Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Sweden (Ratification: 1949)

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative of Sweden welcomed the opportunity to discuss the progress made by his country in the implementation of the Convention which was one of the ILO's priority Conventions. His Government considered that the Convention and an efficient labour inspection system were crucial to the success of the Decent Work Agenda. The progress noted by the Committee of Experts related to certain specific developments in the organization and operation of the labour inspection system. The Committee of Experts had also noted with satisfaction that the in-house training provided by the Swedish Work Environment Authority had been expanded to new groups associated with labour inspection.

He indicated that his Government had established a number of objectives as guidance for the labour inspection system. First, it was vital that the operation of the system should be uniform. Second, targeted inspections should focus on the workplaces presenting the greatest risk of ill health or accidents. Accordingly, the Work Environment Authority had been striving to increase the standardization of inspection activities. Improvements had been achieved and the Authority had revised its internal rules with a view to promoting uniformity of inspection. The overall priority given to preventive safety and health action was based on joint inspection in six sectors with major work environment problems. Over one-fifth of all inspections were follow-up inspections performed at worksites. He noted that inspection activities were supplemented by other tools, including comprehensible rules and inspection notices, easily accessible information and cooperation and the exchange of experience between the various branches, trade unions and other authorities, which all contributed to the achievement of an acceptable occupational safety and health environment.

In its last annual report, the Work Environment Authority had emphasized that occupational safety and health action had improved considerably in workplaces where inspections had been carried out. The Authority expressed particular satisfaction at the comprehensive inspections targeted at the growing problems of threats and violence in society. Examples of the progress made included the decision to abolish the use of cash in the public transport system in the Stockholm area, which had eliminated robberies on the personnel concerned. Hazard risk analyses had been carried out in schools and programmes adopted to combat threats and violence. The number of employees working alone when caring for violent persons had been reduced. Measures had been adopted in the retail trade to improve security and limit the risk of strain injuries.

He emphasized that the improvement of the inspection system was a continuing long-term process. Recent measures adopted included a methodology for more effective supervision of companies located in the various parts of the country. A computerized system had been developed to facilitate the reporting of occupational accidents and other incidents by employers. In addition, the introduction of a procedure for the mapping of workplaces where occupational hazards might be suspected contributed to the efficient use of resources and the concentration of inspection activities on sectors where they were most needed. The in-house training provided by the Work Environment Authority, which had previously been confined to inspection personnel, now included basic training for all employees involved in the handling of supervision procedures. These employees were also provided with supplementary training in accordance with the competence required for their duties. His Government agreed with the Committee of Experts that such measures would contribute to achieving a significant improvement in the operation of the labour inspectorate and hoped that the measures adopted in his country would inspire others to find ways of improving the application of the Convention.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the information provided. This was the first time that the case of the application of this Convention by Sweden had come before the Committee and it should be regarded as a case of progress, demonstrating an improvement in national policy for the achievement of fuller compliance with the Convention.

They recalled that Convention No. 81 was a priority Convention which had been ratified by 137 countries. They recognized that labour inspection was an essential function of labour administration. Although the Convention was not prescriptive, it provided guidance for public authorities to follow to institutionalize labour inspection with a view to ensuring the protection of workers in a coordinated and effective manner. Furthermore, the Convention promoted laws and regulations adapted to the changing needs of the labour market. It set out principles regarding the functions and organization of the inspection system, as well as criteria relating to the recruitment, status and terms and conditions of employment of labour inspectors and their powers and obligations.

The Employer members recalled that the duties of labour inspectors were complex and diverse. Inspectors had to be invested with significant authority to fulfil the requirements of their role. Article 7 of the Convention provided for the recruitment of inspectors having regard to their qualifications for the performance of their duties. Article 14 established the requirement to notify the labour inspectorate of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease as prescribed by national laws or regulations.

The Employer members noted with interest the observation of the Committee of Experts relating to the developments that had occurred in the organization and operation of the labour inspection system in Sweden, including the development of a computerized application for the notification of employment accidents and other incidents. In addition, the determination of a method for the mapping of workplaces where work environment hazards might be suspected, which would allow the Work Environment Agency to evaluate workplace registers in this respect, went beyond the actual requirements of the Convention and was recognized by the Employer members as a positive step. However, the Employer members requested clarification on what the mapping method entailed and confirmation that no legislation was to be introduced in relation to mapping which would impose additional burdens on employers.

