All Comments

Home Page | Français | Español |

ILO is a United Nations Agency

RSS Feed | Newsroom | Contact us

NORMLEX

Information System on International Labour Standards

Instruments
Key documents
Ratification of ILO Conventions
Supervising the application of International Labour Standards: Supervision by country; Search comments by the supervisory bodies; Complaint procedures; Freedom of association cases; Representations (Art. 24); Commission of Inquiry (Art. 26)
Regular reporting
Country profiles
Comparatives
Maritime Labour Convention (2006)

MLC, 2006

NATLEX *new look*
National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights

LEGOSH
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation

EPLex
Employment protection legislation database

Compendium of court decisions

NORMLEX Home > Country profiles > > Comments > All Comments

Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139) - France (Ratification: 1994)

Display in: French - Spanish

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comments: C.187, C.115, C.127, C.139, C.148 and C.62

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified occupational safety and health (OSH) Conventions, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 62 (safety provisions (building)), 115 (radiation protection),127 (maximum weight), 139 (occupational cancer), 148 (working environment (air pollution, noise and vibration)), and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) in a single comment.

The Committee notes the observations, communicated with the Government’s reports, made, firstly, by the General Confederation of Labour – Force ouvrière (CGT-FO) regarding Convention No. 148 and, secondly, by the French Confederation of Management – General Confederation of Professional and Managerial Employees (CFE-CGC) regarding Convention No. 187. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to the observations of the CFE-CGC.

A. General provisions

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Article 2(3) of the Convention. Consideration of the ratification of relevant occupational safety and health (OSH) Conventions of the ILO. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that the social partners can raise any issue relating to negotiation, ratification and application of ILO instruments within the Steering Committee on Conditions of Work (COCT) and that since draft legislation or regulations on OSH are related to an international instrument, they are submitted to a specialist committee for examination, and then to the general committee to enable the social partners to give a formal opinion. Moreover, the Committee notes that France ratified the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184), in 2021, and the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 (No. 190), in 2023. Lastly, the Committee notes that ratification of the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) is under discussion. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the periodic consideration, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, of the measures which could be taken to ratify relevant ILO occupational safety and health Conventions.

National policy

Article 3(1). National policy on OSH. The Committee notes the Government indication, in reply to its previous comment, that national policy on OSH takes the form of an occupational health plan, that the 4th Occupational Health Plan (PST 4), covering the 2021–25 period, was drawn up in close collaboration with the social partners in the COCT and resulted in the adoption of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”, which was also drawn up in connection with the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the evaluation of the results recorded further to the implementation of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”.

National system

Article 4(2)(d). Arrangements to promote, at the level of the undertaking, cooperation as an essential element of workplace-related prevention measures. The Committee notes that since 1 January 2018 the committees on health, safety and conditions of work (CHSCTs) have been replaced by economic and social committees (CSEs), which are composed by the employer and a staff delegation. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that, in enterprises with 50 or more employees, the CSE has certain prerogatives (right to be alerted, right to be informed and consulted, etc.) similar to those of the former CHSCTs and that in enterprises with fewer than 50 employees, the employer must submit a list of prevention and protection activities to the CSE. The Government also indicates that a committee on health, safety and working conditions (CSSCT) must be established in enterprises and separate undertakings employing 300 workers or more, as well as in undertakings featuring particular risks. The CSSCT, chaired by the employer or employer’s representative and comprising at least three staff representatives, is assigned by delegation of the CSE some or all of the latter’s functions relating to health, safety and working conditions. The Government adds that local representatives (représentants de proximité) with a remit relating to health, safety and working conditions can also be appointed. Moreover, the Government points out that Act No. 2021-1018 of 2 August 2021 on strengthening prevention in occupational health has boosted social dialogue within enterprises relating to assessment of occupational risks by requiring the CSE and CSSCT to contribute to this evaluation.

