Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) Convention, 1977 (No. 148) - Brazil (Ratification: 1982)

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

Article 5(4) of the Convention. Right of workers’ representatives to accompany labour inspectors on their supervisory visits and Part IV of the report form. Application in practice. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the efforts made by the labour inspection services to ensure compliance in practice with this Article of the Convention. In this respect, the Government indicates that, according to the data extracted from the computerized system of supervision of the labour inspectorate from July 2005 to June 2010, this matter was covered by 632 inspection reports, with action being taken to ensure compliance in 579 cases, with 13 violations reported. It adds that in July 2009 inspections were carried out in Petrobrás Transporte SA, with the participation of the State Benzene Commission, which includes among its members the Workers’ Union of the Road Transport of Liquids and Gases, Oil Derivatives and Chemical Products of the State of Río Grande do Sul (SINDILIQUIDA/RS). The Committee will continue to examine any matters relating to the communication in its comments on the application of the Benzene Convention, 1971 (No. 136), and Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139). The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of this Article in practice and, insofar as possible, to provide its assessment in this respect.

Article 6(1) and (2). Requirement of collaboration where several employers undertake activities simultaneously. Articles 10, 13 and 16. Personal protection equipment, the requirement to provide information, appropriate penalties and appropriate inspection. Article 12. Notification to the competent authority of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve the exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution. The Committee notes the information provided in reply to the points raised previously.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report of 31 October 2008, containing replies to certain points of the Committee’s previous comments and the observations by the Workers’ Union of the Road Transport of Liquids and Gases, Oil Derivatives and Chemical Products of the State of Río Grande do Sul (SINDILIQUIDA/RS), including the attachments referred to in the Committee’s comments under the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155).

Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. Right of workers’ representatives to accompany labour inspectors on their supervisory visits. With reference to its previous comments in which it noted a communication made by various organizations of public employees (SERGIPE), alleging that the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour was prohibiting inspectors from being accompanied by workers’ representatives, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, this situation has now been resolved. The Committee notes the allegation by SINDILIQUIDA/RS that, in violation of this provision of the Convention, there is an attitude of non-collaboration and flagrant disrespect of workers and their representative organizations in most enterprises. SINDILIQUIDA/RS affirms that its current President-elect, who signed the communication, is not able to accompany inspectors in their work. It further notes that, according to the Government, under the terms of section 1.7 of Regulatory Standard NR-01 of Order No. 3214/78, as amended by Order No. 03 of 7 February 1988, employers are required to allow workers’ representatives to accompany them in supervision of occupational safety and health laws and regulations. The Government adds that it has no knowledge of any cases of obstructions of this right related to inspection in the workplace. The Committee considers that the Government does not respond to the issues raised in this respect. The Committee therefore invites the Government to take the necessary measures to give full effect in practice to this Article of the Convention, including measures to ensure that representatives of SINDILIQUIDA/RS can accompany labour inspectors in their supervisory visits.

Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. Required collaboration where several employers undertake activities simultaneously. The Committee notes that, according to SINDILIQUIDA/RS, many employers, encouraged by the failure of the authorities to take action, do not feel responsible for the application of the Convention. The union adds that employers consider themselves exempt from the need to adopt measures to give effect to the Convention on the pretext of the contracting out of their activities, or in other words the transfer of the responsibility to other employers. It adds that, in practice, when there is more than one employer, instead of collaborating with a view to the application of the Convention, nobody takes on responsibility for anything, which is prejudicial to the workers. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, contracting out or subcontracting is a very topical and significant issue in industrial relations and in the increasing precariousness of conditions of employment. The Government adds that the privatization processes of major enterprises, which were formally public, have been responsible, especially over the past ten to 15 years, for major changes in the relations between enterprises, which have begun to be reflected in the legislation. However, various issues related to health and safety, such as medical examinations and the supervision of environmental risks, are under the responsibility of the Internal Commission for Accident Prevention (CIPA) and the Specialized Occupational Engineering, Safety and Medicine Services (SESMT), among other institutions. The Committee notes that various regulatory standards refer to this issue (NRs 04, specialized services – as amended by NR 17 –; 05, accidents; 07, medical examinations; 09, environment-related hazards; 18, construction; 22, mining; and 24, workplaces). It adds that section 4.5.3 of NR 04, as amended by NR 17, provides for the possibility of establishing joint SESMTs, although this is optional and subject to certain conditions, which would appear to indicate that the establishment of SESMTs in the presence of several employers is not compulsory. The Committee notes the union’s reference to the situation of driver-operators for Petrobras, Shell and other enterprises in the refining sector of Río Grande do Sul in respect of whom, according to the union, none of the employers take responsibility for the application of the Convention. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that this Article establishes the requirement that whenever several employers undertake activities simultaneously at one workplace, they shall have the duty to collaborate in order to comply with the prescribed measures and that “in appropriate circumstances, the competent authority shall prescribe general procedures for this collaboration”. Accordingly, collaboration between employers is not optional, but a requirement. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt the necessary measures to give full effect to this Article in practice, and in particular to re-examine the provisions requiring collaboration between the various employers involved in undertaking activities, including in refineries, with a view to securing compliance with the requirement of collaboration in practice, and to provide information on this matter. The Committee also requests the Government to provide specific information on the application of this Article in the case of the driver-operators to which SINDILIQUIDA/RS refers.

With regard to its previous comments on the working conditions in the various branches of the telecommunications company TELEMAR, the Government indicates that the adoption of Regulatory Standard NR 17, of 1 August 2007, amended the wording of NR 04. Noting that the latter NR includes section 4.5.3 respecting the apparently optional establishment of SESMTs, the Committee reiterates its comments made in the previous paragraph. The Committee also once again requests information on the application in practice of the measures adopted to address the deterioration of safety and health conditions in the telecommunications industry, including information on the establishment of SESMTs, the measures adopted to secure in practice the collaboration envisaged in Article 6 of the Convention, and the results achieved in the telecommunications sector.

