Proposition 50K2167

Projet de loi portant des mesures pour renforcer la prévention en matière de bien-être des travailleurs lors de l'exécution de leur travail.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 3, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work occupational accident occupational safety occupational health temporary employment

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 6, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, the project that is submitted to you this afternoon aims to strengthen the prevention of workers’ well-being during the performance of their work. by

During the period of consideration of the bill, several work accidents have come, unfortunately, to strengthen the relevance of the measures that this bill proposes to us. The project has three axes. I will try to be synthetic in such a way that each of the members here present can proceed to the informed vote.

As I said, there are three axes. The first axis is the prevention of the interim sector. Indeed, the actuality, when submitting the bill, made us remember and highlight the work accident that occurred in Cockerill. Two specific points should be emphasized. The temporary employment undertaking will no longer be able to make its employees available to a user if the user does not fulfil its security obligations, including protective equipment, postcards, etc. Furthermore, the user will no longer be able to use the temporary company if it does not fulfill its obligations in the same matters.

The second axis is the prevention of the repetition of serious accidents. For this purpose, a chapter 11a of the Act of 4 August 1996 is inserted and will establish an expert procedure that must be activated after any serious accident. This expert will have a qualification as a level 1 prevention counselor. These persons will be able to obtain their registration on the list of experts established by the Administration. This expert shall draw up a report aimed at revealing effective preventive measures applicable to any other working circumstance. The fees will be fixed by royal decree and covered by the insurer of the employee of the victim. The maximum amount is 300 euros.

Finally, the third axis of the project relates to measures relating to labour inspection. It may order organizational measures to end risk situations.

This is the first aspect of the bill.

What was the procedure adopted by the Commission? It was decided to hear the different social stakeholders: the FEB, the middle classes and representative trade union organisations. We did not request the opinion of the National Labour Council (CNT) because it would, I think, have delayed the implementation of the project.

I would like to summarize very briefly what was said in the commission. For the rest, I refer to the written report, relatively dense.

In contrast to what Mr. Flahaut, this is not a mini program law since it contains only eight articles.

In the general discussion, your servant is concerned about the continuous training that will be given to the experts. The question arises of drawing up an annual report to measure the evolution of serious work accidents. It highlights the contradiction between, on the one hand, the search for business profitability and, on the other hand, the preventive measures necessary to ensure the health and safety of workers.

Ms Pieters, on behalf of CD&V, emphasizes that it is a priority for employers to seek prevention measures against work accidents. It notes the considerable increase in administrative burdens and indicates that this project has not received the opinion of the National Labour Council. In his eyes, it is to increase labor costs rather than to reduce them. He submitted two amendments to the bill.

by Mr. Delizée, on behalf of the PS, stresses that the debate should not be seen in terms of punishment or humiliation. On the contrary, it is about strengthening preventive measures. It is ⁇ in SMEs with less than 50 employees that half of the serious and fatal workplace accidents are recorded. According to him, it is unacceptable that, for reasons of profitability, all precautionary measures are not taken in relation to the employed worker. Discharge of responsibilities should be avoided when such a case occurs.

Mrs Cahay, on behalf of the MR, believes that it would have been useful to have the CNT’s opinion on the project. However, given the urgency, it suggests that the social partners be heard in a committee. by Mr. Anthuenis, on behalf of the VLD, views positively that the policy is issued following serious accidents. However, it highlights the surplus cost that this represents for companies. He is concerned about a spread of prevention and would have desired better cooperation between the various actors.

by Mr. Wauters, chairman of our committee, supports the objectives of the minister. He emphasizes that a lot of suffering could be spared from the workers involved and their surroundings. It recalls the important role played by labor prevention and protection committees and the various services. It indicates that many accidents occur in the temporary sectors.

Here are, very summarily, the responses that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Employment gave to the various speakers.

“The number of work accidents has been increasing for several years. The public authority could not remain unanswered in the face of this problem.” She also emphasizes that the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, in his 2002 mercurial, says that it is unacceptable that work kills in the 21st century. As for the amount of the 300 euros of compensation for the expert, she recalls that it is not a fine but rather a participation of the employer in this precaution.

We then held a meeting of the committee to hear the different social interlocutors. Here is, too briefly, what they told us.

by Mr. De Meester, for the FEB, very schematically, disapproves the project in its current form. He makes a long exhibition explaining his position and gives a definition of the serious accident.

by MM. Fonck, for CSC, and Philips, for FGTB, say they are in favour of the project but they emphasize an increase in the available personnel and financial resources of the inspection services. They emphasize that the system of experts does not prejudice the tasks of prevention advisors and also emphasize that the expert report should be communicated to the prevention committee, as well as to trade union delegations.

by Mr. Baetens, a representative of the middle class, also wants the number of accidents to decrease, but he believes that the proposal is contrary to the philosophy of the welfare law. by

As for mr. Van der Haegen, of the CGSLB, joins the FGTB and CSC views but emphasizes the preventive dimension of security policy. However, it highlights the constant problem of stress.

