CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided regarding effect given to Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention, and references made to new legislation adopted giving further effect to the Convention, as well as the detailed information provided regarding regulatory guides for different types of work involving possible exposure to radiation. The Committee further notes the observations from the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) included in the Government’s report.

Articles 3(1) and 6(1) of the Convention. Effective protection of workers in the light of available knowledge; maximum permissible doses. The Committee notes from the SAK’s comments that the dose limits for work-related exposure to radiation defined by the Radiation and Nuclear Authority (STUK) should be stricter on the basis of current research data. Noting that the Government does not address these concerns in its report, the Committee asks the Government to respond to the SAK’s comments in its next report.

Article 12. Medical examinations. The Committee notes from the SAK’s comments that health inspections are not carried out on all workers because of the use of temporary and subcontracted workers. Noting that the Government does not address these concerns in its report, the Committee asks the Government to respond to the SAK’s comments in its next report.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. The Committee notes the Government’s response that, according to the Employment Accidents Insurance Act (608/1948) compensation for injury or illness covers medical treatment, daily allowances, accident pension and handicap allowance, including any relevant supplements, compensation for costs and loss of income arising from physical therapy. However, with reference to its previous comments the Committee would again like to draw the Government’s attention to what is stated in paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention, and the fact that this provision also relates to situations before any occupational disease has been declared but after a determination that continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiation has been found to be medically inadvisable. In such cases, paragraph 32 makes it clear that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on measures taken to ensure that workers are offered alternative employment or to maintain their income when it has been determined that it is medically inadvisable for them to continue their work, including information on the situation of workers who have been employed for less than three years.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes from the comments by the SAK that the occupational health-care provisions are not supervised and that no statistics are available on the implementation of statutory health inspections, or on negligence and related sanctions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures taken to address the comments raised by the SAK and to provide a general appreciation on the application of the Convention including, for instance, extracts from inspection reports as well as statistical information on the number and outcome of such inspections.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report.

1. Article 7, paragraph 1(b) and paragraph 2, of the Convention. Dose limits. With respect to the maximum annual dose for the lens of the eye of young workers in the age group of 16 to 18 years in the course of their vocational training, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that this dose limit is now three-tenths of the annual dose limit, which is in conformity with the Convention. However, it notes that the references made by the Government to Act No. 418 and Act No. 727 of 2002 amending the Radiation Act (Act No. 592 of 1991) do not concern annual dose limits. Noting that section 4 of the Radiation Ordinance (No. 1512 of 1991) prescribes an annual dose limit of 50 mSv for the lens of the eye for this category of workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the amending text to section 4 of the Radiation Ordinance (No. 1512 of 1991) with its next report to ensure the full application of the Convention.

2. Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures offered for maintaining income where continued assignment to work involving exposure is medically inadvisable. With respect to job security for those workers who have accumulated an effective dose beyond the occupational exposure limits established in the national legislation and the concern expressed by the Committee previously, it notes the Government’s statement that Chapter 7, sections 3 and 4, of the Employment Contracts Act (Act No. 55 of 2001), enumerate the permissible grounds for dismissal when work has declined considerably or permanently on financial or productivity related reasons and the dismissal shall not precede or follow the hiring of a new employee to a similar task. It notes that similar regulations apply to the public sector (Act No. 750 of 1994 and Act No. 304 of 2003). The Committee notes from the Government’s report under the Employment Service Convention, 1948 (No. 88), that any worker who has been employed for a period of three years and is dismissed for the reasons mentioned above would automatically be covered by the redundancy protection policy. In this context, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to paragraph 32 of the 1992 general observation under the Convention where it is indicated that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned with suitable alternative employment, or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise where continued assignment to work involving exposure to ionizing radiations is found to be medically inadvisable. Against this background, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical application of this Article including information on the situation of workers who have been employed for less than three years.

3. Part III of the report form. National Authority. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority is currently revising existing guidelines and regulations with respect to workers involved in ionizing radiation work. It also notes the statement that this Authority is also preparing further instructions regarding protection of workers from ionizing radiation. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on measures taken or envisaged by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in respect of the protection of workers engaged in ionizing radiation work and to provide copies of any adopted regulations, guidelines and instructions.

CMNT_TITLE

1.  The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the comments formulated by the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers (TT), the Employers’ Confederation of Service Industries (LTK), as well as the observations made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK).