The Committee notes that the CFE-CGC, in its observations, deplores the fact that the reform leading to the creation of the CSEs has resulted in a weakening of the staff representation system. Indeed, on the basis of the report of the labour ordinance evaluation committee published in 2021, the CFE-CGC points out that, in enterprises which have not appointed local representatives, the handling of OSH issues can prove difficult and there is a risk of loss of contact between elected representatives and the workers and a failure to identify problems that exist on the ground. The CFE-CGC also points out that the labour ordinance evaluation committee, in its report, also indicates that the excessive workload of representation, the difficulties of reconciling it with work and the lack of expertise, taking account of the now vast range of subjects to be addressed, are likely to undermine the engagement of CSE members, who actually perform tasks which were previously a matter for staff representatives, the works council or the CHSCT. The CFE-CGC also objects that the CHSCT has been “devalued” by becoming a mere CSSCT, with no legal personality or capacity to take legal action.

The Committee notes that although the Government in its reply recognizes that the report of the labour ordinance evaluation committee refers to difficulties, including with regard to training for staff representatives, it emphasizes that the implementation of the reform is still being monitored and that CSE members receive longer training on health, safety and working conditions than was previously the case. The Government points out that the report noted that the new coordination between CSEs, CSSCTs and local representatives was difficult to establish but that various studies have now highlighted progress in terms of information sharing and coordination. The Committee notes that this report also reveals that the health crisis confirmed the difficulty of the role played by worker representatives and that it highlighted the fatigue felt by elected representatives, which is leading some to disengage or even resign. The growing complexity of the mandate of CSE members only reinforces the need for training and is a source of major concern as regards the attractiveness of holding office and the dynamics for the re-election of representatives. Noting that, according to the labour ordinance evaluation committee, the role of local representatives is not well defined, which makes performance of their role difficult, the Committee requests the Government to indicate how cooperation between CSEs, CSSCTs and local representatives in ensured with a view to promoting prevention in the workplace, to give specific examples of such cooperation and to describe any difficulties encountered in this regard.

Article 4(3)(h). Support mechanisms for a progressive improvement of occupational safety and health conditions in microenterprises, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in the informal economy. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that since 2016 the Fund for the Improvement of Working Conditions (FACT) has issued several calls for proposals relating to very small enterprises (VSEs) and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The Committee notes that section 3 of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25” aims to strengthen the culture of prevention within VSEs and SMEs, which have been identified as a priority target because they often have fewer resources to devote to prevention and a significant proportion of accidents occur in them. With regard to the informal economy, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that numerous posters containing prevention messages relating to four subject areas (chemical risks, working at height, manual handling and work equipment) have been produced and translated into eight languages. The Committee notes that PST 4 highlights the fact that the regulatory framework relating to the prevention of chemical hazards, on account of its technical and changing nature, poses problems for VSEs and SMEs and that discussion is therefore needed, including on the traceability of occupational exposure. The Committee also notes that the objectives of PST 4 also include support for enterprises, in particular VSEs and SMEs, in the implementation of initiatives relating to quality of life and working conditions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on action taken to achieve the objectives of PST 4, including solutions to the issues for VSEs and SMEs arising from the regulatory framework relating to chemical risk prevention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of section 3 of the “Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25”.

National programme

Article 5(1). Monitoring and evaluation of the national programme on OSH in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that the review of PST 3, relating to the period 2016–20, underlined, for each operational objective, challenges and progress as well as work remaining to be done, these elements being intended to serve as guidelines for the formulation of PST 4 and regional plans. The Committee also notes that a chapter of this review was devoted to the contributions of the social partners and that, according to the Government’s indications, areas for improvement in the steering and monitoring of PST 4 have been identified, after consultation of the social partners. The Committee notes this information, which responds to the request made in the last comment.

