Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention, 1979 (No. 152) - Netherlands (Ratification: 1998)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in response to its direct request including information on amendments adopted in 2007–08 to the Working Conditions Act (WCA), 1998 (available as amended until 18 March 2008) the Working Conditions Decree (WCD), 1997 (available as amended until 18 March 2008) and the Working Conditions Rules (WCR), 1997. The Committee notes with satisfaction that these amendments include provisions which give effect to Articles 22(4), 36(1), and 39 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes that the Netherlands Trade Union Confederation (FNV) submitted observations on 2 November 2007 concerning the application in practice of the Convention, that these observations were transmitted to the Government on 17 December 2007, but that the Government has not provided a response thereto. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

Article 32, paragraphs 3 and 4. Safe handling of dangerous substances. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government with reference to section 4 of the WCD as enforced by the labour inspectorate. The Committee also notes the FNV’s comments that workers are frequently exposed to dangerous goods (notably disinfectants and pesticides) during the handling and trans-shipment of containers and that the FNV regrets the lack of information from the Government on the application in practice of these provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the practical application of Article 32(3) and (4), taking into account, inter alia, the comments by the FNV.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes more generally that the Government’s response to the Committee’s request for information on the application in practice is limited to affirmations that the labour inspectorate continues to address the situation regarding dock work, and that, during the period 2001–06, 319 companies active in dock work were visited by the inspectorate. No further details were provided, however, regarding the outcome of these visits. The Committee deems it relevant to note the limited information on the application in practice of the Convention in the light of three different circumstances. (1) The fact that the Government in its response to the Committee’s requests for further information on the application of numerous Articles of the Convention, including Articles 2, 11(1), 15, 16(1), 17(1)(b), 18(1), 20(4), 21(a), 22(2), 24, 29, 38(2) and 41(a) states that enforcement of national legislation is ensured by the labour inspectorate. (2) The observations by the FNV that information regarding application in practice is readily available. The FNV underlines the persistence of a large number of risks for safety and health in dock work, and that enforcement of the WCA is only partly possible because there are many self-employed workers on ships engaged in inland navigation. As a result, a lot of dangerous and unsafe situations remain invisible and unreported. In terms of available information on the application in practice of the Convention, the FNV refers, inter alia, to the 2005 inspection report concerning Inland Navigation (Projectrapportage Inspectieproject Binnenvaart 2005) in which it is noted that 136 offences were recorded on 73 ships out of 210 inspected, and in the period 1997–2003, 12 fatal accidents, in which eight workers drowned, and 100 serious accidents were reported. Major offences consisted of not wearing life jackets during hazardous operations, unsafe workplaces as well as unsafe work equipment. The FNV also refers to the 2005 report on Ports of Trans-shipment A697 (Projectrapportage Inspectieproject Overslag Havens 2005-A697) noting that there were, on average, 32 serious accidents per year in the Dutch transit harbours (a higher average than in any other sector in the Netherlands); that great problems were caused by the exposure of workers to carcinogenic diesel particles (for example by the use of forklift trucks), and that there was no surveillance over the use of personal protective equipment. The FNV concluded its observations by calling for better monitoring of risks and a stricter implementation of legislation. (3) The third factor to be taken into account is that in its reply on the question of application in practice of the Convention, the Government reports on a change in its national policy on occupational safety and health. This change implies a shift of the Government’s role towards formulating basic rules. These basic rules would be further detailed only when a clear need existed and it would be the responsibility of the social partners to develop in further detail these basic rules within the areas of their respective responsibilities. Against this background the Committee requests the Government to provide further detailed information on how the Convention is applied in practice, including as regards the application of Articles 2, 11(1), 15, 16(1), 17(1)(b), 18(1), 20(4), 21(a), 22(2), 24, 29, 38(2) and 41(a) and taking into account the comments by the FNV. The Committee also requests the Government to provide further details on the reported shift in the national OSH policy, whether this new approach has been applied as regards matters relevant for the application of the present Convention and in that case, provide an appreciation of the impact that this shift has had on the application of the Convention.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]