2.  Article 7, paragraphs 1(b) and 2, of the Convention.  The Committee notes with satisfaction section 37 of the Radiation Act, as amended, prohibiting the employment of persons under the age of 18 years in radiation work. The only exclusion from this prohibition is for young persons engaged in radiation work in the course of their vocational training. In this case, the minimum age for admission to radiation work is 16 years. With regard to the maximum dose limits fixed for this category of workers, the Committee notes that section 4 of the Radiation Decree (1512/1991), as amended, fixes the maximum permitted effective dose limit at 6 mSv per year. The annual equivalent dose limits are 50 mSv for the lens of the eye and 150 mSv for any area of the skin. In this respect, the Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to sections 4.1.5 and 4.3.1(b) of the 1986 ILO Code of Practice on Radiation Protection of Workers (Ionizing Radiation) which recommends that workers, apprentices and students under the age of 18 should only be engaged in radiation work which would not expose them to more than three-tenths of the annual dose limits established. The Committee finds that the Finnish legislation is in conformity with these recommendations, except for the dose limit established with regard to the exposure of the lens of the eye. The Committee therefore invites the Government to re-examine this dose limit in order to ensure the full application of this provision of the Convention.

3.  Article 14.  Alternative employment.  The Committee notes with interest section 33(c) of the Radiation Act, as amended, establishing the principle that the dismissal of a worker is not justified on the grounds of an accumulation of radiation exposure exceeding the maximum permissible limit. In this context, the Government indicates that this legal principle does not safeguard the worker from dismissal on grounds of business requirements, e.g. cuts in the production or even total closure. However, these conditions are highly likely to arise after an accident. The Government announces that this gap in the law will be addressed in the framework of the next revision of the pertinent legislation. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will take the necessary measures to this end in the near future to ensure job security for those workers who have accumulated an effective dose beyond the occupational exposure limits established in the national legislation. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress achieved in this regard.

4.  Part V of the report form.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication to the effect that workers involved in an intervention due to an accident should automatically receive substantial economic or other compensation for any partial or complete disability or death occurring at a later stage and which is caused by excessive exposure to radiation. The Government considers that financial compensation could, in principle, be paid either in the form of an extra salary or by maintaining a sufficiently large fund which is used to pay compensation to those workers or their families who have sacrificed their health, working capacity or life in an emergency situation. The Government concludes that the payment in the form of an extra salary runs contrary to the spirit of the Occupational Safety Act, since in Finland all compensation to be paid for industrial accidents is covered by insurance companies. In this respect, the Committee notes that the amount of compensation in the case of an industrial accident or occupational disease is the same for all workers concerned irrespective of their level of risk. The only extra benefit for radiation workers is the right to radiation leave which, however, was withdrawn in 1998 from employees subject to low levels of exposure, such as X-ray nurses. The level of risk nevertheless affects employers in large companies in the sense that it is more expensive for these employers to take out insurance cover if many cases of accidents or industrial diseases have occurred in their companies. The Committee notes the Government’s reflections on this issue and requests it to provide information on any action taken to improve the protection of workers exposed to radiation, and in general on the practical application of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

Referring to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply further information on the following points.

1. Article 7, paragraphs 1(b) and 2, of the Convention. The Committee notes that section 37 of the Radiation Act sets the lower age limit for employment in radiation work at 18 years, but allows a younger person to take part in radiation work if such work is found to be necessary for training purposes. It also notes the Government's indication in its report that the Decree on the Protection of Young Employees (508/86) as amended in 1993 (1428/93) still provides that persons under 18 years of age are not allowed to work in jobs where they would be exposed to dangerous ionizing radiations. The Government has not, however, indicated the levels of maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation fixed in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention for workers under the age of 18 taking part in radiation work for training purposes, nor any provision prohibiting in absolute terms the participation of workers under the age of 16 in work involving ionizing radiation, even for training purposes (Article 7, paragraph 2). The Committee notes from Instruction 3.1 of the Radiation Safety Guide (ST Guide) 1.2, issued by the Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety (STUK) and appended to the Government's report, that STUK will give individual instructions for the dose limits for 16-18 year old persons in professional training, and that the maximum values given in section 5 of the Radiation Decree for persons other than those engaged in radiation work shall be applied to persons younger than 16 years. It appears, however, that the instructions given in the ST Guides are not absolutely binding.