The improvement in the training of the staff of labour inspection services was also to be welcomed. The inhouse training provided by the Work Environment Agency, which had previously been limited to inspection personnel, had been extended and now included basic training for all associates concerned with the handling of supervision procedures. After basic training, associates underwent supplementary training according to the competence required for their respective duties.

The Employer members therefore commended the Government on the achievement of a significant improvement in the operation of the labour inspectorate and encouraged the Government to continue reporting on the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention in law and practice.

The Worker members emphasized that Sweden was not a country that often appeared on the Conference Committee's list of individual cases. It was appearing on it this year by virtue of the indication by the Committee of Experts that progress had been made in implementing the Convention, particularly in relation to the creation of a computerized database, the development of a method for mapping establishments at high risk and the provision of training for labour inspection staff, which was not limited to labour inspectors in the strict sense, but included their colleagues involved in handling supervision procedures.

The Worker members said that they completely shared the view of the Committee of Experts concerning the importance of investing in labour inspection, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Labour inspection was a key element in applying international social standards. It required, in particular, a sufficient number of labour inspectors; investment in the quality of collaborators, through both recruitment conditions and continuous training; intense collaboration with the social partners; and the collaboration of qualified experts and technical staff.

Labour inspection was becoming increasingly important in view of the growing complexity of the functions of inspection services in a globalized economy and labour market, in which enterprises and intermediaries were developing practices to circumvent social rules. This was particularly true when a country, such as Sweden, was faced with new waves of immigration and new practices of the international posting of workers, which involved the risk of social dumping. For these reasons, it appeared to be essential that labour inspection services should be capable of developing innovative practices, by reinforcing collaboration between services, making use of the opportunities provided by new information and communication technologies, and developing new methods for the mapping of workplaces that were at high risk.

From this perspective, the observation of the Committee of Experts indicated interesting progress in Sweden. It was however regrettable that some details were missing, both on the improvements made and the effectiveness of the progress achieved. Questions arose as to whether the new database had really improved the notification of employment accidents and whether the new method of mapping establishments at high risk had given rise to more targeted action. In addition, the information on the extension of training lacked the necessary detail for a full evaluation of what was described as being a good practice. It was necessary to ensure that the progress observed was not cancelled out by retrograde steps in other areas.

The Worker members welcomed the fact that the report of the Committee of Experts contained observations on a country which did not hesitate to invest in its labour inspection services, with particular attention to the application of international social law. However, the fact that the data provided were not quite consistent and had been partially contradicted meant that the case could not be viewed as one of true progress that could be taken as an example by governments and the social partners in other member States.

The Worker member of Sweden expressed her satisfaction at Sweden being included on the list as a case of progress. Issues concerning occupational safety and health were certainly of vital importance and a major concern for Swedish trade unions, and any progress in this area was welcome.

However, she indicated certain developments in the area of occupational safety and health that she found very worrying. In order to save money, the Government had decided on large savings in the resources allocated to the Work Environment Authority. These savings would result in a situation in which the number of labour inspectors would not be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the provisions of the Convention. The ILO had for a long time advocated that there needed to be at least one inspector for every 10,000 workers. After the savings had been made, Sweden would probably have only one inspector for every 13,000 employees, or 0.8 inspectors for every 10,000 employees. In other Nordic countries, the number of inspectors for every 10,000 employees was 1.7 in Denmark and 1.8 in Norway. Sweden would be far below the average number of labour inspectors in Europe, with the reduction of approximately 25 per cent in the number of labour inspectors and the expectation that an enterprise could be visited by labour inspectors a maximum of once every 20 years.

In addition, in 2007 the Government had shut down the National Institute for Working Life, the areas of research of which included the work environment. The Government's rationale was that such research should instead be conducted by universities. Unfortunately, the result of the shutdown had been that research in the area of occupational safety and health was no longer coherent and systematic. The closure of the Institute also resulted in the ending of public funding for the education and training of local trade union health and safety representatives.

At the same time, there had been a very worrying development with an increase in recent years in the number of serious accidents at workplaces, such as those leading to employees being seriously hurt or even causing death. In 2007, a total of 77 workers had died, compared to 68 in 2006. Six of these cases were related to temporary migrant workers working in Sweden. The reasons for this regrettable development had yet to be clarified. The increasing number of accidents at workplaces should be a signal to the Government of the need to take further steps and to strengthen the Work Environment Authority, instead of making savings in this area. She urged the Government to reconsider its policy and to take proper action against this negative development.

