National Legislation on Labour and Social Rights
Global database on occupational safety and health legislation
Employment protection legislation database
Display in: French - Spanish
The Committee notes the information, as well as the statistics, supplied by the Government in its report and wishes to draw its attention on the following points.
1. Restrictive nature of the enumeration of the pathological symptoms resulting from exposure to the corresponding substances. In conformity with the provisions of national legislation, for each risk-producing substance, the left-hand column of the list of occupational diseases in Decree No. 658/96 gives a restrictive enumeration of the pathological symptoms resulting from exposure to the corresponding substances. It also provides for an annual review whereby new infections recognized as having their origin in exposure to a risk-producing substance in the course of an occupational activity may be added to the list with the prior agreement of the Standing Advisory Committee (section 40 of Act No. 24.557). In these circumstances, the restriction is, according to the Government, purely technical, since if the causal link between the risk-producing substance, the disease and exposure during work is proven, it is possible to request the above Committee to approve the incorporation of the disease in the list, thus recognizing that it is occupational in origin. The Committee nevertheless recalls that, by listing, for each disease in the schedule, the trades, industries and processes liable to cause the disease, the Convention aims to relieve workers in the trades and industries listed from the burden of proving that they have actually been exposed to the risk of the disease in question, which in some cases can be particularly difficult. Furthermore, the Convention is deliberately worded in general terms so as to cover all occupational diseases and all poisoning resulting from exposure to the substances listed in the schedule to the Convention when they affect workers engaged in the trades, industries and processes listed in the schedule. In view of the objectives pursued by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to reconsider this matter and that in its next report it will be in a position to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to change the current legislation so that the pathological symptoms corresponding to the diseases in the schedule to the Convention are non-restrictive. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the working of the procedure for recognition of new occupational diseases by the Standing Advisory Committee, particularly as regards the determination of the causal link between the disease, the risk-producing substance and occupational exposure.
2. In addition, the Committee wishes to make the following remarks with regard to certain items in the schedule:
(a) In its previous comments the Committee had stressed the need to add to the item on anthrax a reference to the loading and unloading or transport of merchandise. The Government had stated, in this respect, that this reference covers the possibility of a worker coming into contact with organic remains contaminated by the anthrax bacillus and that this situation is provided for in the legislation by the final paragraph of the item on anthrax which mentions “workers who showed no symptom of the disease and, by exposure to the agent, develop certain of the clinical symptoms described”. The Committee nevertheless expresses the hope that in the annual review of the list of occupational diseases it will be possible to add the loading, unloading or transport of merchandise in general to the activities likely to cause anthrax, in order to remove any ambiguity from the legislation. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the provisions of the Convention on this point aim to establish a presumption of the occupational origin of the disease in favour of workers called upon to handle products which are so diverse in origin that it would be difficult if not impossible for them to prove that the merchandise transported was in contact with infected animals or remains of animals.
(b) The Committee also requests the Government to complete the enumeration of the diseases under the item on silica by an express reference to silicosis with or without pulmonary tuberculosis, if necessary with a reservation that the silicosis must be a determining factor in the incapacity or death, as the Convention allows.
(c) Ultimately, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether requests for recognition of the occupational nature of diseases have been made, under the abovementioned complementary recognition mechanism, by persons suffering from epitheliomatous cancer of the skin but who have not fulfilled the condition of at least ten years of exposure established by national legislation. If so, please provide information on any decisions taken in this respect by the competent authorities.
1. In its previous comments the Committee noted that for each risk-producing substance the left-hand column of the list of occupational diseases in Decree No. 658/96 gives a restrictive enumeration of the pathological symptoms resulting from the exposure to the substances. In reply, the Government indicates in its report that the restrictive nature of the list of pathological symptoms is of no import other than for the automatic incorporation of new pathologies, but that the law provides for an annual review whereby new infections recognized as having their origin in exposure to a risk-producing substance in the course of an occupational activity may be added to the list with the prior agreement of the Standing Advisory Committee (section 40 of Act No. 24.557). In these circumstances, the restriction is purely technical, since if the causal link between the risk-producing substance, the disease and exposure during work is proven, it is possible to request the Standing Advisory Committee to approve the incorporation of the disease in the list, thus recognizing that it is occupational in origin. While noting this information with interest, the Committee recalls that, by listing for each disease in the schedule the trades, industries and processes liable to cause the disease, the Convention aims to relieve workers in the trades and industries listed from the burden of proving that they have actually been exposed to the risk of the disease in question, which in some cases can be particularly difficult. Furthermore, the Convention is deliberately worded in general terms so as to cover all occupational diseases and all poisoning resulting from exposure to the substances listed in the schedule to the Convention when they affect workers engaged in the trades, industries and processes listed in the schedule. In view of the objectives pursued by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to reconsider this matter and that in its next report it will be in a position to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to change the current legislation so that the pathological symptoms corresponding to the diseases in the schedule to the Convention are non-restrictive. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the working of the procedure for recognition of new occupational diseases by the Standing Advisory Committee, particularly as regards determining the causal link between the disease, the risk-producing substance and occupational exposure.