Article 5(2)(d). Objectives, targets and indicators enabling the evaluation and periodic review of the national programme on OSH. The Committee notes that PST 4 is divided into four strategic components and ten objectives and that monitoring is based on 14 strategic indicators (aimed at monitoring the impact of prevention on targeted groups), four steering indicators, and also numerous monitoring indictors (associated with actions in the plan for evaluating results and deliverables). The Committee notes that the review of PST 3 shows that, in order to better monitor and evaluate the results of a PST, there is a need, inter alia, to measure the impact of actions on the practices and behaviours of actors in the enterprise and that ultimately, beyond the focus placed on indicators in the formulation of PST 4, the latter would benefit from developing its own overall, utilizable data, along the lines of an annual OSH scoreboard which would supplement data available on accident rates and exposure and make it possible to carry out intermediate evaluations to strengthen or redirect certain actions if necessary. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

Protection against specific risks

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Articles 5 and 15 of the Convention. Restricting the exposure of workers and appropriate inspection services to the lowest practicable level. The Committee notes that, in line with the “Practical guide on radon” published in February 2018 and the “National action plan 2020–24 for radon risk management”, PST 4 makes provision for the continuation of measures to reinforce prevention of the risk of radon in the workplace. The Committee also notes that, when the risk of exposure cannot be reduced below the reference level, the employer must implement the reinforced system for the protection of workers against radiation. The Committee requests the Government to indicate all measures adopted to take better account of radon in occupational risk assessment.

Article 14. Discontinuation of assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation pursuant to medical advice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous comment, that under section R. 4451.9 of the Labour Code, the only real limit on exposure to ionizing radiation for workers is the effective dose of 1 sievert over the whole of their career. If a worker reaches this limit in the context of occupational activity, the worker must not be exposed to any further ionizing radiation in that activity. Recalling that the Committee indicated in paragraph 40 of its general observation of 2015 on the Convention that employers should make all reasonable efforts to provide workers with suitable alternative employment in circumstances for which it has been determined that the workers, for health reasons, may no longer continue in employment in which they are, or could be, subject to occupational exposure, the Committee invites the Government to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged in this regard.

Maximum Weight Convention, 1967 (No. 127)

Application in practice. The Committee notes that the labour inspection report for 2019 shows that, in all branches of activity combined, half of all occupational accidents are caused by activities involving manual handling ultimately likely to give rise to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The Committee requests the Government to provide data, disaggregated by branch of activity, age group and sex, on occupational accidents caused by the manual transport of loads and on all preventive measures taken or envisaged in this area.

Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139)

Article 1(3) of the Convention. Consideration given to the latest information and data. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2020 and 2021 a number of decrees and orders were adopted establishing the list of carcinogenic substances, mixtures and processes within the meaning of the Labour Code and occupational exposure limit values, thereby transposing certain European Union directives into French legislation.

Article 6. Appropriate inspection services. The Committee notes that action No. 2.1 of PST 4 aims to prevent exposure to chemicals since the latter constitutes the primary cause of fatal occupational diseases, with asbestos exposure the second biggest cause of occupational disease. In this regard, the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25 highlights the fact that the application of regulations relating to risks arising from the inhalation of asbestos dust and, more broadly, risks arising from exposure to chemicals and to carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMRs), must be the subject of particular attention from the inspection services. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that certified enterprises loan workers to each other for the removal of materials containing asbestos, which means that some operations are carried out only by on-loan teams, under less stringent safety conditions. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the controls made by the labour inspection services to combat the practice of loaning workers between certified enterprises for the removal of materials containing asbestos and, more generally, on the implementation of the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25 in relation to the risks arising from exposure to asbestos dust and CMRs.

Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148)

Legislation. The Committee notes that the Order of 19 July 2006 establishing the conditions for the measurement of levels of exposure to noise was repealed on 1 January 2016. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which are the new regulations applicable to exposure to noise in the working environment.