The Employer member of Sweden noted that this case of progress concerned three issues: the development of the computerized application for the employers to communicate with the authorities over the Internet; the mapping of workplaces; and in-house training of labour inspection staff and all associates concerned with labour supervision procedures.

With regard to the first issue, Swedish law required employers to report accidents in the workplace to the authority. The Internet application was a positive development, saving employers' time and effort and making reporting easier. His organization welcomed such im- provements.

Regarding the second issue, employers were required by law to conduct risk assessments of the workplace on a regular basis. Labour inspectors also inspected workplaces regularly. These inspections had to, or at least should, be done according to the standards set out by the authority. If the authority could identify risks in workplaces through mapping, this could be a positive step, provided that no further burdens were imposed upon employers, and depending on how the mapping was conducted and what conclusions were drawn from the results.

In connection with the third issue, the in-house basic training provided by the authority to all parties concerned was a step in the right direction. Supplementary training might also be needed. It was very important for the staff of the labour inspection authority to have the knowledge to achieve uniform application of the national work environment legislation throughout the country, in all branches of the economy and in all enterprises.

These measures taken by the Government were an example of how a member State might handle labour inspection matters at the national level, although they went beyond the requirements of the Convention. In response to the statement made by the Worker member of Sweden, he stated that the situation in Sweden could not be evaluated simply in terms of the number of inspectors, but that the quality of inspectors also needed to be taken into consideration. In this regard, training of the inspection staff was important.

The Government representative of Sweden thanked all those who had participated in the discussion. In response to the request for clarification by the Employer members, he indicated that no legislation was envisaged respecting hazard mapping. With regard to the points raised by the Worker member of Sweden, he recalled that the discussion had mainly been based on the positive evaluation of the case by the Committee of Experts. However, a number of points had been raised concerning issues which had arisen after the reporting period. Although the proper time for their discussion would be when such developments had been examined by the Committee of Experts, he could make a number of preliminary remarks. As recalled by the Employer members, effectiveness could not only be measured in terms of numbers. Moreover, the ILO's recommendations concerning the numbers of labour inspectors available were targets and were not legally binding. The circumstances in which the labour inspection system operated should also be taken into account. It was widely recognized that the Swedish inspection system involved the social partners, with their long-standing responsibilities in this area, as well as safety delegates. With regard to the closure of the National Institute for Working Life, he said that it was a matter of opinion as to whether research in the field of occupational safety and health should be handled by a public authority or by universities. His Government's view was that this type of research should be carried out by universities under competitive conditions. With reference to the rise in the number of occupational accidents, he indicated that the Swedish Work Environment Authority had carried out an in- quiry which would evaluate the underlying reasons for this trend. A provisional report would be finished by the middle of June 2008.

The Employer members thanked the Government representative for the clarifications provided, and particularly the indication that there were no plans to introduce legislation respecting hazard mapping. With regard to the statistics mentioned by the Worker member of Sweden, the Employer members recalled that quantity was no substitute for quality and in this respect endorsed the comments made on this subject by the Employer member of Sweden and the Government representative. Moreover, the numbers advocated by the ILO with regard to labour inspectors were merely recommendations and were not mandatory. The Employer members added that it had not yet been established whether the slight rise in the number of employment accidents recorded was in any way linked to the reduction in the number of labour inspectors. They therefore considered that the present case could still be considered a case of progress.

The Worker members said that they did not doubt that Sweden was a country with a modern social model and was a source of inspiration for the entire world. However, as far as the application of the Convention was concerned, the information contained in the observation made by the Committee of Experts was not positive enough to regard this case as a case of progress, especially as Swedish workers had provided contradictory information, particularly in relation to the reduction in the capacity of the labour inspectorate and the dismantling of the National Institute for Working Life just when workers were faced with a substantial increase in the number of workplace accidents. The Government should continue to modernize and better equip its labour inspection services. Furthermore, the Government should provide additional information on developments in the capacity of its services and their collaboration with competent experts, bearing in mind the trend in the number of workplace accidents. Finally, the Committee of Experts should continue to monitor progress in the implementation of the Convention in the country.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the statement made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. It noted that the Committee of Experts had considered the measures taken by the Government through the Work Environment Authority to improve the functioning of labour inspection to be a case of progress. These measures included the creation of a web site for the online notification of employment accidents and other incidents; the determination of a method for the mapping of workplaces likely to present occupational safety hazards, thereby facilitating the evaluation of all workplaces registered in this respect; and appropriate training activities for all staff involved in the handling of supervision procedures, particularly with a view to ensuring compliance with professional rules and ethical principles.