Mrs. D'Hondt and Mr. It also focuses on the problem of occupational diseases.

The Minister of Employment and Labour also recalled the important role played by the asbl Prevent, an association that is financed by insurers and which has a budget of 450 million former Belgian francs per year, not negligible means for prevention. She reminds, to conclude, that the proposed text is a complement and support to the prevention policy.

Finally, we had a final meeting of the committee to vote on the draft in which a majority amendment was submitted in light of what was said in the committee. This amendment was also signed by Mr. Jean-Jacques Viseur, of the CDH, who recalled the urgency that affects this matter and reminds, at the conclusion of his speech, that the fight against work accidents is one of the first social measures appearing in the labour legislation.

For the rest, I refer you to my written report.

At the end of the discussion, the majority amendment to Article 5 was adopted unanimously by the members present at this meeting.

The other articles were adopted unanimously. The text was adopted unanimously by the members present.

To conclude this speech, I would like to thank, on the one hand, the active members of the committee and, on the other hand, the Parliament services that allowed us to report to you tonight. I hope, Madam Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission, you have been faithful to the work of our commission. I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is submitted to us today is structured around three axes: the prevention of the repetition in the enterprises of serious work accidents, the intervention of the inspection in case of finding of an infringement concerning the organization of work and the protection of temporary work.

Prevention of serious accidents at work occupies an important place among measures aimed at improving the well-being of workers. Recently, the work accident that occurred in the establishments of Cockerill-Sambre has caused great emotion, especially in the Liege region. This accident has increased the need for appropriate legislation because, despite information campaigns, 200,000 work accidents are still recorded over a year and 13,000 of these accidents are considered serious.

The objective pursued by this project is to expertise serious accidents occurring in the workplace, in order to avoid their reproduction, both in the enterprise itself and in any other similar or comparable work situation. The measure should therefore be seen as an aid to the employer in whom a serious accident has occurred, in order to take relevant, practical and preventive measures through guidance provided by an expert in accident analysis. Since serious work accidents represent a significant cost, both in human and financial terms, we believe that employers must have all useful measures available to prevent those accidents that, beyond the human aspects, can result in a loss of the production tool or even a halt of production itself. The appointment of an expert on the workplace where a serious accident occurred has the merit of bringing a new look at the situation. In fact, it is often found that most accidents occur by habit or by some negligence in the necessary safety measures. We realized that it was not necessary to systematically appoint an external expert in all situations and we have, by an amendment, challenged this automaticity. Under this amendment, the employer who wishes to avoid the designation of an expert can make a report with its internal experts and within a short period of time on the causes of the accident.

It will of course be up to the competent official to assess whether, following this report, an expert should be sent on the spot. We therefore opt for a more efficient approach to serious accidents, involving in the first instance the internal experts of the company. Internal services will therefore be able to analyze and take appropriate measures to prevent accidents from happening again.

With regard to the protection of the temporary worker, the supplement to the bill proposed here is intended to provide the user and the temporary work company with an additional legal tool, which should enable them to fulfill their obligations regarding the protection of the temporary workers. This is undoubtedly a purely theoretical and legal approach. Together with all relevant stakeholders, it will need to be complemented by a comprehensive policy to combat occupational accidents in the interim sector.

Here are, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers, Dear Colleagues, the various remarks I wanted to make on the occasion of the discussion of this bill, which we intend to defend in view of the importance of prevention among measures aimed at improving well-being at work.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Ministers, my presentation can be very short and clear. On the objective of this draft we all agreed in the committee. Each work accident is one too many, and every death resulting from a work accident is one too many. This must be corrected. The figures speak for themselves. There are too many serious accidents every year.

Then comes the classic “but”. What did we disagree on, Mr. Minister? We disagreed that the problem should be solved in this way without creating a problem. The measure envisaged in this draft was intended to contribute to accelerating preventive measures in the event of an accident in an enterprise in order to try to reduce the number of new casualties, but it should not lead to a larger paper mill or additional costs for the operators.

It was not intended to declare the entrepreneurs necessarily guilty because an accident had occurred in their company. We all know that they can’t always prevent this. The extra costs and the large mountain of paper actually went us a little too far. We therefore requested hearings in the committee and fortunately the social partners were willing to come to the hearings and provide us with additional information.