2. With regard to certain items in the schedule, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points:
(a) In its previous comments the Committee stressed the need to add to the item on anthrax a reference to the loading and unloading or transport of merchandise. The Government states that this reference covers the possibility of a worker coming into contact with organic remains contaminated by the anthrax bacillus and that this situation is provided for in the legislation by the final paragraph of the item on anthrax which mentions "workers who showed no symptom of the disease and, by exposure to the agent, develop certain of the clinical symptoms described". The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that in the annual review of the list of occupational diseases it will be possible to add the loading, unloading or transport of merchandise in general to the activities likely to cause anthrax, in order to remove any ambiguity from the legislation. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the provisions of the Convention on this point aim to establish a presumption of the occupational origin of the disease in favour of workers called upon to handle products which are so diverse in origin that it would be difficult if not impossible for them to prove that the merchandise transported was in contact with infected animals or remains of animals.
(b) In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the item on silica, which omits silicosis with pulmonary tuberculosis, the Government indicates that tuberculosis is a complication of silicosis and the absence of this disease under the item in question does not mean that pneumoconiosis caused by silica, whether or not accompanied by tuberculosis, cannot be recognized as an occupational disease. The Committee notes this information. It considers that, to avoid all ambiguity and ensure that workers are protected in accordance with the Convention, it would be appropriate at the next annual review of the list of occupational diseases to complete the enumeration of the diseases under the item on silica by an express reference to silicosis with or without pulmonary tuberculosis, if necessary with a reservation that the silicosis must be a determining factor in the incapacity or death, as the Convention allows.
(c) In its previous comments the Committee stressed that the requirement of exposure of at least ten years in regard to primary epitheliomatous cancer of the skin was particularly long in that skin cancers can appear after five years of exposure. The Government indicates in this connection in its report that in reconsidering this matter it would be particularly useful to know the medical basis for the Committee’s comments. The Committee recalls that, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), skin cancers usually take five to 50 years to develop, and may occur even after the cessation of the exposure. It refers in this connection to the publication Early detection of occupational diseases, WHO, Geneva, 1986, pages 194-197.
1. With reference to the comments it makes in its observation, the Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. 658/96 which contains a list of occupational diseases identifying the various risk-producing substances and listing for each of them the activities likely to involve exposure to them. It notes that for each risk-producing substance the left column of the list contains an enumeration, which is exhaustive, of the pathological symptoms resulting from exposure to these substances. In fact, under section 6(2) of the Act, diseases which are not included in the list of occupational diseases cannot give rise to compensation. The Committee recalls that, on this point, the Convention is worded in general terms and covers all occupational diseases as well as poisoning produced by the substances included in the table annexed to the Convention, when they occur in respect of workers employed in the trades, industries and processes mentioned. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to delete, in regard to the diseases set out in the table annexed to the Convention, any reference to the exhaustive nature of the enumeration of pathological symptoms such as results from the national list of occupational diseases.
2. Furthermore, on the question of certain special headings in the list, the Committee hopes that during the annual review of the list, pursuant to section 6(2) of the Act, the Government will take into account the following comments in order to ensure full application of the Convention.
(a) In the table relating to anthrax, the Committee notes that the list of activities which may give rise to exposure to the risk does not refer, as does the Convention, to "loading and unloading or transport of merchandise".
(b) The table relating to silicocis does not mention silicocis with pulmonary tuberculosis.
(c) Finally, in regard to primary epitheliomatous cancer of the skin, the Committee notes that exposure of at least ten years is required. Bearing in mind medical knowledge on the subject, such length of exposure seems particularly long in that skin cancers may appear after five years of exposure. The Committee requests the Government to re-examine the matter.
The Committee hopes that the Government's next report will contain information on the measures taken or envisaged in order to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention on the points mentioned.
With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 24.557 of 1995 on occupational risks, repealing Act No. 24.028 of 1991 and its implementing regulation. It notes with satisfaction that under section 6 of the 1995 Act, the diseases included in the list of occupational diseases which is formulated and revised annually by the executive authority are considered to be occupational diseases. In this respect, the Committee notes the adoption of Decree No. 658/96 which contains a list of occupational diseases identifying the various risk-producing substances and setting forth for each of them the activities likely to involve exposure to them. The Committee wishes also to draw the Government's attention to certain points which it raises in a request addressed directly to the Government.
1. In its observation of 1994, the Committee noted a communication from the Congress of Argentinian Workers (CTA) alleging that the system introduced by Act No. 24028 on the compensation of industrial injuries and its implementing Decree No. 1792/92 reduced the level of protection provided for workers too far. The CTA stated in particular that the responsibility of the employer is presumed only in the case of an accident but that there is not legal presumption of the employer's responsibility when an injury results from a disease the origin or aggravation of which is attributed to work.