The Committee welcomed the measures adopted by the Government. Nevertheless, it requested it to provide the Committee of Experts in the next report due with detailed information enabling it to assess their impact, particularly with regard to: improving the notification of employment accidents; improving occupational safety and health conditions in establishments that were at risk; and with regard to the quality of the collaboration of those who had benefited from the training in labour inspection provided by the Work Environment Authority.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

Articles 3(1) and (2), and 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1) and (3), and 12 of Convention No. 129. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors related to immigration. Cooperation of inspection services with other services or institutions engaged in similar activities. Following its previous comment regarding the operation of the Department of Joint Authority Control of the Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA), the Committee takes note of the Government’s indication in its report that the Department is responsible for the SWEA´s work against workplace crime and that it is composed of 35 work environment inspectors. The Government indicates that the Department is currently expanding in order to reach a target figure of approximately 75 employees at the end of June 2024, and that the recruitment process to increase the number of work environment inspectors to around 50 has already started. The Committee also takes note that, according to the Government’s indication; (i) labour inspectors verify that the employer complies with rules on the working environment, working hours and the posting of workers from another country to Sweden; and (ii) if they find information that can prove useful for the Migration Agency, they share it under certain conditions; but (iii) their main duties and objectives remain at the heart of their inspection and supervision functions. Noting that the Government did not provide information on the reinstatement of the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information regarding the manner in which the SWEA ensures the enforcement of the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation (such as social security benefits for the period of employment).

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Collaboration between the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations. In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that the workers’ health and safety representatives who wish to ask for the intervention of the SWEA must follow guidelines established in the Work Environment Act. According to the Government, the first step is to request action from the employer and if no measure, incorrect measures, or insufficient measures have been taken, a specific form must be sent to the SWEA. The SWEA then checks that the formal requirements provided for by Chapter 6, section 6a, of the Work Environment Act or section 19(a) of the Working Hours Act (1982:673) are met, and if such requirements are met, the SWEA will proceed with the request. The SWEA will in most cases carry out an inspection and then decide whether an injunction or a prohibition order should be issued. The Government also indicates that between 2015 and 2022, the workers’ health and safety representatives made 11 requests to the SWEA for matters concerning the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Article 7(3) of Convention No. 81 and Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Qualifications and training of labour inspectors. In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates: (i) that the training programme for labour inspectors runs for just over six months after their recruitment; (ii) that it includes nine central training sessions and five follow-up meetings; and (iii) that the number of participating inspectors is usually between 25–30. The Government also indicates that the central training sessions, which amount to a total of 30 days of training, are organized around the authority role of labour inspectors (so-called “authority weeks” – four weeks) and different work environment areas (so-called “subject weeks” – five weeks) dealing with organizational and social work environment, physical work environment, chemical work environment, technical work environment, as well as stress and workload ergonomics. The Government clarifies that the agricultural sector is included in the “subject week” session relating to technical work environment. Finally, the Government indicates that training focuses on a basic level of knowledge regarding the authority role of labour inspectors (including the knowledge of applicable rules) and the respective work environment area, but that it does not include knowledge of sectoral areas such as construction and civil engineering or transport. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Publication and content of the annual labour inspection reports. Following the Committee’s previous comment, the Government has appended to its report the annual report issued by the SWEA in 2022. The Committee notes that the Government has provided statistics on the number of inspections carried out and the number of injunctions, prohibitions and penalties issued but that it did not provide statistics specific to the agricultural sector. The Committee once again requests the Government to: (i) pursue its efforts to ensure that the annual labour inspection reports are transmitted to the ILO and published in conformity with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129; and (ii) take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports contain information specific to the agricultural sector, as required by Article 27 of Convention No. 129.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

Articles 3(1) and (2), and 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1) and (3), and 12 of Convention No. 129. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors related to immigration. Following the Committee’s previous request concerning the activities of the Swedish Work Environment Authority (SWEA) related to migrant workers in an irregular situation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that in 2019 the Department for Joint Authority Control was established within the SWEA. The Government indicates that the Department for Joint Authority Control is in charge, among others, of the control of the registry of posting of foreign workers, administrative matters related to the SWEA’s function as the liaison office according to the Posting of Workers Act, as well as administration and decision-making regarding penalties connected to posting. The Committee also notes the Government’s reference in its report to cooperation between the SWEA and the Migration Agency. In relation to the Committee’s request on the number of cases where undocumented workers have been granted their due rights, the Committee notes the Government indication that the SWEA does not handle the issue of payment of outstanding remuneration. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the operation of the Department for Joint Authority Control within the SWEA, indicating if it is staffed by labour inspectors, as well as information on the specific nature of the cooperation between the SWEA and the Migration Agency. In this respect, it requests further information on the measures taken to ensure that the functions assigned to labour inspectors do not interfere with the main objective of labour inspectors of ensuring the protection of workers in accordance with labour inspectors’ primary duties, as provided for in Article 3(2) of the Convention. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the SWEA ensures the enforcement of the rights of migrant workers in an irregular situation (such as social security benefits for the period of employment), irrespective of whether it handles payment of outstanding remuneration.

