Problems of implementing the newly amended Work Environment Act

As a result of Denmark's newly amended Work Environment Act, adopted in May 1997, the requirement to have safety representatives will extend to many more workplaces. In less than a year, 18,000 smaller workplaces will have to appoint a safety representative for the first time, and the indications are that it will be difficult to recruit the numbers required.

The first reactions to the implementation of the newly amended Work Environment Act, adopted on 30 May 1997 (DK9706116N) have manifested themselves. By 1 July 1998 the threshold for companies to establish a safety organisation in the workplace and appoint a safety representative will be lowered from 10 to five employees. By the end of 1998 all companies will have to produce written workplace assessments of the health and safety conditions (Arbejdspladsvurdering, APV) in their companies. In companies with less than five employees, APV will become mandatory by the end of 2000.

The largest change in thresholds affects office-related workplaces, where the former threshold was 20 employees. Both theUnion of Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark (HK) and the Danish Commerce and Service (DHS) employers' organisation foresee difficulties in recruiting new safety representatives. According to HK, this means that within less than one year the number of new safety representatives will have to almost double from 3,500 at present to 7,500. HK therefore fears that there is a risk that the good intentions in the amended Act might well not be realised, as the union already has problems recruiting new safety representatives. HK therefore plans a recruitment campaign in order to generate more interest in health and safety work among its members. The union acknowledges that being a safety representative may be viewed by employees as less prestigious compared with the work of a shop steward.

DHS agrees with HK on this point and also highlights another reason why recruiting safety representatives is difficult. DHS, along with the DA employers' confederation of which it is a member, finds the new Act unnecessarily bureaucratic. Both organisations argue that many smaller companies/workplaces will simply pay lip-service to the safety problem by informal discussions on safety. DHS says that "others will have to form their own opinion why employees do not want to become safety representatives, but perhaps the real reason is that employees share our view and find that the establishment of a safety organisation in the workplace and appointing a safety representative is unnecessary."

If by 1 July 1998 no safety representatives has been appointed at the companies concerned, employers - whose sole legislative obligation it is - will be subject to an order or be fined by the Labour Inspectorate. Companies may, according to DHS, be forced to appoint safety representatives involuntarily in order to comply with the Act. HK is very critical of this negative view and warns employers not to think along these lines. The union emphasises that "employers will not be in compliance with the Act if they involuntarily appoint safety representatives." Both organisations have an interest in ensuring that the Act is implemented: whereas DHS's members are solely responsible in law for complying with the Act's provisions, HK has the responsibility of ensuring that enough safety representatives are appointed.