2. The Committee notes the comments - sent with the Government's report, received in January 1995 - made by the General Confederation of Labour of the Argentine Republic (CGT), referring to certain difficulties with the application of the Convention. According to the CGT, the legislation in force: (a) does not presume the employer's responsibility in the event of occupational diseases, even where they are considered to be strictly work-incurred ("profesionales"), i.e. caused solely by a risk factor present in the place of work; (b) establishes that in assessing incapacity in the case of occupational diseases with more than one cause a "quota" attributable to work will be determined, which is medically impossible; (c) fails to take into account, in establishing time-limits for the certification of the disease, the fact that certain occupational diseases are latent for a long period before taking effect, which means in practice that compensation cannot be claimed. The CGT indicates that the possibility of a radical reform of the legislation is being studied and adds that the Framework Agreement on Employment, Productivity and Social Equity includes an item on the preparation of a bill on protection against occupational risks.
3. The Committee notes the Government's report which contains a memorandum from the National Occupational Safety and Health Department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. Concerning the points raised previously by the Committee, it states that Argentine legislation and case-law - which derive from the application of Act No. 9668 of 1915, amended several times - was much broader in concept than the list provided for in the Convention. The Government states that Act No. 24028 of December 1991, which is currently in force, establishes that the employer is not presumed responsible for occupational diseases, and that this is a serious technical and conceptual mistake. It explains that occupational diseases and work-incurred diseases ("profesionales") are not the same thing. Occupational diseases include work-incurred diseases and other diseases linked to work, but work is not their sole cause. Work-incurred diseases are caused solely by risk factors present at the place of work, and therefore warrant the presumption of the employer's responsibility. The Committee notes that the Government accordingly acknowledges the pertinence of its comments. With regard to the other two points raised by the CGT, the memorandum from the National Occupational Safety and Health Department indicates that the time-limits established in the legislation in force prevent persons suffering from occupational diseases which do not appear until long after their first exposure to the harmful agent from claiming their compensation, and that the provision establishing that a quota attributable to work shall be determined for diseases with more than one cause is scientifically unsound.
4. The Committee reiterates its observation of 1994 to the effect that by ratifying the Convention the Government undertook, in accordance with Article 2, to consider as occupational diseases those diseases and poisonings produced by the substances set forth in the Schedule appended to the Convention, when such diseases or such poisonings affect workers engaged in the trades, industries or processes placed opposite in the said Schedule. So that the worker does not have to prove that the cause of his disease was occupational - which in some cases can be particularly difficult - the Convention established the system of a double list setting out the diseases in one column and the activities which may cause them in a column opposite. Since both the Government and the CGT refer to tripartite consultations and a study under way with a view to the adoption of new standards in this area, the Committee is bound to hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to bring national law and practice into harmony with the Convention in the very near future.
The Committee suggests that the Government may wish to seek technical assistance from the Office.
[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]
The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the new Act No. 24028 of 5 December 1991, which repeals Act No. 9688 of 1915, as amended, as well as Decree No. 1792 of 1992, which issues regulations under Act No. 24028.
Furthermore, the Committee notes the communication concerning the application of this Convention from the Congress of Argentinian Workers (CTA), dated 7 June 1993, a copy of which was forwarded to the Government for its observations on 29 June 1993. The CTA alleges in particular that Act No. 24028 respecting the compensation of industrial injuries substantially decreases the level of protection provided for workers. CTA states that the responsibility of the employer is presumed only in the case of an industrial accident, but that there is no legal assumption of the responsibility of the employer when an injury results from a disease the origin or aggravation of which is attributable to work; in such cases, the victim has to prove the harmful agent, the disabling sequelae, the causal link and the existence of the fault on the part of the employer.
The Committee notes that the Government's report does not contain a reply to the CTA's communication. However, it notes that although, by virtue of section 2(2) of Act No. 24028 of 1991, the employer's responsibility is presumed in the event of an industrial accident, this provision explicitly provides that the responsibility of the employer shall not be presumed with regard to diseases the origin or aggravation of which are attributable to work. The Committee wishes to recall in this respect that by ratifying the Convention the Government undertook, in accordance with Article 2, to consider as occupational diseases those diseases and poisonings produced by the substances set forth in the Schedule appended to the Convention, when such diseases or such poisonings affect workers engaged in the trades, industries or processes placed opposite in the said Schedule. It is precisely in order to avoid the worker having to prove the occupational origin of the disease, which can be particularly difficult in certain circumstances, that the Convention established this system of a double list setting out the diseases and the activities which may cause them. The Committee also recalls that Decree No. 4389/73 of 1973, issued under Act No. 9688 of 11 June 1915, which has now been repealed, had been adopted to respond to this requirement of the Convention.
In these conditions, the Committee hopes that the Government's next report will contain detailed information in reply to the communication from the Congress of Argentinian Workers, and that it will indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged to give full effect to the Convention.
[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]