Article 7(3) of Convention No. 81 and Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Qualifications and training of labour inspectors. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that, in their observations, the Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees (TCO), the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO) indicated that following the reorganization of the SWEA in 2014, labour inspectors covered all subject areas within the competence of the Authority and all sectors, leading to a system of generalist-oriented labour inspectors, which risked losing expertise and credibility of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government in its report indicating there is a high degree of specialist industry knowledge among the inspectors at SWEA but that all inspectors must be able to handle different types of inspections as the SWEA prioritize different areas of inspection in different years. In this regard, the Government indicates that internal trainings are always carried out before different forms of inspection activities are initiated, and that there is a mandatory six-month training course for newly recruited inspectors. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the subjects covered, frequency, duration, and number of participants for the training given to labour inspectors to ensure that they are adequately trained for the performance of their duties, including specific information with respect to the agricultural sector as required by Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129.

Article 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 12 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other government services. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the TCO and the LO observations concerning deficiencies in the cooperation of the SWEA with other agencies, such as the Swedish Public Employment Service and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency with a view to protecting certain categories of vulnerable workers. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating that the cooperation of the SWEA with other agencies occurs primarily through agreements or arrangements about cooperation, which are oriented towards information and experience exchange but which also encompass the distribution of supervision responsibilities, mutual supervision questions, supervision projects, and competence development. The Government indicates that the SWEA is obliged to cooperate with the Social Insurance Agency, the Public Employment Service and the National Board of Health and Welfare. The Government also indicates the SWEA has started a cooperation with twelve authorities to create overarching cooperation though the coordination of activities regarding inspection, regulatory change, information and analysis. The Committee further notes other cooperation undertaken by the SWEA such as joint supervision campaigns in order to improve the safety of goods transport, the cooperation with the police to counteract fraudulent freight companies, and the cooperation with the Tax Agency. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and employers and workers or their organizations. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the TCO and the LO observations concerning difficulties in the collaboration between the workers’ health and safety representatives and the SWEA, including in relation to the follow-up given by labour inspectors to requests made by these representatives to undertake workplace inspections. The Committee notes the response provided by the Government indicating that requests from workers’ health and safety representatives are part of the mandatory supervision for SWEA. An inspection is carried out if the request falls under the SWEA’s supervisory area and the health and safety representative has communicated with the employer. The Government indicates that there was an increase in requests from workers’ health and safety representatives after the new Regulation on Organisational and social work environment came into force in March 2016, but that by 2018, the number of requests declined. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide additional information on cooperation between the SWEA and the workers’ health and safety representatives, including specifically the workers’ representatives in the agricultural sector, and, in particular, on the manner in which the requests of the workers’ health and safety representatives are processed by the SWEA and on the follow-up given to these requests.

Articles 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Number of labour inspectors and labour inspection visits. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the SWEA budget increased between 2015 and 2019, which resulted in an increase in the number of labour inspectors from 238 in 2015 to 285 in 2019. It also notes that the number of labour inspections increased from 21,000 in 2015 to 27,000 in 2018, due to the increase in number of inspectors, and the fact that those inspectors recruited are now trained in their roles and work more independently. It notes that the number of injunctions, prohibitions and penalties increased from 1,002 in 2017 to 1,469 in 2018, which the Government indicates is due to the increase in the number of inspections, the improvement in efficiency though better case management, better training and an increase in the quality of the preparation of cases though more efficient cooperation between inspectors, lawyers and decision-makers within the authority. The Committee further notes that the SWEA continues its work of developing digital tools for statistical analysis to support the planning of inspection activities and the selection of workplaces to be inspected.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Publication and content of the annual labour inspection reports. Following its previous comment, the Committee takes note of the 2017 annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services submitted with the Government’s report. The Committee requests the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that the annual labour inspection reports are transmitted to the ILO and published in conformity with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129. It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports contain information specific to the agricultural sector, as required by Article 27 of Convention No. 129.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 and 129 together.