Therefore, an amendment was made. We are very pleased that you have accepted our amendment. It was aimed at putting the first initiative on the employer to have a comprehensive report drawn up by its internal or external service, which is assessed by the inspection within eight days after the accident occurred. If the report is not sufficiently drawn up to directly give rise to the appropriate preventive measures, it is not more than correct that the inspection still appoint an external service to further investigate the situation in the enterprise.

As mentioned, we also share the concern that entrepreneurs must properly comply with the required measures if a work accident has occurred in their company.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the present draft is a good example of the interaction between the government and the Parliament. It is in the committee, thanks to the hearings and the discussions between the various groups and the minister, that we have reached a compromise. Thanks to the hearings, we gained new insights. The compromise is a good, acceptable initiative for our party. Our group will of course support this draft.

First of all, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their work. Baille for his oral report in which he recalled the philosophy of the project and the main measures that are included in it, measures that ultimately constitute the added value in this department compared to the current situation.

by Mr. Baille also recalled that our committee has organized hearings to inform us of the opinion, contrary to the other, of the social partners. Several speakers recalled in particular the spectacular accident that occurred on October 23, the explosion at Cockerill Sambre that killed two people, thirteen burned seriously and thirteen seriously injured. It is a sad record and if it can appear as a catastrophe, unfortunately, in terms of serious accidents, it is a routine because accidents are many; in Cockerill Sambre, for example, this is the twelfth fatal accident since only 1998.

In 2002, 21 workers died in the Arcelor Group and ⁇ half of them worked for subcontractors. It makes a lot to say that this is the fault of no chance, even though it is known that steel work is dangerous.

For the year 2000, these are the latest figures available today, there were 209,508 ⁇ work accidents that caused 139 deaths and that caused thousands of work disabilities.

The phrase used by the first lawyer at the Court of Cassation, namely "killing yourself at work", is not only an image, but it is unfortunately too often a tragic reality.

Another finding that has been made is that the number of permanent incapacities is increasing considerably. From 1982 to 1999, in a little twenty years, therefore, we have an increase of 20%. Such a finding seems to me to be sufficient to convince us that there is a need to go further than the current legislation, that there is a need to supplement the current arrangement, ⁇ unsatisfactory, to prevent work accidents more effectively.

Another major concern is the finding that the more distant the link between the user company and the worker is, the more there are risks of accident due to failure to prevent. When an accident involving a subcontractor occurs at a workplace, that accident is not accounted for in the statistics of the user enterprise but in those of the subcontractor enterprise. The figures show that Belgian small and medium-sized enterprises with less than 50 employees generally account for half of the fatal accidents, while the number of workers employed there accounts for only 39% of the total workers recorded by the ONSS.

We also talked about temporary workers. The figures show, in fact, that temporary workers are twice as likely to have a work accident and that the rate of severity is twice as high as other workers.

For our group, cost outsourcing is unacceptable when it comes to bridging the safety and protection of workers. It consists too often in replacing experienced workers with younger and inexperienced workers who are not at all prepared for the dangers of their mission, and this sometimes in disregard of the regulation in force.

Therefore, we consider that this bill responds, in a positive way, to the whole of this problem with the three axes that Mr. Baille recalled, namely, the protection of temporary workers, the strengthening of the tasks of the labour inspection and the prevention of the repetition of serious work accidents.

For the latter point, the argument of employer organisations, according to which the appointment of an external expert undermines or would undermine the consequences of the expertise present in the undertaking, is inaccurate in so far as the text is in no way restrictive in relation to the current competences of prevention services, in particular the obligation to conduct an investigation in the event of any work accident.

Far from us the idea that there would be any part taken from the internal prevention services, but the appointment of an external expert responds to another logic, based on a finding: the severity of the accident and therefore the failure in itself of prevention, and not on suspicions or in order to establish responsibilities.

Furthermore, we believe that the analysis and recommendations of this external expert will constitute an added value in the risk analysis and can be confronted with the active work of the internal prevention structures and, where appropriate, support and complement this work.

In conclusion, our group would like to congratulate Ms. Minister first of all for having ⁇ ined the direction and having been able to lead, with the members of the committee, to the adoption of this bill.

We therefore unreservedly support this bill that will allow, not surely to eradicate work accidents, it would be too beautiful — but, we hope in any case, to make employers take their responsibilities and thus drastically reduce the number of work accidents in our country.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I just want to say that I am ⁇ pleased that this draft was put to the vote today and that it was able to be the subject of a consensus. Indeed, every workplace accident is intolerable, especially when the consequences are serious or even dramatic for workers.

Furthermore, it was necessary that this project took into account not only those workers but also the working environment and the employers’ capabilities to best respond to this fight against accidents. The dialogue resulted in unanimous agreement. I look forward to this for all employees.