not to the public.

CTU: A dangerous occurrence should be defined as “an occurrence by which life and health of people or operation and development of an employer as well as property of an employer have been threatened severely”.

South Africa. The national equivalent term is “major incident”.

BSA: Yes.

Spain. The concepts of 5(c) relating to a “dangerous occurrence” are envisaged only in a number of technical regulations in Spain but, in general terms, are not found in the regulations relating to occupational accidents and diseases. In principle, they could be accepted as a technical definition, since this coincides with that given in the relevant literature but, for the purposes of a Protocol we believe that they are not acceptable. In no case should the definition be included in an ILO instrument.

UGT: Yes.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. It is important that this term should be clearly and unambiguously defined, to make possible efficient and serviceable statistics. “Dangerous occurrence” needs to be explained and further modified. Judging by the report, this term refers to occurrences which could have caused injuries but did not do so. This type of information is more interesting for local work environment management. It does not provide a very sound basis for statistics.

Switzerland. UPS: It is necessary here to refer to the definition used in national legislation.

USS: Yes.

Turkey. Omit the words “or to the public”.

United States. USCIB: No. No country, including the United States, tracks “dangerous occurrences”. Such a Recommendation would be burdensome and impossible to implement in terms of obtaining consistent records.

Office commentary

The response to this part of the question reflects the differences in national law and practice between member States, the majority of negative responses coming from those which do not at present require the recording and notification of dangerous occurrences. In practice, of course, some occurrences will come to the notice of competent authorities and be investigated in response to public concern and as an aid to an accident prevention programme. Further to define dangerous occurrences in the proposed Protocol, as proposed by the Government of Sweden, would appear to the Office to be difficult to reconcile with the expressed intention to leave a definition to national laws and regulations. These are better able to reflect the level of development of a member State and the competent authority within it, the probable list of dangerous occurrences being greater in some than others. This may also take account of the concern of several governments to confine the term to potential hazards to persons at work rather than include the public which, as in the collapse of a crane, may be difficult to distinguish in practice. The Office notes the observations as to the distinction between a dangerous occurrence and an incident and returns to this in commenting on the next part of the question. This question appears in the proposed Protocol as Article 1(c).

Total number of replies: 62.

Affirmative to (d): 46. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 8. Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Spain.

Other: 8. Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Sweden.

Australia. Yes. WorkCover NSW is of the view that the definitions of dangerous occurrence and incident are similar and should be confined into a single data set.

Belgium. CNT: No. See comment in reply to Question 5(c).

Brazil. CNI: Personal injury requiring first-aid treatment is regarded as an occupational accident.

Bulgaria. See comment in reply to Question 5(c). It is advisable that cases of first-aid treatment be considered as occupational accidents.

Chile. The term “incident” should refer to a personal injury which is not such as to oblige the worker to lose one working day.

Cuba. We believe that this definition is also confusing and propose that it be modified as follows: to cover an occurrence (accident, injury, etc.) arising out of, or in the course of, work where no personal injury is caused, or, if it is caused, then the person is capable of continuing to work.

Czech Republic. KZPS and CMKOS: Yes.

Denmark. Replace the word “incident” with the words “near accident”.

Egypt. FEI: No.

Finland. “Unsafe occurrence” should not be included in the Protocol but dealt with in a Recommendation, if necessary.

France. CGT-FO: The term “incident” should be excluded from the field of occupational accidents, as it introduces the notion of degree in the seriousness of work accidents. In the absence of injury the “dangerous occurrence” applies. In the case of minor injuries requiring only first-aid treatment, the notification procedure should be simplified, although it should be maintained. The term “incident” may lead to an underestimation of occupational risk situations. It is better to use only the term “occupational accidents”.

Gabon. No, the term “incident” should cover all occurrences arising out of, or in the course of, work where no personal injury is caused. The second part relates to occupational accidents as there is an injury even if it is minor.

Germany. This term should not be contained in either the Protocol or the Recommendation. See comments in general observations.

BDA: This should not be taken as a criterion.

Greece. ESEE: No, “incident” is covered by “dangerous occurrence”.

Hungary. The inclusion of “unsafe occurrences” should be reconsidered.

Honduras. COHEP: No, the definition is unclear and will result in confusion. All accidents begin with an incident.

Indonesia. Employers’ Association of Indonesia (APINDO): No, since it will require great and unnecessary data to be reported, which needs only to be kept in the company.

Israel. The recording of “incidents” should be done by the employer with no obligation to notify the competent authority.

Italy. It would seem that the ILO is referring both to accidents with an aftermath and those without – this stance cannot be shared.

Republic of Korea. Yes, since the Protocol only deals with occupational matters.

Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU): No.

Malaysia. No, personal injury that requires first-aid treatment should come under non-fatal occupational injury.

Namibia. Yes, but provided countries have the necessary resources to include “incidents” in their reporting mechanisms.

Netherlands. First-aid treatment is a criterion that differs between countries and within countries depending on the facilities. One could consider a definition in terms of “if the criteria under 5(a)(ii) are not met”.

New Zealand. No. See comment on Question 5(c).

