Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2007, Publicación: 97ª reunión CIT (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 31 May 2006, which contains information in reply to its previous comments, and to the issues raised by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) and the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals in Finland (AKAVA), and also information on the practical functioning of the labour inspection system. It also notes the new observations made by the SAK and AKAVA which are incorporated in the Government’s report.

1. Legislative developments. The Committee notes the adoption and the content of Act No. 44/2006 on the Supervision of Occupational Safety and Health which came into force on 1 February 2006, repealing Act No. 131 of 16 February 1973, and also of Act No. 701 of 11 August 2006 on Occupational Safety and Health (shared work places), supplementing Act No. 738/2002 on Occupational Safety and Health and Act No. 44/2006, which contain provisions on cooperation between different employers in shared workplaces and their responsibilities. The Committee notes with interest that these new laws clarify and reinforce the powers of the labour inspection authorities and the procedures for collaboration between employers and workers to ensure the application of all provisions relating directly or indirectly to ensuring health and safety at work.

2. Article 8 of the Convention. Proportion of women inspectors. The Committee notes with interest that fresh recruitment within the occupational safety and health administration increased the proportion of women inspectors from 29 per cent in 2004 to 42.1 per cent in 2005, to the satisfaction of the SAK, which wished to have an inspectorate which was representative of the various components of the workforce in the different sectors of the economy. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether women inspectors perform specific tasks connected with the presence of women in the workforce in workplaces liable to inspection.

3. Articles 10 and 16. Matching the number of labour inspectors to the scope and complexity of their duties. According to the Government, the SAK and AKAVA are concerned at the stagnation in the numbers of inspectors, given the growing complexity of inspection duties and the increasing number of areas to be inspected. The abovementioned organizations estimate that the coverage of the inspectorate in certain sectors of activity has decreased to 10 per cent. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the amalgamation of occupational health and safety districts has been conducted satisfactorily and that the new units are fully operational. While considering that the new inspection tasks are more complex, since they involve an evaluation of both legal and sociological aspects, the Government nevertheless indicates that the number of inspections increased slightly in 2005 after decreasing for several years and that the controls currently aim more specifically at evaluating occupational risks and the appropriate measures for applying health and safety legislation. The Committee hopes that with its next report the Government will send a copy, if possible in English, of Decree No. 1035 of 2003 on combining occupational health and safety districts and that it will also be able to supply information on the number, content and results of labour inspections in the various categories of workplaces liable to inspection, including in commerce, services and the construction industry.

4. Article 9. Collaboration of duly qualified experts and technicians. The Government refers in its report to the doubts expressed by the SAK and AKAVA regarding psychologists or doctors within the occupational safety and health administration. As regards the collaboration of experts in general within the occupational safety and health administration, the Committee notes the Government’s statement that there is at least one employee in each district possessing sufficient expertise and basic training in chemical substances. While indicating that it is not in a position to give information on the regional distribution of psychologists in service, it states that the occupational safety and health districts are autonomous entities which are entitled to make use of external experts or recruit them, as needed. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply further information on the scope of the powers of the occupational safety and health authority regarding the recruitment of duly qualified experts and technicians, on the status and powers of the persons recruited, on procedures for making use of external experts, and on the resources at the authority’s disposal to ensure that the experts uphold the principle of professional secrecy and confidentiality, imposed on labour inspectors by Article 15(b) and (c), with respect to sources of complaints.

5. Articles 14 and 21(f) and (g). Reporting of cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the SAK and AKAVA, the difficulties connected with establishing statistics on cases of occupational disease have been resolved since 2004. However, the abovementioned organizations consider that the identification of symptoms remains problematic, that there are substantial regional differences in this respect and that investigations arising from the cases of disease are rare and unreliable. The detailed information supplied by the Government on the mechanism for reporting and recording cases of occupational disease demonstrate a significant development in the relevant procedures but provide no answer to the concern expressed by the trade unions regarding diagnosing difficulties and regional differences in this area. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to resolve these difficulties, as provided for particularly by Article 4(b) of the Protocol of 2002 to the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), via collaboration with insurance institutions, medical practitioners and other bodies directly concerned.

6. Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the occupational safety and health services. In its previous report, the Government indicated that the occupational safety and health services draw up annual activity reports. However, no annual report of a general nature on inspection activities has been received at the ILO since the report covering 2000. The SAK stated in 2004 that it had no knowledge of the report required by Articles 20 and 21 even being published. The same comment has been repeated by the SAK and AKAVA. While noting with interest the follow-up report on occupational safety and health strategy published by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2004, which provides useful information on the functioning of the labour inspection system over a number of years, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would ensure that an annual report on the matters covered by Article 21 is once again published and sent to the Office according to the procedure and deadlines laid down by Article 20.