Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162) - Colombia (Ratification: 2001)

Other comments on C162

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

The Committee notes the Government’s report, received on 31 August 2013, in response to its observation of 2012, as well as the joint communication of the International Organisation of Employers (IOE) and the National Employers Association of Colombia (ANDI), dated 27 August 2013, a communication of the Single Workers’ Union of Materials for the Construction Industry (SUTIMAC), dated 4 June 2013, and a joint communication of the Single Confederation of Workers (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) referring to the Government’s report, dated 29 August 2013. The Committee also notes the Government’s comments dated 18 October 2013 regarding the observations made by IOE and ANDI.

Background. The Committee has examined the joint communications that it has received from the CUT and CTC and a communication from SUTIMAC. The Committee notes that the fundamental point made by the IOE–ANDI and SUTIMAC in the communications received in 2013 is that Decision No. 007 of 4 November 2011 issued by the Ministry of Health and Social Security, adopting the safety and health regulations for chrysotile and other fibres of similar use, constitute substantial progress in the application of the Convention. The IOE–ANDI indicate that the regulations are designed to reduce exposure to chrysotile dust in the working environment and to establish feasible and reasonable monitoring procedures and practices so as to bring such exposure below the permitted threshold limit values and to prevent its harmful effects on health. In its comments on these observations, the Government indicates that it is very grateful to receive acknowledgement from the IOE and ANDI that correct and timely effect is being given to various Conventions, including this Convention. The Government adds that Colombia is making great efforts to fulfil the international commitments it has made, with the participation of employers’ and workers’ organizations in the various tripartite forums that exist. SUTIMAC considers that the representativeness of the most representative organizations concerned is guaranteed by the presence of SUTIMAC on the National Occupational Health Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos and Other Fibres (hereinafter National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos). For several years, the CUT and the CTC have claimed that the most representative organizations are not consulted and have called for a policy aimed at replacing/prohibiting the use of asbestos.

Article 3 of the Convention. Requirement that national laws and regulations prescribe measures for the prevention and control of health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos and for their protection against such hazards. In its previous comments, the Committee urged the Government to ensure the rapid adoption of legislation giving effect to the provisions of the Convention. In its comments in 2013, the Committee noted the adoption of Decision No. 007 of 4 November 2011 by the Ministry of Health and Social Security issuing safety and health regulations on chrysotile and other fibres of similar use, marking a significant advance in the application of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government’s report, the Decision came into force on 4 May 2013 and that its provisions are binding. SUTIMAC states that it was actively involved in convening a group of experts to draft the regulations and that they are an important step forward in protecting workers’ health. A similar view is expressed by the IOE–ANDI.

Article 4. Consultation of the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned on the measures to be taken to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee, while observing that the Government holds consultations in the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos, also noted that the CUT and the CTC were calling for real and effective dialogue and that they considered other forms of consultation to be more appropriate. The Committee noted that section 3(7) of Decision No. 1458 of 2008 includes a trade union delegate or workers’ representative from each fibro-cement enterprise in the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos, while section 3(9) includes a trade union delegate or workers’ representative from each friction materials enterprise; and it noted that the CUT and the CTC did not appear to be represented on the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos. The Committee notes the indication this year by SUTIMAC that the representative organizations concerned are those that are involved in the productive sectors where the fibre is handled; it also notes that the CUT and CTC repeat their claim that workers’ participation is very limited. The Committee further notes that the Government reiterates the information it provided in its previous report, to the effect that it plans to include a delegate from each of the most representative workers’ organizations in the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos. The Committee notes that the view of SUTIMAC on the one hand and of the CUT and CTC on the other differ as to the way in which consultation should be conducted, as well as on matters of substance and it again asks the Government to take the necessary measures rapidly for the inclusion of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned in the consultations, as the Government indicated in its two previous reports, and to provide information on this subject. Please also provide information on the matters discussed in the consultations and their outcome.

