Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161) - Brazil (Ratification: 1990)

The Committee notes the comments made by the Union of the Workers from the Chemical, Petrochemical and Related Industries of Triufo/RS (SINDIPOLO) relating to the petrochemical enterprise Petroflex industry and Commerce S.C., and the replies made by the Government, in the context of the application by Brazil, of Convention Nos. 148, 155, 161, 170 and 174. The Committee has decided to deal with these comments under Convention No. 161.

The Union refers to the case of a worker who had suffered a heart attack while working for an enterprise, KS Kondorfer and Silva, which was a subcontractor of Petroflex, manipulating barrels weighing 200 kg full of chemical products in an area of work that was classified as a warehouse for chemical products. No assistance was available from Petroflex and the first assistance was provided far away from the workplace, where he was helped by other workers and taken by an outside ambulance service, and without being accompanied by a medical doctor of Petroflex. Neither the national standards of the Labour Code (CLT) and the regulations (NRs), nor those of the ILO were met in the subcontracted out activity of Petroflex where the situation was inadmissible in the context of high-risk activity. The main failures were the lack of pre-employment medical examinations, non-issuance of the declaration of occupational accident (CAT), and lack of adequate safety practices and drills and technical studies regarding the workplace. The Union pointed out that while workplace irregularities and accidents, including a fire in July 1995, were increasing, Petroflex was dismantling its technical staff, including in the area of occupational safety and health. It deplored the conditions of work of those working in subcontracting enterprises and it had even brought various cases before the negotiating table with Petroflex. Petroflex had refused outside interference in its management model. The Union blamed the deterioration of the conditions of work and more particularly of occupational safety and health in this major enterprise on factors such as its privatization, and the introduction of new management models (resignations, subcontracting and industrial automation).

For its reply, the Government indicated that it had relied upon data from the Federal Labour Inspection Service (SFIT), the communications of occupational accidents (CATs) made by the enterprise, and labour inspection reports for occupational safety and health. According to the communication from the Federal Labour Inspection Service, the enterprise had been inspected on 12 occasions during the period 1997-2002, and six of these concerned occupational safety and health. In 1998, three visits of inspection revealed irregularities of failure to inspect, initially, periodically and on extraordinary occasions, a pressure container, failure to secure the guards of a rolling bridge, failure to prevent hazards, failure to determine and signal to workers hazards, prohibitions, safety duties and procedures to be followed in cases of accidents, and failures relating to fixed guards on machines and equipment. In 2000 two visits of inspection were made which revealed workers entering workplaces and working without the foreseen safety precautions being respected, and the failure to adopt preventive occupational safety and health measures by the subcontracting enterprises. In 2002 one inspection visit was conducted which revealed the failure to carry out medical examinations of those returning back to work, failure to elaborate the required report on the safety measures taken during the year, failure to anticipate, recognize, evaluate and consequently control occupational risks that occur or could exist in the working environment, taking into account the need to protect the environment and natural resources, and failure to provide adequate guards for machines and equipment with repetitive action which present risks to the operator, failure to provide appropriate safety devices for starting them.

In respect of the death on 21 November 2000 of the employee of the enterprise KS Kondorfer and Silva, a subcontractor of Petroflex, the Government submitted the accident investigation report which confirmed death as a result of a heart attack while the victim was at work manoeuvring and moving barrels weighing 200 kg. According to this report, the worker suffered the heart attack at 1.30 p.m. approximately and arrived at a medical centre by ambulance at 2.10 p.m. where he received help until 3.15 p.m. when death was pronounced. The report also indicated that the enterprise KS Kondorfer and Silva did not present proof of a pre-employment medical examination of the worker, and that it had not made an ergonomic analysis of work that resulted in the accident to adapt the work to the worker and to meet requirements of maximum weight that may be lifted, transported and discharged by an individual.

The Government’s report indicated that an analysis of the occupational accident reports (CATs) for the period between February 2000 and April 2002 confirmed that 38 indicated Petroflex as the employer or place of accident. More than two-thirds of these CATs (26) had subcontractors as employers. Ten out of 38 CATs involved absence from work, and none of them involved absence from work of more than 60 days. The Government’s report indicated that these CATs did not constitute the total of CATs.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government could continue to provide information regarding occupational accidents occurring in the enterprises concerned, including the subcontracting enterprises, and information on the measures taken to ensure that there is better compliance with occupational safety and health standards which will hopefully reduce the occupational accident rate in the sector of activity.

In addition, the Committee is addressing a request recalling certain other points directly to the Government.