Article 5(4) of the Convention. Opportunity for representatives of the employer and representatives of the workers to accompany inspectors. The Committee notes that, under section L. 2312-10 of the Labour Code, the inspector shall be accompanied by a member of the staff delegation from the economic and social committee, if the latter so wishes. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

Article 6(1). Responsibility of employers. The Committee notes that the CGT-FO claims in its observations that there are no provisions which hold the employer responsible in the event that a platform worker is exposed to pollution. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 7(2). Right of workers or their representatives to present proposals, to obtain information and training and to appeal to appropriate bodies. The Committee notes the remit of the CSE in enterprises employing 50 or more workers and in those employing between 11 and 50 workers. The Committee notes that in enterprises employing fewer than 11 workers there is no CSE but that numerous posters containing prevention messages relating to four subject areas (including chemical risks and work equipment) have been prepared for VSEs and SMEs and translated into eight languages. The Committee requests the Government to indicate what other measures give effect to Article 7(2) of the Convention in enterprises employing fewer than 11 workers.

Article 12. Processes, substances, machinery and equipment, the use of which is to be notified to the competent authority, which may authorize or prohibit it. The Committee notes that, with regard to the risks of exposure to asbestos, the Labour Code provides that the employer must send to the competent authorities the demolition, removal or encapsulation plan and the operating methods. The first use of pathogenic biological agents must be declared to the labour inspector at least 30 days before the start of the work. As regards young workers, although work exposing them to hazardous chemical agents or a certain level of vibration is prohibited, the employer has the possibility of submitting an exemption request to the inspector. The Committee also notes that the Labour Code prohibits the employment of temporary workers and fixed-term contract holders in certain types of work exposing them to hazardous chemicals or certain types of ionizing radiation and that any employer wishing to be exempt from this prohibition must submit an exemption request to the competent authorities. The Committee notes the information provided, which responds to the previous request for information.

Protection in specific branches of activity

Safety Provisions (Building) Convention, 1937 (No. 62)

The Committee recalls that the ILO Governing Body, at its 334th Session (October–November 2018), on the recommendation of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM TWG), confirmed the classification of Convention No. 62 in the category of outdated instruments, and placed an item concerning its abrogation on the agenda of the 112th Session (2024) of the International Labour Conference. The Governing Body also requested the Office to take follow-up action to actively encourage ratification of the up-to-date instrument, namely the Safety and Health in Construction Convention, 1988 (No. 167), and recommended that the Office propose technical assistance to the countries most in need of it. The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up on the Governing Body’s decision at its 334th Session (October–November 2018) approving the recommendation of the SRM TWG, and to consider ratifying Convention No. 167. The Committee reminds the Government of the possibility to avail itself of ILO technical assistance in this regard. The Committee takes this opportunity to remind the Government that the International Labour Conference, at its 110th Session (June 2022), added the principle of a safe and healthy working environment to the fundamental principles and rights at work, thereby amending the 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the possibility of availing itself of ILO technical assistance in order to bring both practice and applicable legislation into conformity with the fundamental occupational safety and health Conventions.

Application in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the various prevention measures deployed in the construction and public works sector in the last ten years and the strengthening of the powers of inspectors (greater power to stop site operations; administrative fines as a deterrent in the event of non-compliance with a stoppage order; criminal proceedings) have resulted in a considerable drop in the number of occupational accidents recorded, the main cause of which are falls from height or on the level (31 per cent) and manual handling (48 per cent), the latter often being the cause of musculoskeletal disorders. However, the Committee notes that falls from height still accounted for 45 per cent of occupational accidents in the construction and public works sector as at December 2021 and that the National Action Plan for the labour inspection system 2023–25, PST 4 and the Plan for the prevention of serious and fatal occupational accidents 2022–25 continue to give priority to the risk of falls from height or on the level. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing informationon the measures taken to overcome the risk of falls in the construction and public works sector, including in VSEs and SMEs, and also data on the number of accidents caused by falls in this sector.