Norway. Yes. The term “incident” should be confined to occurrences where no personal injury is caused. Even if personal injury requires “only” first-aid treatment, we believe that such injury should be characterized as an occupational accident. Moreover, a large element of judgement is involved in deciding whether what is needed is merely first-aid treatment or more extensive medical treatment, such that it would be difficult to harmonize the term nationally across trades and industries and across countries.

Qatar. Yes, taking into consideration the difficulties in applying this since notifying such incidents is not an obligation.

Russian Federation. No. It is not clear what this definition means.

Singapore. Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF): No, such incidents should not be made reportable to the authorities. Singapore’s legislation does not require such incidents to be reported. While employers keep track of an “incident” for the purpose of managing safety and health at the workplace, it would be unproductive for employers and for authorities if “incidents” are made reportable to the authorities.

South Africa. BSA: Yes, in principle, but would caution that many countries might in practice simply not have the necessary resources to include “incidents” in their reporting mechanisms.

Spain. For the same reason as given in the comment on Question 5(a) the definition of “incident” is not acceptable, and in no case should a definition of incident be included in an ILO instrument.

UGT: Yes, including members of the public present in the workplace.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. The term “incident” as defined in the text will include both occurrences causing injury and occurrences not doing so. It is hard to see the logic in this. Either we have an accident (which causes injury) or else a near accident (which does not). This type of information again is above all interesting for the purposes of local work environment management.

Switzerland. UPS: Article 9 of the OLAA (regulation concerning accident insurance) does not use the term “incident”; it mentions accidents and similar personal injury. Is it really necessary to create a category of “incidents”?

USS: Yes.

United Arab Emirates. The definition seems acceptable; our concern regarding incidents arises from the fact that they are indirect evidence of the soundness of adopted occupational safety measures (considering that an incident is an occupational accident which does not cause any personal injury due to appropriate occupational safety measures being taken).

United States. USCIB: No. The test of

Argentina	UIA	Argentine Industrial Union
Australia	ACCI	Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Barbados	BEC	Barbados Employers'Confederation
Belgium	CNT	National Labour Council
Brazil	CAN CNI CNF CNT CGT CUT FS SDS CONTAG	National Confederation of Agriculture National Confederation of Industry National Confederation of Financial Institutions National Confederation of Transport General Confederation of Workers Single Central Organization of Workers Força Sindical Social Democracy Union National Confederation of Agriculture Workers
Colombia	ANDI	National Association of Industrialists
Croatia	IOM NIPH	Institute for Occupational Medicine National Institute of Public Health
Cyprus	OEB CCCI	Cyprus Employers' and Industrialists' Federation Cyprus Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Czech Republic	SPCR OSPZV CMKOS KZPS	Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic Union of Agricultural and Food workers Czech-Moravian Confederation ofTrade Unions Confederation of Employers' and Entrepreneurs' Unions
Denmark	DA FTF	Danish Employers' Confederation Salaried Employees' and civil Servants' Confederation
Egypt	FEI	Federation of Egyptian Industries
Ethiopia	CETU	Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions
Finland	SAK	Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions
France	MEDEF CGT-FO	Movement of French Enterprises General Confederation of Labour - Force Ouvrière
Gabon	CSG	Trade Union Congress of Gabon
Germany	BDA DGB	Confederation of German Employers' Associations German Conferation of Trade Unions
Ghana	GEA	Ghana Employers' Association
Greece	ESEE	National Confederation of Hellenic Commerce
Honduras	COHEP	Hundaras Council of Private Enterprise
Indonesia	APINDO	Employers' Association of Indonesia
Italy	CONFINDUSTRIA	General Confederation of Italian Industry
Japan	NIKKEIREN	Federation of Employers' Associations
Republic of Korea	FKTU KCTU KEF	Federation of Korean Trade Unions Korean Confederation of Trade Unions Korean Employers' Federation
Morocco	CGEM	General Confederation of Enterprises
Namibia	NEF	Namibia Employers' Federation
Netherlands	VNO-NCW	Confederation of Netherlands' Industry and Employers
Norway	NHO LO YS	Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions Confederation of Vocational Unions
Pakistan	EFP	Employers' Federation of Pakistan
Poland	PKPP OPZZ	Polish Confederation of Private Employers All-Poland Trade Union Alliance
Portugal	CAP CCSP CIP CGTP-IN	Confederation of Portuguese Farmers Confederation of Trade and Services Confederation of Portuguese Industry General Confederation of Portuguese Workers
Singapore	NTUC SNEF	National Trade Union Congress Singapore National Employers' Federation
Slovakia	CTU	Confederation of Trade Union
South Africa	BSA	Business South Africa
Spain	CEOE CEPYME UGT	Spanish Employers' Confederation Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises General Workers' Union
Sri Lanka	LJEWU	Lanka Jathika Estate Workers' Union
Switzerland	UPS USS	Confederation of Swiss Employers Swiss Federation of Trade Unions
Syrian Arab Republic	FTU	Federation of Trade Unions
United States	USCIB	United States Council for International Businesss