Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 4, 7 and 15 of the Convention. Formulation, implementation and revision of national policy. Revision at appropriate intervals with regard to occupational safety and health in specific sectors. Coordination between various authorities. Communication from the Union of Teachers, Federal District (SINPRO–DF). The Committee notes the communication sent by SINPRO–DF and the reply from the Government received in June 2010. The Committee also notes that the Government’s report was received too late to be examined at the present meeting, and for that reason the Committee will merely examine the communication and its reply and will examine the Government’s report in 2011. The Committee notes that, according to SINPRO–DF, there is no system of health protection for the public sector and in particular the teaching sector, nor is there any inspection of workplaces, periodic examinations, risk evaluation, or statistics having a minimum of reliability to enable the adoption of effective policies. The trade union maintains that occupational safety and health standards in the public sector, particularly education, are limited to leave of absence for sickness and occupational rehabilitation, i.e. when the person concerned is already ill, but that there are no preventive measures. The union refers to various existing pathologies, osteo-muscular disorders, respiratory ailments and burnout, inter alia, and considers that these pathologies are due to the high level of stress which is a feature of this occupation, the excessively heavy workload, its repetitive character, and the gulf that exists between planners of policy and those implementing it. SINPRO–DF states that the situation is so serious that it has requested an investigation which is attached to its communication, from the Laboratory for Psychodynamics and Labour Clinic of the University of Brasilia. This study emphasizes the need for prevention and dialogue with the teachers. The trade union calls for an occupational safety and health policy to be formulated for the teaching sector, with the full participation of the workers.

The Government’s reply. Firstly, the Government indicates that the (national) Federal Government has adopted initiatives aimed at the application of standards to all federal public servants but that it has no knowledge of such initiatives with respect to the Government of the Federal District. It also indicates that the supervisory role of the Ministry of Labour does not extend to inspection of occupational safety and health conditions within public entities. Secondly, the Government sends a note from the Under-Secretariat for the Management of Education Professionals of the Government of the Federal District dated 13 April 2010, which indicates that the Occupational Safety and Health Council is established under section 5 of Decree No. 29.021/2008 and that its powers include the formulation of an occupational safety and health policy, and the monitoring and implementation thereof. It is unclear from the information supplied whether the representative workers’ and employers’ organizations participate in the aforementioned Council.

It is the Committee’s understanding that the Government makes a distinction between the application of national policy in sectors within its direct jurisdiction and in the Federal District and other federal entities. The Committee also understands, according to the information supplied, that the Federal District will formulate a specific safety and health policy for the Federal District, as suggested by the aforementioned Decree. The Committee recalls that it already indicated to the Government in previous comments that it should adopt appropriate measures to ensure the application of ratified Conventions throughout its territory, and that the Convention required a coherent national policy and coordination in order to achieve this. For that reason the Committee indicates that occupational safety and health policies intended for different sectors or territorial entities must form part of a national policy which establishes a basis applicable to all workers covered by the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to seek solutions to the situation described by SINPRO–DF in the context of Articles 4, 7 and 15 of the Convention, bearing in mind that the national policy referred to by these Articles prescribes consultation with the social partners and its formulation, practical application and periodic revision with the fundamental objective of prevention, and requests it to supply detailed information in this respect. The Committee also requests the Government to supply information on any measure adopted to achieve coherence and coordination of national policy as required by the Convention.

The Committee is examining other aspects of the communication from SINPRO–DF in its comments on the application of the Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161). In addition, as regards the examination of a communication from the Wood, Civil Engineering and Furniture Industry Workers’ Union of Altamira and Region (SINTICMA), it refers to its comments on the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]