Controversy over agreement on workplace accidents and illnesses
In March 2007, protracted negotiations between trade unions and employer organisations on the issue of accidents at work and occupational diseases led to a protocol of agreement changing some aspects of the existing system. However, the text of the agreement has been criticised by two associations representing those affected by workplace accidents and illnesses, and two of the five trade union confederations have refused to sign it.
After 15 months of bargaining, on 12 March 2007, a protocol of agreement was reached between trade unions and employer organisations on the issue of accidents at work and occupational diseases. Significant differences emerged between the social partners, notably regarding compensation and the method of calculating employers’ contributions (tarification). The trade union demand for full compensation – which was widely supported by victims’ associations – came up against categorical refusal from the employer organisations.
The social partners engaged in heated debate over reform of the method of calculating contributions and the proposal for a bonus-malus system. The latter system would reward companies that ensure health and safety in the workplace by reducing their contribution costs, while increasing the costs for companies where accidents occur and workers’ health is adversely affected.
Changes to existing system
The protocol agrees on changes to the current system in relation to three key points, as outlined under the following headings.
Compensation
The aim is to introduce ‘personalised and improved inclusive compensation’ based on certain criteria, rather than actual damages. Assessment of permanent inability to work will take better account of physical and psychological consequences. Paramedical expenses that are not reimbursed by the social security system will be paid for by the employer.
In return, it is planned to introduce a precise legal framework regarding employers’ responsibility and to define the scope of additional compensation. The decrees of 28 February 2002 led to greater possibilities for compensation for victims if the employer is convicted of an inexcusable fault (FR0204105F).
A ‘temporary occupational reintegration allowance’ (allocation temporaire de réinsertion professionnelle) will take over from sick pay for a maximum of 30 days. Until now, employees who were declared to be totally or partially incapacitated for work during the medical examination prior to returning to work did not receive any remuneration or allowance until the employer had made a decision regarding redeployment or dismissal; this decision has to be made within a month of the medical examination.
These measures would increase costs for companies by €400 million a year. Compensation for victims of accidents at work and occupational diseases currently amounts to €6.6 billion.
Employer contributions and risk prevention
‘Mixed’ employer contributions combining individual and pooled contributions will now apply to companies with up to a maximum of 150 employees instead of 200 staff. Above this threshold, company contributions will depend on the accidents that they have declared in the previous three years. Companies with fewer than 10 employees continue to benefit from pooled contributions.
An additional contribution is envisaged for companies that represent an ‘exceptional or repeated’ risk, which has been ‘revealed by an observed breach of health and safety at work rules as stipulated in the regulations’.
Traceability
In future, records of occupational risk exposure (fiches d’exposition professionnelle) will be incorporated in workers’ personal medical file (dossier médical personnel, DMP) (FR0512102F), in order to make it possible to trace the origin of occupational diseases.
Reactions from key actors
Victim associations
In a joint letter, two victims’ associations – the National Association for the Defence of Asbestos Victims (Association nationale de défense des victimes de l’amiante, ANDEVA) and the National Federation of Work-Related Accident Victims and People with Disabilities (Fédération nationale des accidentés du travail et des handicapés, FNATH) – asked the trade unions not to sign the protocol of agreement. In the context of the government workplace health plan 2005–2009 (FR0504107F), they identified ‘many challenges to progress won over the past decade’ and the absence of expected progress, such as ‘a contribution system that provides more incentives for companies to invest in risk prevention’. They consider that the agreement ‘effectively confirms refusal of full compensation’.
Employers
The President of the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF), Laurence Parisot, is ‘quite satisfied’ with the protocol of agreement as it introduces ‘measures which improve the system without resorting to the easy solution of increasing companies’ contributions’. The General Confederation of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Confédération générale des petites et moyennes entreprises, CGPME) and the Craftwork Employers’ Association (Union professionnelle artisanale, UPA) note the specific measures in favour of micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). However, UPA considers that the envisaged measures will not necessarily be without cost and ‘regrets that certain possibilities for rationalising expenditure had not been explored, especially concerning asbestos’. All three employer organisations signed the text.
Trade unions
The unions expressed widely varying reactions. The French Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Staff (Confédération française de l’encadrement – Confédération générale des cadres, CFE-CGC) is opposed to the protocol of agreement and declared as early as 13 March 2007 that it would not sign it. The other four confederations submitted the text to their respective structures, as the deadline for signature was 21 March 2007.
On 19 March, the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail – Force ouvrière, CGT-FO) announced that it would sign the agreement. Its confederal executive committee considered that the text, ‘while consolidating the bipartite principle, makes improvements regarding risk prevention and monitoring of employees in micro-enterprises and SMEs, and also regarding compensation’. Before the other three trade union confederations gave their opinion, MEDEF clarified that the envisaged inclusive compensation would not jeopardise the possibility for victims to take legal action against their employer for inexcusable fault.
In April, the French Christian Workers’ Confederation (Confédération française des travailleurs chrétiens, CFTC) and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT) decided to sign the agreement as they consider that it is an improvement on the existing system. However, CFDT believes that ‘the agreement is an initial step towards fair and full compensation for all damages’, while CFTC considers that ‘compensation for economic damages still has to be won’.
Meanwhile, the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) refused to sign the text, which – in spite of ‘some interesting progress’ in the area of risk prevention – it judges unacceptable on two points. The first of these is the provision to make ‘the announced measures dependent on the ability of the sector concerned to fund them’; the second point to which CGT objects is ‘the precise legal framework regarding employers’ inexcusable fault’.
Commentary
The implementation of this agreement – as well as for the agreement of 28 February 2006 on governance of the system regarding accidents at work and occupational diseases – depends on legislative and regulatory texts. These could be part of the next law on social security funding, which should come into force in 2008.
Annie Jolivet, Institute for Economic and Social Research (IRES)