The Committee notes the joint observations made by the Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees (TCO), the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO) received on 1 September 2016.

Articles 3(1) and (2), and 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(3), and 12 of Convention No. 129. Functions entrusted to labour inspectors in relation to foreign workers. In its previous comment on Convention No. 81, the Committee noted the increased cooperation of the Swedish Work Environment Authority with the Swedish Migration Board in relation to issues concerning work permits of foreign workers. The Committee notes that, in reply to its request for additional information on the cooperation with other government services in relation to foreign workers, the Government indicates that inter-agency cooperation has been further increased in the area of undeclared work, but that each agency operates strictly within its own area of responsibility, and that collaboration results in increased opportunities to curb criminal activity in working life. In this respect, the functions of the Swedish Work Environment Authority, which are provided for in the Work Environment Authority (Standing Instructions) Ordinance 2007:913, principally relate to work environment and working hours legislation.

In relation to the Committee’s request concerning the activities of the Swedish Work Environment Authority to secure the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation, the Committee notes that the Government refers to the Swedish Model, in which industrial action may be taken by the social partners in relation to posted workers relating to the breach of conditions in collective agreements. However, the Committee also notes that the Government has not provided specific information on how the individual rights of foreign workers are guaranteed where they are found to be in an irregular situation and where they are not included in any of the official records of posted workers referred to by the Government.

In addition, noting the Government’s indication that the social partners are principally responsible to secure the application of the work conditions in collective bargaining agreements, the Committee recalls that while, in accordance with Article 8(2) of Convention No. 129, Members may include in their system of labour inspection in agriculture officials or representatives of occupational organizations, whose activities supplement those of the public inspection staff, enforcement functions should be primarily assumed by labour inspectors who are properly trained and have the status and conditions of service guaranteeing their independence and impartiality. Referring also to paragraph 452 of its 2017 General Survey on the occupational safety and health instruments concerning the promotional framework, construction, mines and agriculture, the Committee requests the Government, once again, to provide information on the actions taken by the Swedish Work Environment Authority to enforce the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation (such as the provision of information and advice to foreign workers concerning their due rights resulting from their past employment relationship, the notification to the social partners or other agencies entrusted with the enforcement of their rights, etc.) and on the number of cases where undocumented workers have been granted their due rights (including the payment of their outstanding remuneration, etc.).

Articles 4 and 7 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7 and 9 of Convention No. 129. Qualifications and training of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, in their observations, the TCO, the LO and the SACO under Convention No. 129 indicate that following the reorganization of the Work Environment Authority in 2014, labour inspectors now cover all subject areas within the competence of the Authority and all sectors (previously they were entrusted with controls in their specific area of expertise). According to the trade unions’ observations under Convention No. 81, there is an increasing trend towards a system of generalist-oriented labour inspectors, with the risk to lose expertise and credibility of labour inspectors among employers, health and safety representatives and workers. The TCO, the LO and the SACO indicate that this is specifically problematic in relation to atypical forms of employment and the agricultural sector, where sector-specific knowledge is particularly important. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in relation to the observations made by the TCO, the LO and the SACO and to indicate how it is ensured that labour inspectors have the necessary sector-specific skills and knowledge to enable them to effectively carry out their functions in relation to the control of compliance with the labour law provisions in the different sectors subject to their control.