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

Article 2(2) of the Convention. Reducing the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government indicating that the agency for occupational and environmental health and safety has been developing, within the framework of the Workplace Health Plan 2005–09, occupational exposure limits for chemical substances. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the development of the abovementioned occupational exposure limits, and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in law and in practice to ensure that the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents, and the duration and degree of such exposure, is reduced to the minimum compatible with safety.

Part IV of the report form. Application in practice. The Government indicates that the Cancer Plan 2003–07 and the Workplace Health Plan 2005–09 promoted the substitution of carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic (CMR) substances for non-dangerous or less dangerous substances. The Committee also notes the information indicating that campaigns were undertaken on CMR and asbestos in 2006, on sawdust in 2008, and cleaning and vehicle repair enterprises in 2010. The Committee further notes the statistical information indicating the number of cases of recognized occupational cancer declared between 2004 and 2007. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including statistical information on cases of occupational cancer.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports. It notes in particular that the specific rules on the prevention of carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic (CMR) risks have been supplemented by Decree No. 2003-1254 of 23 December 2003. It also notes with interest the new procedure for halting work in the event of “chemical risk” introduced by Act No. 2002-73 of 17 January 2002 on social modernization.

2. Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Replacement of carcinogenic substances or agents with less dangerous or non-carcinogenic substances or agents. The Committee notes that in its reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government’s statement that there cannot be general and universal criteria for ascertaining the technical feasibility of replacing a carcinogenic agent with a less harmful or a non-carcinogenic agent when there are tens of thousands of different uses for the 400 or so known carcinogenic substances used in the work environment. The Government also states that Decree No. 2001-97 of 1 February 2001 confirms the role and liability of the employer in this matter, under which employers are required to prove, in the course of their risk evaluation studies, that they have actually attempted to replace the CMR agents they are still using and, in particular, that they have made unsuccessful approaches to prevention bodies, their suppliers or their customers. In order to assess technical feasibility, employers may have to take account of criteria that are purely technological or that are related to the nature of the exposure. Such criteria are liable to change and so allow preventive action to be improved. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on measures taken to replace carcinogenic substances and agents by non-carcinogenic substances or agents or by less harmful substances or agents.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2. Reducing the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that section R.231-56-3(2) of the Labour Code, reducing the number of workers exposed to as low a level as is “technically possible”, is more protective than the notion in Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Convention, because it implies an ongoing effort which does not stop once the “safety minimum” has been reached and is only limited by nothing other than the status of technology. The Committee notes that although, according to the Government’s reasoning, an effort may be demanded beyond the “safety minimum”, the effort may stop before the safety minimum is reached when it is not technically possible to reach another level. In other words, the provision of the Convention lays down a requirement for minimum safety which is not determined by technological or economic resources, but by the need to protect workers. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it determines the threshold defined as “the minimum compatible with safety” in Article 2, paragraph 2, in order to reduce the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents and the duration and degree of such exposure.

4. Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with concern the growing number of cases of occupational cancer indicated in the Government’s report (840 cases in 2000 and 1,279 in 2002). It notes the Government’s statement that the increase in the number of cancers acknowledged to be occupational in origin is linked to exposure to asbestos in the past and that the increase is in part due to the law (because the Act on Social Security Funding for 1999 enabled persons with asbestos-related ailments to be reinstated in their entitlements) and is also epidemiological in nature (because France has not yet reached the peak of the curve regarding estimates of cancers expected due to exposure that occurred several decades ago). The Government also indicates that wood dust is the main causal agent, being at the origin of 67 recognized occupational cancers. With regard to the practical application of the Convention, the Government indicates that France continues to provide particularly good protection in respect of CMR agents – well beyond its international or European obligations. It plans to establish by decree new thresholds for occupational exposure in respect of CMR agents. Lastly, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, section 188 of the Act on Social Modernization reinforces even further the protection of workers against the risks involved in exposure to carcinogenic substances and agents. There is to be a procedure for halting work in the event of “chemical risk”. Under the Act, where a regulatory and binding limit of occupational exposure is exceeded, the Labour Inspectorate may order a halt to activities in the enterprise until compliance with the rules of protection is resumed. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on cases of occupational cancer.

