Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. Further to its observation, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 13. Occupational exposure during an emergency. The Committee notes that the provisions of the Radiation Protection Ordinance 2001, as well as the X Ray Ordinance 2001, prescribe various measures to be taken and procedures to be followed in emergency situations. However, none of the Ordinances contains a provision establishing criteria for defining the circumstances in which a relaxation of the normal exposure limits established may be tolerated. The Committee therefore would request the Government to specify the circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers may be authorized. In this regard, it would draw the Government’s attention to the matters raised in item 35(c)(iii) of the conclusions to the Committee’s 1992 general observation under the Convention according to which a strict definition of circumstances in which exceptional exposure of workers, exceeding the normally tolerated dose limit, is to be allowed for immediate and urgent remedial work; that work must be strictly limited in scope and duration to what is required to meet an acute danger to life and health; exceptional exposure of workers is neither justified for the purpose of rescuing items of high material value, nor, more generally, because alternative techniques of intervention, which do not involve such exposure of workers, would involve excessive expense.

2. Article 14. Alternative employment. The Committee notes that pursuant to section 63, subsection 3, of the Radiation Protection Ordinance, as amended on 20 July 2001, and section 40, subsection 2, of the X-Ray Ordinance, as amended on 1 August 2001, no worker may be employed or may continue to be employed in radiation work contrary to medical advice. In this case, the competent authority orders that radiation work is to be discontinued or may only be performed under certain conditions to be determined. The Committee, however, observes that none of the above Ordinances provides for alternative employment to be offered to workers which are forced to give up their established occupation on legitimate health grounds. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the Government had indicated in its previous report covering the period from 1990 to 1994 that employment contracts or collective agreements may contain provisions relating to the continuity of employment or to the training opportunities designed to enable workers to be reclassified. Moreover, the Government had indicated that the issue of alternative employment would be dealt with as a part of the review of the Framework Act on Labour Protection. The Committee accordingly requests the Government to indicate, in its next report, any collective agreements including provisions for work with ionizing radiations under which the employer is required to provide alternative employment which does not involve exposure to ionizing radiations for workers who have accumulated an effective dose beyond which detriment considered unacceptable may occur, and to transmit copies of such collective agreements. It further requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in the review of the Framework Act on Labour Protection. The Committee would finally draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of its 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in this regard.