Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Finlande (Ratification: 1950)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

With reference to its observation, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

The Committee notes the comments made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK), the Confederation of Unions for Professionals and Managerial Staff in Finland (AKAVA) and the Finnish Confederation of Professionals (STTK), in a joint statement attached to the Government’s report, which was received on 29 August 2013.

Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Organization and effective functioning of the labour inspection system under the supervision and control of a central authority. Following up on its previous comments concerning the administrative reform on the labour inspection system in Finland, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that a report on the implementation of the regional state administrative reform (including the delegation to the regional state administrations of the occupational safety and health (OSH) services) was submitted to Parliament in February 2013, which is expected to provide a statement by the end of 2013.

The Committee notes that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK refer to their previous comments, where they expressed doubts as to the organization of OSH services as part of regional state administrations, re-emphasizing in particular their concerns as to the impartiality of the labour inspection staff. The Committee notes that the Government, on the other hand, reiterates that the administrative reform has not affected the resources available for OSH inspection duties, nor the status, functions, independence and impartiality required for their exercise, even if premises are shared in some cities with other administrative officials.

The Committee further notes the explanations provided by the Government and the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK on the number of labour inspectors and the number of inspection visits, and it also notes the statistical data in a table attached to the Government’s report. It notes the Government’s indications that inspections are conducted on the basis of a tripartite four-year framework agreement, in addition to the inspections that are carried out following a complaint. The Committee notes that the Government confirms the previous statements of the above trade unions that less than 10 per cent of all workplaces are inspected every year and that some inspections are conducted in writing without inspections of the workplace. According to the Government, while the reasons for the decrease in the number of inspections following complaints, deplored by the SAK, AKAVA and STTK in its previous comments, have not yet been ascertained, this might be due to difficulties of locating the appropriate authorities for labour inspection in the context of the administrative reforms; however, in 2012, inspections following complaints have increased by about 500. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that labour inspectors are currently being trained in the use of the new supervisory data system “Vera”, which has been partly implemented according to the information in the Government’s report (the reporting module is still under preparation) and should increase efficiency of inspections through an improved time management. It further notes that the measures proposed by the tripartite Resources II Working Group of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to enhance the effectiveness of OSH enforcement and the more efficient use of resources have not yet been fully implemented and that work in this respect will continue until 2014. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the impact of the reform of the labour inspection system on the application of the provisions of the Convention, including on the number of labour inspectors, routine inspections and inspections following complaints, the office facilities available to the OSH divisions and the financial resources allocated to them, etc. Please also provide information on the current conditions of service of inspectors, especially their salary scales by comparison to the remuneration of public officers with similar functions such as tax inspectors.

Please also continue to provide information on the outcome of discussions in Parliament and relevant findings of the assessment of the impact of the reform on the effective functioning of the OSH divisions and labour inspection, as well as extracts from any relevant documents, if possible in one of the working languages of the ILO.

The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the measures taken to enhance the effectiveness and quality of OSH enforcement, including more detailed information on the operation, functioning and results of the new supervisory data system “Vera”.

Articles 9 and 14. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases. Following up on its previous comments in this regard, the Committee notes that, in a joint statement attached to the Government’s report, the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK express again concern at the failure to report suspected cases of work-related diseases and cases of work-related accidents despite the legal obligations in this regard. The Government, on the other hand, refers once again to the legal obligations to report cases of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases, and indicates the authorities responsible for receiving such notifications. It states that the reporting mechanism works reasonably well in practice, while awareness-raising measures have been undertaken (at workplaces and among medical doctors, etc.) for its improvement.

However, the Committee observes that the Government, despite the above information, has once again not described in detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and occupational diseases to the OSH inspection services. In this regard, the Committee also understands that the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK indicate that relevant statistics might not be reliable. The Committee finally notes the Government’s indications, in response to previous comments by the above trade unions on the absence of physicians associated with the OSH services for the conduct of investigations, that the wage levels of labour inspectors might be too low to attract medical doctors, but that labour inspectors are trained and have the required expertise in this regard. The Committee asks the Government to make any comments it considers appropriate on the observations of the SAK, AKAVA and the STTK. It also, once again, asks the Government to describe in further detail the structure and functioning of the system for the recording and notification of employment accidents and cases of occupational diseases, and to communicate any applicable texts.

Please continue to provide information on any measures taken or envisaged to improve the system of notifying and recording employment accidents and cases of occupational disease, including measures taken to sensitize workers and employers or their organizations (for example, through awareness-raising campaigns, the distribution of brochures or the organization of training sessions).