Article 9(a). Making work in which exposure to asbestos may occur subject to regulations prescribing adequate engineering controls and work practices, including workplace hygiene. Antioquia mine. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the observations of the CUT and CTC that over 10,000 tonnes of asbestos per year are extracted from the mine located in Antioquia and that the mining involves the use of artisanal techniques, without technology, which is absolutely hazardous for the miners. SUTIMAC observed previously that the mine extracting the chrysotile belongs to the workers, who extract and market the fibre. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, labour inspectors inspected the Las Brisas mine, located in the Solita de Campamento settlement in Antioquia, in June 2013, and found that no mining or mineral extraction was going on; and so assumed that the mine was no longer in operation. The Committee also notes that, in their latest communication, the CUT and CTC indicate that the mine was turned over to the workers as part of their claims, that it was put up for private auction on 22 June 2012 with a licence to exploit 5,500 hectares and to produce 2,000 tonnes of asbestos a month and that the concentration of airborne asbestos dust in the Campamento mine in Antioquia had not been measured at that time, which made the opening of the quarry a matter of concern. SUTIMAC, for its part, states that the mine is in the process of being reopened and that, according to the information at its disposal, the best techniques are being used to ensure compliance with Decision No. 007. SUTIMAC claims that there has been no case of disease connected with the exploitation of the mine. The Committee observes that, in light of the reopening of the mine, the Government has not provided any information on the steps to be taken, but confines itself to indicating that the labour inspectorate established that the mine was not in operation. It also notes that the points of view of SUTIMAC, on the one hand, and of the CUT and CTC, on the other, differ, but that according to SUTIMAC there has been no incidence of disease connected with the mine. Noting that asbestos-related diseases take a long time to manifest themselves, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the adequate preventive measures and work practices that are being adopted for the reopening of the asbestos mine, including the measurement of the concentration of airborne asbestos dust.

Article 10 (Replacement of asbestos by other materials or prohibition of the use of asbestos), in conjunction with Article 3(2) (Periodic review of national laws and regulations in the light of technical progress and advances in scientific knowledge) and Article 4 (Consultation of the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned). The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that the technical schedule to Decision No. 007 prohibits the use of amosite, thereby giving effect to Article 10 of the Convention, and that the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos has investigated possible substitutes, the safety of which for health has not been proved. It also notes SUTIMAC’s indication that it does not agree with the need to prohibit all types of asbestos, while the CUT and CTC repeat that it is necessary to continue examining the issue of prohibition/replacement. The Committee once again notes that the positions of the CUT and CTC, on the one hand, and SUTIMAC, on the other, differ. The Committee refers to the comments it has been making for some years regarding the observation by the CUT and the CTC that they have not been involved in consultations on the subject, including on the possibility of replacement/prohibition. It also notes that, in addition to their disagreement with the measures adopted, they indicate that they are not represented. The Committee considers that consultations which include all of the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned would contribute to a more effective application of the Convention. The Committee again requests the Government, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Convention and in the context of consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned, including the CUT and the CTC, as required by Article 4, to examine at regular intervals the possibility of the replacement/prohibition of asbestos, as set out in Article 10 of the Convention, and to provide information on such periodic review, including the consultations held and their outcome.

Article 15(2) (Fixing, periodic review and updating of exposure limits or other exposure criteria in light of technical progress and advances in technological and scientific knowledge) and Article 20(1) (Measurement of the concentration of airborne asbestos dust in workplaces). In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government’s reiterated statement that the threshold limit value for asbestos is fixed by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) of the United States and that Decision 2400 of 1979 (section 154) sets a threshold limit of 0.1 fibre per cubic centimetre of air. The Government states that the National Commission on Chrysotile Asbestos was informed of this threshold limit value, as were labour inspectors during a recent training course. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the steps that have been taken to ensure that enterprises and workers are aware of the threshold limit value and that it is respected. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that employers carry out measurements to guarantee compliance with exposure limits or other exposure criteria, as well as on the application of paragraph 4 of this Article of the Convention (adequate respiratory protective equipment and special protective clothing).

Article 17. Demolition work. Authorization for demolition work and elimination to be undertaken only by employers or contractors who are recognized by the competent authority as qualified to carry out such work. Requirement to establish a workplan and consultation of the workers or their representatives. In its previous comments the Committee again invited the Government to establish a system of authorization under which only employers or contractors recognized by the competent authority as qualified to do so may carry out the work referred to in this Article of the Convention, and to provide information on this subject. It also invited the Government to ensure that regulations are drawn up to comply with the requirement to establish a workplan as set out in paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, and to provide information in this respect. The Committee notes that the Government has not supplied the information requested and once again requests it to do so.

Technical assistance. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government’s report, it is very important for it to be able to count on ILO technical assistance so as to continue making progress towards the full implementation of the Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office.

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