CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments based on the comments made by the Latin American Central of Workers (CLAT), the National Union of Workers of the Telephone, Annotation and Revision Services of the Ecuadorian Telecommunications Institute (IETEL) "17 May", affiliated to the CLAT, and the Ecuadorian Confederation of United Class Organizations of Workers (CEDOC) concerning information on the application in practice of measures under Ministerial Agreement No. 136 of 23 February 1999 intended to afford protection to workers and supervisors in the telephone services against occupational hazards arising out of environmental noise and pollution such as those setting the normal working day at four and a half hours per day. It notes that the Government maintains that despite the Agreement of the Ministry of Labour and Human Resources No. 136 of 23 February 1999, which fixed the normal working day for telephone operators and supervisors at four and a half hours per day, during collective bargaining the workers obtained extensions to such limits of their own free will. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide copies of the said collective agreements voluntarily agreed to by the unions extending the normal working day beyond those set out in Agreement No. 136 of 1999. It would also be grateful if the Government would give its views as to the impact of such agreements on the safety and health of the workers of the sector, in view of the limits set by Agreement No. 136 of 23 February 1999.

2. The Committee has requested, on several occasions, that the Government adopt the necessary measures to give effect to a certain number of Articles of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government once again refers to sections of the Labour Code (sections 42, 416, 418, 441 and 443) that do not address the specific requirements of the said Articles of the Convention. The Committee wishes to indicate that as the provisions of the Convention are not, in principle, self-executing, upon ratification of the Convention, the Government is obliged to adopt all necessary legislative, regulatory and practical measures on the following provisions of the Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s response that sections 416 and 418 establish the employer’s responsibility in respect of the prevention of risks, and that the committees that assess risks can determine the responsibilities in the event of joint work in order to avoid occupational accidents or diseases. Moreover, it is the responsibility of all employers, without exception, irrespective of the fact that there may or may not be more than one employer at a workplace, to meet the requirements of section 42 of the Labour Code, without prejudice to the responsibility of each employer. The Committee would like to point out, however, that there are no procedures prescribed for the requirements of this paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention that employers are required to collaborate whenever two or more of them undertake activities simultaneously at one workplace. It hopes the Government will soon take the necessary measures to ensure that such collaboration is required of employers whenever they are undertaking work simultaneously at one workplace.

Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3. Air Pollution and Vibration. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that there is no progress to report on the matters raised under these paragraphs of Article 8 of the Convention. It therefore reiterates its previous hope for the establishment, by the Inter-Institutional Committee on Occupational Safety and Health, and under section 63 of the Safety and Health Regulations, of exposure limits for corrosive, irritating and toxic substances, by adopting the standards elaborated with respect to such substances by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Please indicate the measures taken in this regard.

Article 10. The Committee notes that there is no progress made regarding its previous comments under this Article of the Convention. It must therefore reiterate its hope that the Government will shortly take the necessary measures to establish guidelines or instructions concerning the type of personal protective equipment (e.g. double-layer gloves specially designed to prevent transmission of vibration through the hands, shoes with soles that absorb vibration transmitted by the ground, etc.) to be provided to workers exposed to vibration, based on section 55.8 of the Safety and Health Regulations (Executive Decree No. 2393 of 13 November 1986). Please indicate the measures taken in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that this is met by integral inspections, and particularly those carried out by the Occupational Safety and Health Department, but that there has been no information available on the reports of these inspections. The Committee wishes to recall its previous comment where it had noted that the Safety and Health Regulations provided for periodic medical examination of workers exposed to dangerous substances and excessive noise. It reiterates its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that workers who may be assigned to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration are provided with medical examinations prior to their assignment to such work and to indicate the periodicity determined by the competent authority for the medical examinations to be provided to workers exposed to air pollution, noise or vibration. Please provide all indications in this regard.

Article 12. The Committee notes that there is no progress made on matters raised in its previous comments under this Article of the Convention. It must therefore reiterate its request to the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration are notified to the competent authority.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]