Article 5(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 12 of Convention No. 129. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other government services. The Committee notes that the TCO and the LO reiterate the observations they have made previously concerning deficiencies in the cooperation of the Swedish Work Environment’s Authority with other agencies, such as the Swedish Public Employment Service and the Swedish Social Insurance Agency with a view to protect certain categories of vulnerable workers. According to the LO and the TCO, cooperation between government agencies is in most instances limited to meetings with a view to exchange experience and information, which the trade unions consider to be insufficient. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 5(b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 13 of Convention No. 129. The Committee notes the observations made by the TCO, the LO and the SACO concerning difficulties in the collaboration between the workers’ health and safety representatives and the Work Environment Authority, including in relation to the follow-up given by labour inspectors to requests made by these representatives to undertake workplace inspections. The trade unions also indicate that the number of complaints made by health and safety representatives has considerably increased. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 10, 11 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Number of labour inspectors and labour inspection visits. The Committee notes that, having referred in their previous observations to the negative effects of the gradual reduction of the budget allocated to the Work Environment Authority since 2007 (reduction in the number of labour inspectors and regional offices, decrease in the quality of inspections, increase in the number of occupational accidents, etc.), the TCO, the LO and the SACO now refer to a recent increase in the budget of the Swedish Work Environment Authority, and the recruitment of new labour inspectors. They consider however that it will take time to remedy the previous cuts made to the inspection activities. The Committee notes from the information in the Government’s report that the number of labour inspectors decreased from 276 to 238 labour inspectors between 2010 and 2015 and that the number of labour inspection “actions” decreased from 34,000 to 21,000 in the same period. The Government indicates that the significant decrease in the number of labour inspection actions between 2013 and 2015 (from 31,500 to 21,000) is due to the reorganization in 2014 of the Work Environment Authority, the retirement of labour inspectors, the staff deployed for training of new recruits and the time required by staff to get familiarized with the new case management system (INES) introduced in 2015. The Committee also notes the information provided by the Government that the Work Environment Authority is currently reviewing an electronic system to identify workplaces where labour inspections should be considered. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the increase in the budget of the Swedish Work Environment Authority and the recruitment of new labour inspectors referred to by the TCO, the LO and the SACO. It encourages the Government to continue to take measures to ensure the allocation of adequate budgetary resources with a view to enable the recruitment of an adequate number of labour inspectors and the conduct of a sufficient number of labour inspections. It requests the Government to provide information on how the labour inspectorate ensures a satisfactory coverage of workplaces liable to inspection, including through the planning of labour inspection activities based on the electronic system referred to in the Government’s report to ensure that all workers receive adequate protection. It further requests that, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Convention No. 81, the Government provide information on the training provided to the newly recruited labour inspectors.

Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Publication and content of the annual labour inspection reports. The Committee notes that once again no annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has been transmitted to the Office. It recalls the obligation of the Government, under Article 20(3) of Convention No. 81 and Article 26(3) of Convention No. 129, in this respect. The Committee firmly requests once again the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Work Environment Authority regularly transmits to the ILO annual labour inspection reports within the time limits prescribed by Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129 and containing the information required in Article 21(a)–(g) of Convention No. 81 and Article 27(a)–(g) of Convention No. 129.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee notes the Government’s report received on 3 October 2013 and the observations made by the Swedish Confederation for Professional Employees (TCO) dated 18 November 2013, as well as those made by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO) dated 20 November 2013. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in response to the TCO’s and the LO’s observations.

Articles 3(2) and 5(a) of the Convention. Functions entrusted to labour inspectors and cooperation between the labour inspection services and other government services. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Swedish Work Environment Authority introduced stronger cooperation with the Swedish Migration Board on issues concerning work permits, with the Swedish Police on issues concerning human trafficking and with the Swedish Tax Agency on tax issues and joint supervision. The Committee reminds the Government that, in accordance with Article 3(2), any further duties that are not aimed at securing enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of the work and the protection of workers should be assigned to labour inspectors, only insofar as they do not interfere with their primary functions, and shall not prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality that are necessary in their relations with employers and workers. Furthermore, referring to paragraph 78 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee recalls that the primary duty of labour inspectors is to protect the rights and interests of all workers and not to enforce immigration law. It also reminds the Government that the function of verifying the legality of employment should have as its corollary the reinstatement of the statutory rights of all workers. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide more information on the manner in which the Swedish Work Environment Authority cooperates with the abovementioned government services, and if it would indicate the impact of this cooperation on the application of the Convention, in particular as regards the application of provisions relating to conditions of work and workers. Furthermore, it would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the manner in which the labour inspectorate ensures the enforcement of employers’ obligations with regard to the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation, such as the payment of wages and social security and other benefits for the period of their effective employment relationship, especially in cases where such workers are liable to expulsion from the country, as well as on the number of cases where undocumented workers have been granted their due rights.

Articles 20 and 21. Publication and content of an annual report. The Committee notes that no annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has been transmitted to the Office. Referring to its previous comment, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Work Environment Authority publishes and transmits to the ILO an annual report within the time limits prescribed by Article 20 and containing the information required in Article 21(a)–(g) of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Article 5 of the Convention. Cooperation between the labour inspection service and other government bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s information that the Work Environment Authority is endeavouring to improve cooperation with other bodies, for purposes including drawing up specific agreements on such cooperation. The Government cites the example of a cooperative initiative between the Customs Council, the National Council for Safety and Well-Being, and the Schools Inspectorate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details on the substance and specific arrangements for cooperation with other government bodies in the area of labour inspection and on the impact of that cooperation on the work of the labour inspection service.

