New legislation and policy on work-related hazards and illnesses

Download article in original language : FR0305104FFR.DOC

In May 2003, new legislation on technology-related hazards is awaiting adoption in the French parliament, which includes measures to regulate more effectively high-risk companies and boost the role of workplace health and safety committees. At the same time, the Higher Council for the Prevention of Occupational Risks has recently agreed the guidelines for policy on industrial illness and accident prevention over 2003-6.

Industrial accidents and hazards and work-related illnesses have been the focus of considerable attention from the government, parliament and social partners over the early months of 2003.

Technology-related hazards bill

A law designed to provide more effective regulations for high-risk companies is soon to be adopted by parliament. The National Assembly recently passed a government bill pertaining to the prevention of technology-related and natural hazards, as well as compensation for damages.

The origins of this legislation lie in an explosion at the AZF chemicals plant in Toulouse on 21 September 2001, which killed 31 and injured 2,442 people (FR0202105F). The plant had been classed as a very high-risk site (known as a 'Seveso' site). Negligence by the company was cited as the cause of the disaster. It was claimed that the practice of subcontracting had increased risk levels since the subcontractors used were either not fully conversant with the particular chemicals and the associated dangers or had neglected to take the proper precautions due to cost.

The Socialist-led Jospin government’s response to the emotions stirred up by the accident was a pledge to introduce legislation. Initial consideration of a bill began in February 2002 (FR0204105F) but could not be finalised before the presidential and general elections in the spring and early summer of that year. The new conservative government resumed the legislative process, on the basis of a bill initially submitted to cabinet on 3 January 2003 and then to the lower and upper houses of parliament (the National Assembly and the Senate respectively).

The bill has a number of parts. In addition to sections dealing with technology-related risk prevention and victim compensation, one particular part relates to industrial hazards in very high-risk plants - so-called 'high threshold Seveso cases'- and draws heavily on the previous government’s draft bill.

This section of the bill is designed to avoid 'any diminished liability in the case of the use of subcontractors'. It stipulates that heads of companies contracting out services remain responsible for safety rules and must ensure that subcontractors take the necessary precautions. Both parties are required jointly to assess hazards and draw up prevention procedures. Opposition members of parliament failed in their attempt to have a stricter provision prohibiting secondary subcontracting adopted. Companies using subcontractors are also required to provide the subcontracting company’s employees with training on the hazards related to the jobs they are to do.

A major innovation affects the hygiene, safety and working conditions committees (comités d'hygiène, de sécurité et des conditions de travail, CHSCTs) - generally translated as workplace health and safety committee s - which, by law, must be set up in all companies with a workforce of 50 or more (FR0201101F). Under the forthcoming legislation, in addition to an establishment-level CHSCT, companies using subcontractors will be required to have a 'site' CHSCT, made up of the establishment-level CHSCT's members and representatives of heads of subcontracting companies and their employees. Local Labour Ministry offices will also be able to set up cross-company health and safety committees to enable 'site' CHSCTs in a particular geographical ares to consult with one another and exchange information.

Furthermore, CHSCTs must from now on be consulted before any hazardous operations can be subcontracted. Indeed, they will have the authority to commission industrial hazard experts and to alert high-risk plant inspectors where and whenever serious dangers are identified. CHSCT members will be entitled to hazards training. The time they are allotted to carry out their duties will be increased and the number of members is to be raised through collective bargaining.

Industrial hazard prevention

The prevention of industrial hazards has also been on the agenda of the recently-created Higher Council for the Prevention of Occupational Risks (Conseil supérieur de la prévention des risques professionnels). On 31 March 2003, chaired by the Minister of Labour, François Fillon, this social partner consultation body set out four areas of action for a health and safety at work policy for 2003-6. These include the creation of tools to enable a better understanding of industrial hazards and diseases through: collecting information from doctors; improving the enforcement of regulations, especially by fostering social dialogue at sector and company level; reforming workplace health services (in particular, by guaranteeing the independence of industrial health doctors); and improving compensation procedures for victims of industrial accidents or illnesses.

In the area of industrial accidents, the past few years have seen encouraging results. While the number of accidents resulting in absence from work has increased in real terms, this must be seen in the context of an increase in paid employment over the same period. The annual number of accidents per 1,000 employees has dropped from 46.36 to 42.79. The number of serious accidents has significantly decreased from 60,000 to 43,000 per year. However, declared and certified industrial illnesses have considerably increased from over 13,000 in 1996 to 30,000 in 2000. Three-quarters of cases relate to musculo-skeletal problems. The very significant increase is due both to the fact that some ailments have recently been added to the list of industrial illnesses and that the pace of work has been increasing. Asbestos-linked diseases, which are increasingly taken into consideration, represent 12% of all industrial illness cases but account for 60% of compensation payments.

Social partner reactions

The main employers’ organisation, the Movement of French Enterprises (Mouvement des entreprises de France, MEDEF) has, on the whole, approved the various forthcoming measures on industrial hazards and illnesses. However, despite being based on a social partner consultation process, they have failed fully to satisfy the trade unions. This is particularly the case with the technology-related hazard legislation, which the unions see as a step away from what should have been done. The French Democratic Confederation of Labour (Confédération française démocratique du travail, CFDT), and the General Confederation of Labour (Confédération générale du travail, CGT) are particularly critical of the reduction – in comparison to the bill tabled by the previous government – of the number of extra hours off granted to CHSCT members, which in the unions' view are required to enable them to carry out their new duties effectively. CFDT and CGT consider that this shortfall could mean that the new measures will have no effect at all.

CFDT would also have liked all employees to have the right to point out any problems liable to lead to a hazard. CGT states that the range of companies covered by the new rules is too restrictive, and it would also have preferred a ban on unstable employment in high-risk companies. As for the General Confederation of Labour-Force Ouvrière (Confédération générale du travail Force Ouvrière, CGT-FO), it criticises the perceived limitations of the legislation in the area of subcontracting. It considers that all subcontracting in high-risk companies should have been prohibited, and hopes that amendments to this effect can be made through the collective bargaining process.

With regard to the recent decisions taken by the Higher Council for the Prevention of Occupational Risks, trade unions have misgivings over the stated goal of creating 'interdisciplinarity' between workplace health services (eg having doctors and ergonomics experts work together). All the unions are concerned about the possible lack of independence of 'industrial health officials' with regard to employers.

Commentary

Particular emphasis has been placed on the consultation process in the latest moves on workplace safety. As matters stand, such consultation does not fully satisfy the trade unions, not to mention other organisations that have not really been recognised as 'stakeholders'. The unions are doing their job when they point out the insufficient recognition of the role played by employees and their representatives in dealing with industrial hazards, and when they raise the issue of the authorities' difficulties in assessing the impact of subcontracting and unstable employment on high-risk sectors. It should also be said that the government’s response failed to address the main issues at the heart of the outcry after the AZF plant explosion. Local residents contended that, in terms of the public debate and state intervention, this type of hazard could no longer be dealt with solely by the social partners (government, employers and unions) within the industrial relations process. However, the government’s response failed to break any new ground on the issue. Its planned legislation does not provide for regional or local collective bargaining, or the involvement of other stakeholders, such as local residents. (Pascal Ughetto, IRES)