The Government is requested to indicate in its next report the measures taken to ensure the observance of Article 7, paragraphs 1(b) and 2, of the Convention. In this connection, the Committee draws attention also to the dose limits for apprentices and students of age 16 to 18 set in Annex II, paragraph II.6 of the 1994 International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against ionizing Radiation, jointly sponsored by the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations and based on the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP.

2. Accident situations.

(a) The Committee notes that under section 7 of the Radiation Decree, "radiation exposure due to measures taken in an accident situation in order to restrict the radiation hazard and bring the radiation source under control" shall not be taken into account in applying the maximum values for radiation exposure under sections 3 to 6.

According to section 7 of the Decree,

Measures needed to restrict the radiation hazard and bring the radiation source under control in an accident situation shall be taken in such a way that the radiation exposure due to the situation is kept as slow as possible. As far as possible, the measures referred to ... shall be taken in such a way that the effective dose of a person participating in them does not exceed 0.5 Sv and the dose at any point on the skin does not exceed 5 Sv.

Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 16 to 27 and 35(c)(iii) of its 1992 general observation under the Convention, as well as paragraph 225 of the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP, the Committee considers that the terms "as far as possible" used in section 7, paragraph 2, of the Decree introduce a relative flexibility that is acceptable only for life-saving actions; moreover, the terms "measures needed to restrict the radiation hazard" do not appear to be clearly limited to the emergency phase of an intervention, as distinguished from recovery operations such as decontamination of the site. The Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine sections 7 and 8, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Radiation Decree, in the light also of paragraphs 233 and 236 of the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation, referred to in point 1 above, and that it will indicate the measures taken or envisaged to further restrict the exceptional exposure of workers.

(b) The Committee notes that under section 8, paragraph 3, of the Radiation Decree, "A pregnant woman shall not be ordered to take part in measures causing exposure to radiation referred to in this section"; it would thus appear that other workers may be ordered to take part in such measures. Referring to paragraph 234 of the above-mentioned International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee hopes that the Government will adopt provisions to ensure that workers who undertake actions in which the dose may exceed the maximum single-year dose limit shall be volunteers and shall be clearly and comprehensively informed in advance of the health risk involved, and that it will report on the measures taken to this end.

3. The provision of alternative employment. In its observation under the Convention, the Committee has noted with satisfaction the adoption of legislative provisions under which a pregnant woman working in conditions in which the development of the foetus may be endangered by ionizing radiation must if possible, be assigned other suitable work, unless the source of the risk can be eliminated from the work or working conditions. The Committee notes from the Government's report that no similar provisions exist for providing alternative work opportunities not involving exposure to ionizing radiation for workers whose exposure has exceeded the set maximum value. Referring to the explanations given in paragraphs 28 to 33 of its 1992 general observation and the principle reflected in paragraph 96 of the above-mentioned International Basic Safety Standards, the Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine the situation with a view to adopting appropriate measures to ensure effective protection of workers who have accumulated exposure beyond which an unacceptable risk of detriment is to occur and who may thus be faced with the dilemma that protecting their health means losing their employment, and that the Government will report on the measures taken.

4. Referring to point 2 of its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to supply with its next report information on the measures taken to keep track of outside workers employed by nuclear power plants, their periods of such employment, levels of exposure to ionizing radiation and health status, including any available statistics.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report.

1. Articles 3, paragraph 1, and 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention. Further to its general observation of 1992 under the Convention, the Committee notes with satisfaction the adoption and coming into force of the new Radiation Act (592/91) and Radiation Decree (1512/91) which are based on the 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP publication No. 60); the new legislation, inter alia, sets forth the principles of licensing, optimization and individual protection related to the use of radiation, has lowered the dose limits for radiation workers and for other persons, with specific dose limits for pregnant workers, in accordance with the ICRP Recommendations, and also covers natural radiation. The Committee likewise notes with satisfaction from the Government's report that, under amendment 1192/90 of the Sickness Insurance Act and amendment 717/91 of the Sickness Insurance Decree (473/63), the Council of State Decision concerning protection against occupational risk of mutagenic and teratogenic damage and of impaired reproduction (1043/91), and the Ministry of Labour Decision on factors posing a risk of mutagenic or teratogenic damage or of impaired reproduction (1044/91), a pregnant woman working in jobs or conditions in which the pregnancy or the development of the foetus may be endangered by a chemical substance, (ionizing) radiation or contagious disease must, if possible, be assigned other suitable work, unless the source of the risk can be eliminated from the work or working conditions. A doctor familiar with the working conditions determines the extent of the risk case by case. If no other work can be assigned, the worker is entitled to special maternity leave for the duration of the pregnancy.

