Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 18) sur les maladies professionnelles, 1925 - Portugal (Ratification: 1929)

Autre commentaire sur C018

Demande directe

2023
2019
2012
2006
1999

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes that, in their comments on the application of the Convention, the General Workers’ Union (UGT) and the General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP) indicate that there are serious dysfunctions in the scheme for the coverage of occupational diseases, particularly in view of the absence of notifications of a large number of occupational diseases. Since its integration into the Social Security Institute (ISS), the National Centre for Protection against Occupational Risks (CNPRP) has lost its autonomy, which has resulted in a further deterioration of the situation. Following this reform, employers’ and workers’ organizations have ceased to be represented on the managerial bodies of the CNPRP, and now only have a purely advisory role and are faced with a systematic refusal of access to the necessary information to fulfil their role. The UGT and the CGTP add that there is a high level of non-compliance with the legal requirement for medical practitioners to participate in the procedures related to the clinical recognition of occupational diseases. It would also be important for doctors to be made more aware of the problem, particularly in relation to the establishment of a causal link between a pathology and an occupational activity.

In its reply to the above comments, the Government indicates that under-notification is intrinsic to systems for the compensation of occupational diseases and that the allegations that medical practitioners are not complying with their legal requirement to participate in the procedures for the recognition of occupational diseases are not well-founded and are not based on any study of the question. Medical practitioners discharge their functions in full freedom and independence, and it would not be admissible for them to be subject to pressure with regard to their compulsory participation. The CNPRP was integrated into the ISS in 2007, and the problems resulting from this integration have been resolved. The Government rebuts the claims that the social partners do not have access to information and refers to the fact that the records of the advisory body are all signed by the representative of the CGTP. The two major problems currently facing the CNPRP are the lack of personnel and a high rate of retirement, which are responsible in certain cases for a lengthening in response times. The CNPRP has also implemented an awareness-raising strategy which includes its participation in scientific and technical activities and the organization of a seminar to which the social partners were invited.

Noting the above information, the Committee wishes to recall that the proper operation of a social security scheme presupposes the existence of a spirit of dialogue and tripartite collaboration. With regard to the under-notification of occupational diseases, the Committee considers that in cases in which under-notification becomes intrinsic in an occupational disease scheme, that tends to reveal that it is badly managed and administered. The Committee therefore draws the Government’s attention to its general responsibility to guarantee the proper administration and transparency of the social security system in general, and of the compensation scheme for employment injury, in particular, including by ensuring that the competent authorities have at their disposal all the necessary means to discharge their mission. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide with its next report relevant extracts from the annual reports of the labour inspection services and of national bodies competent in the field of social security and employment injury, as well as any study illustrating the extent of the alleged phenomena of the under-notification of occupational diseases. Please also provide copies of laws and regulations governing the manner in which medical practitioners intervene in the clinical recognition of occupational diseases.