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

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its reports. It notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 2001-97 of 1 February 2001 establishing particular rules for the prevention of carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic risks to reproduction and amending the Labour Code (Part Two: Decree in the Council of State), which extends the protection conferred by French legislation in force concerning the prevention of carcinogenic risks, regulated by section R.231-56 ff. of the Labour Code, to the rules of prevention that apply to mutagenic and toxic agents. In this regard, the Committee notes that the abovementioned Decree comprises in particular provisions which reinforce the implementation of the Convention by even exceeding the requirements of its provisions.

However, the Committee, referring to its previous comments, would like to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee again notes that, under section R.231-56-2 of the Labour Code, the employer is required to reduce the use of a carcinogenic agent at the workplace, in particular by replacing it, where this is technically feasible, with a substance, preparation or process which, in the conditions in which it is used, is not harmful or is less harmful to the health and safety of workers. The Committee once again asks the Government to indicate the criteria used in evaluating technical feasibility with regard to the replacement of carcinogenic substances by substances which are non-carcinogenic or less harmful and the methods applied for this purpose.

Article 2, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that in the event of exposure and where other preventive measures, such as replacement of carcinogenic substances or agents or production and use in a closed system, are not feasible, the employer is required under section R.231-56-3, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, to reduce the level of exposure to the technically feasible minimum. The measures aimed at reducing the number of workers exposed to carcinogenic substances or agents, as well as the duration and level of exposure, therefore depend on what is "technically feasible". The Convention, for its part, requires that these be reduced to the "minimum compatible with safety". As these concepts are not necessarily equivalent, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the criteria used in evaluating "technical feasibility", how these criteria conform to the required "minimum compatible with safety", and the methods of evaluation.

Part V of the report form. The Committee notes with concern the statistics provided by the Government concerning the number of recognized cases of occupational cancer. It observes that the figure recorded for 1999 (799 cases) is practically double that of 1998 (394 cases). The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on the practical implementation of the Convention and will take the necessary measures, in the light of the abovementioned figures, to ensure extensive protection of workers against the risks arising from exposure to carcinogenic substances and agents.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its first report. It also notes the observations of the French Democratic Federation of Labour (CFDT) on the application of the Convention. It asks the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

1. Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee notes that the carcinogenic substances and agents to which occupational exposure is prohibited or made subject to authorization or control are determined periodically. In this connection, it notes with interest Decree No. 96-1133 of 24 December 1996 respecting the prohibition of asbestos. The Committee notes however that the CFDT refers to a lack of transparency in the legislation as to the various lists of carcinogenic substances and agents. The Committee asks the Government to consider the possibility of establishing a consolidated list of the substances and agents determined as carcinogenic, as this would facilitate understanding of the legislation and the adoption of preventive measures. It hopes that the Government will provide information in this respect.

2. Article 2, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that under section R 231-56-2 of the Labour Code, the employer is required to reduce the use of a carcinogenic agent at the workplace, amongst other means by replacing it where this is technically feasible, with a substance, preparation or process which, in the conditions in which it is used, is not harmful or is less harmful to the health and safety of workers. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the criteria used in evaluating technical feasibility with regard to the replacement of carcinogenic substances by substances which are non-carcinogenic or less harmful and the methods applied for this purpose.

3. Article 2, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that in the event of exposure and where other preventive measures (such as replacement of carcinogenic substances or agents or production and use in a closed system) are not feasible, the employer is required under section R 231-56-3 to reduce the level of exposure to the technically feasible minimum. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the criteria used in evaluation "technical feasibility", and to state how these criteria conform to the requirement of "minimum compatible with safety" as well as the methods of evaluation.