Articles 5, 7, 13 and 14. Improving the procedure for reporting occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease, and improvements in safety and health conditions in high-risk establishments. The Committee notes that the Work Environment Agency has cooperated with the insurance companies and the Swedish Transport Agency to help employers fulfil the obligations set out in section 2 of the Work Environment Ordinance (1977:2010) and Chapter 42(10) (2010:110) of the Social Insurance Code. The Government states furthermore that the Authority has also developed a method of systematic assessment of workplaces based on the number of risk factors in the working environment and other data available to the Authority, such as the number of occupational accidents (and their consequences), the level of absenteeism, the number of employees and the level of compliance with established standards. This method is intended to identify establishments where inspection is considered a high priority. According to the Government, trade union safety representatives and doctors are authorized to notify inspectors of any anomaly at a work place. Furthermore, complaints and information from anonymous sources can be published in the press. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the impact of the system for assessing occupational risks in terms of any improvements in the level of implementation of legislation and of follow-up on measures ordered by labour inspectors during their inspection visits.

Article 16. Frequency of inspections. According to the Government, less than half of inspections are planned on the basis of the results of the system referred to above, and most inspections are carried out following an accident at the workplace or in response to a notification. The inspectors also conduct large-scale campaigns which do not specifically target high-risk establishments, as well as other inspections that focus on problems specific to particular activities. The Committee notes that in 2010, priority was given to issues of workplace violence and threats, ergonomics, occupational accidents and risk assessment, and that inspectors carried out their duties with different sectoral groups and networks.

The Committee notes with interest that, after a period marked by a significant and sustained downward trend in the number of inspections between 2006 and 2009 (from 39,984 to 30,024), the trend went into reverse in 2010, with a 12 per cent increase in the number of inspections compared to the previous year. The Government attributes that progress to an improvement in productivity per inspector and more effective inspection methods. The Committee notes, however, that the Government did not supply annual reports on inspection activities in 2009 or 2010 and that those reports are not available on the Internet. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would ensure that the Work Environment Authority transmits the annual reports in question to the Office. It also requests the Government to provide up-to-date data on the number and geographical distribution of industrial and commercial establishments subject to labour inspection, the number and distribution, by gender and category, of labour inspectors carrying out their duties in those establishments, as well as statistics for occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease during the period covered by the report.

The Government is also requested to provide details of the various sectoral groups and networks which, according to its information, worked with the labour inspectors in 2010.

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

Further to its 2007 observation and to the discussion within the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008 considering the measures taken to give effect to the provisions of the Convention to be a case of progress, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information on the developments relating to the following points.

Articles 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Measures taken to improve the occupational safety and health. Please keep the Office informed of the impact of the measures taken to improve the reporting of industrial accidents, occupational safety and health conditions in high-risk establishments and the quality of the collaboration of persons who have benefited from training with regard to labour inspection, provided by the Work Environment Authority.

Article 16. Number and frequency of inspections. Noting that the number of inspections carried out during the period June 2007–May 2009 shows a significant reduction compared to the statistics relating to 2005 and 2006 available on the Work Environment Authority web site (see www.av.se/inspecktion/inspektionsstatistik.aspx), the Committee requests the Government to indicate the reasons for this reduction and to keep the ILO informed of the measures taken or envisaged to ensure better coverage of establishments by the labour inspectorate.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. Progress achieved during the period covered by the Government’s report. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government concerning the developments that have occurred in the organization and operation of the labour inspection system, including: (i) the development of a computerized application through which a form can be downloaded by employers for the declaration of employment accidents and other incidents; and (ii) the determination of a method for the mapping of workplaces where work environment hazards may be suspected, thereby allowing the Work Environment Authority to evaluate all the workplaces registered in this respect.

2. Article 7 of the Convention. Training of the staff of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes with satisfaction that the in-house training provided by the Work Environment Authority, which was previously limited to inspection personnel only, now includes basic training for all associates concerned with the handling of supervision procedures. After the basic training, associates undergo supplementary training according to the competence required for their respective duties. The Committee does not doubt that such a measure will contribute to achieving a significant improvement in the operation of the labour inspectorate as it will enable the various categories of personnel concerned to adopt a more relevant approach to their own duties in relation to the objectives of labour inspection and the principles to be followed by inspection personnel, particularly those relating to professional rules and ethics.