2. In its previous observation the Committee had noted observations made by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) that there were problems with the enforcement of radiation protection legislation with regard to the many outside workers employed by nuclear power plants, particularly for annual maintenance, and that the labour protection delegates and shop stewards did not always receive adequate information about radiation protection. The Committee notes the Government's reply in its report that by virtue of several decisions of the Council of State (i.e. 1672/92 and 743/78), issued in accordance with the Occupational Health Care Act (743/78), all those who may be exposed to ionizing radiation at work are covered by the prescribed health checks, that employers are obliged to give these workers adequate information in regard to occupational health hazards at the workplace, their prevention and the correct working methods, and that under section 6 of the Occupational Health Care Act, the labour protection committee and the labour protection delegate are entitled to obtain from the occupational health care personnel such information obtained by them in their work which is relevant to the health of workers and the promotion of a healthy working environment. The Committee also notes the Government's indication in its report that the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions has stated that the present practice at workplaces is appropriate and that the provisions are being obeyed.

3. The Committee is raising certain questions in a request addressed directly to the Government.

CMNT_TITLE

I. With reference to its observation, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of the Radiation Protection Act of 1991. It notes that section 2 of this Act provides that, in all operations involving exposure to radiation, the radiation to which an individual is exposed must not exceed the maximum prescribed by ordinance. The Committee further notes from the Government's report that the decree to be issued under the new radiation Act is intended to include provisions on new dose limits. In this regard, the Committee would draw the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention which sets forth the new dose limits adopted in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (publication No. 60). It hopes that the Ordinance concerning dose limits referred to by the Government will be adopted in the near future and that it will take into account the current scientific knowledge, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1 and Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention. The Government is requested to provide a copy of any decrees issued under the new Radiation Protection Act as soon as they have been adopted.

II. The Committee notes with interest the information provided in the Government's report in response to its General Observation of 1987 concerning measures to be taken in abnormal situations, such as accidents, where levels of exposure to ionising radiation may exceed the levels prescribed by national legislation for normal conditions. The Committee notes from the Government's report that the Occupational Safety Act of 1988 includes a provision according to which any mutagenic or teratogenic hazards should be taken into account when assessing risk factors caused by working conditions. In this regard, the Committee would call the Government's attention to its General Observation under this Convention, in particular, paragraph 13 concerning dose limits for pregnant women directly engaged in radiation work. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which mutagenic or teratogenic hazards have been taken into account in determining the risk factors caused by working conditions and whether this has been taken into account in the setting of dose limits for pregnant women. The Government is also requested to indicate the steps taken or being considered in relation to the other matters raised in the conclusions to the General Observation under this Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee has taken note of the Government's report and the observations made by the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) on the application of the Convention, transmitted by the Government without comment.

According to the SAK, there are problems with the supervision of the Radiation Protection Act with regard to nuclear power plants. The SAK indicates that the plants employ many outside workers, particularly for annual maintenance, and that there is a failure to notify these outside workers about radiation doses. The Committee notes that Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention provides that the Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionising radiation in the course of their work. Furthermore, Article 9 provides that any information necessary concerning the presence of hazards from ionising radiations and adequate instructions in the precautions to be taken for their protection and the reasons therefor shall be provided to the workers. The Committee notes that section 25 of the Radiation Protection Act provides that only a person with the necessary working skills and competence may install, repair and service radiation-generating appliances. It further notes that, under section 36 of the Act, workers shall receive training and guidance respecting their duties in accordance with the nature of the operations and conditions at the workplace in order to ensure adequate prevention of unnecessary exposure to radiation and the risk of occurrences leading to excessive exposure to radiation. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that outside workers whose work involves entering establishments in which there are radiation sources, in particular to conduct annual maintenance, are provided with the necessary information and instruction with regard to ionising radiations.

The SAK also indicated that the labour protection delegates and shop stewards do not always receive adequate information about radiation protection. The Government is also requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that these workers receive the necessary information and instruction, in accordance with Article 9 of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.