Articles 10, 13 and 16. Personal protective equipment, the requirement to provide information, appropriate penalties and appropriate inspection. SINDILIQUIDA/RS alleges that in various cases personal protective equipment is not supplied, workers are not provided with information on occupational hazards and that, even though the labour inspectorate provides guidance, issues notifications and reports situations, this does not imply a change of attitude. The Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 155 and hopes that, in collaboration with the social partners, the Government will develop an effective strategy, including the provision of appropriate penalties, to ensure that the measures adopted by the labour inspectorate are given effect in practice and it requests the Government to provide information on this matter.

Article 12. Notification to the competent authority of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve the exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government indicating that the occupational exposure limit values adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) are applied, or those established by collective bargaining where they are more rigorous, and it notes the standards for their implementation annexed to the report. The Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on the effect given in law and practice to the obligation of notification as set out in this Article.

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

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. In particular, it notes the information provided on the application of Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, Criteria for determining the hazards of exposure to air pollution, noise and vibration and exposure limits for rural workers; Article 11, paragraph 3 of the Convention, Alternative employment.

2. The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the Union of Workers in the Road Transport of Liquids and Gases, Oil Derivatives and Chemical Products (SINDILIQUIDA/RS) on 28 August and 4 October 2007 and sent to the Government on 11 September and 5 October 2007. The Committee notes that the observations submitted by SINDILIQUIDA/RS concern the alleged non-application by the Government of the following provisions of the Convention: Article 5, paragraphs 3 and 4, Collaboration between employers and workers, right for representatives of the employers and workers to accompany inspectors; Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, Employers’ responsibility for compliance with prescribed measures, and collaboration between two or more employers undertaking activities simultaneously at one workplace; Article 10, Personal protective equipment; Article 13, Information and training on protection against hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise and vibration; and Article 16(b), Inspection services. The Committee requests the Government to provide a detailed response to the observations submitted by SINDILIQUIDA/RS.

3. With reference to its previous comments concerning the working conditions in the group of telecommunication companies TELEMAR, the Committee notes that the Government reports that, in the period 1996–2005, TELEMAR was subjected to 179 routine inspection visits, as well as inspections resulting from complaints by trade unions and workers and targeted state control programmes. The principal issues raised included failure to draw up and implement compulsory programmes, especially the Programme on prevention of environmental hazards and the Programme of medical control of occupational health, and absence of basic risk management measures. The Government points out that due to considerable reduction of the number of TELEMAR employees, a considerable level of subcontracting of its activities in recent years, the use of smaller companies, especially in the case of installation and maintenance of telephone lines – that have less economic capacity to manage occupational risks adequately – the situation with respect to occupational safety and health has become more precarious and less secure. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government that these issues have been examined in various studies, that the National Commission for Ergonomics in the Ministry of Labour and Employment have issued technical recommendations for the activities of telemarketing and call centres so as to contribute to the prevention, early detection and control of occupational diseases, including hearing loss of telephone operators and that tripartite consultations are ongoing on a proposed revision of Normative Regulations on Ergonomics (No. 17) to take into account these technical recommendations. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on measures taken, in law and practice, to address the reported deteriorating occupational safety and health conditions in the telecommunication industry.

4. Article 5, paragraph 4. Right for employers’ and workers’ representatives to accompany inspectors. With reference to its previous comments concerning the observations made by the various organizations of public employers (SERGIPE) that a regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour would have prohibited inspectors from being accompanied by workers’ representatives, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that point 1.7 of Order 3214/78, Normative Regulations 01 (NR 01), amended by Order 03 of 7 February 1988, guarantee compliance with this provision of the Convention. The Committee reiterates what was noted in its observation of 2002, that the problems highlighted by the workers’ organizations did not arise from the absence of a regulation, but from the failure to apply and respect the relevant regulations, both by the employers and by a representative of the Government. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures ensuring the application in practice of Article 5, paragraph 4, giving to workers’ and employers’ representatives the opportunity to accompany inspectors supervising the application of the measures prescribed in pursuance of this Convention.

5. Article 12. Notification to the competent authority of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involves exposure of workers to occupational hazards due to air pollution. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to legislation which requires notification to the competent authority of the use of specific processes, substances or materials related to the use of asbestos (NR15, Order 3214/78, Annex No. 12) and benzene (Order 14/95, Annex No. 13-A), but notes that the report is silent as regards a more general notification requirement. The Government is requested to provide information on measures taken in order to subject the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration to a notification requirement to the competent authority.

6. Part IV of the report form. Practical application of the Convention. The Committee notes the statistical information provided by the Government in its report which reflects labour inspection activities for the period 1999–2004, in general, as well as in the sectors of construction, electricity, machines and agriculture. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical data allowing it to evaluate the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain a reply to its previous comments. It is therefore bound to reiterate the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that in accordance with SIT Directive No. 05 of 18 October 1999, a technical study group has recently been formed to examine the legislation on occupational safety and health. This group has the task of updating the rural regulatory standards. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the role played by the National Social Security Institute (INSS) regarding occupational accidents. Recalling that similar references were made to information of the same kind in its previous direct request, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that guarantee suitable alternative employment or maintenance of income through social security measures or otherwise, not only to workers who have suffered accidents but also to those workers whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be inadvisable.

Article 12. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that besides the conclusion of collective agreements in certain sectors, through the adoption of Orders DNSST/SNT Nos. 3 and 7 of 1992 amending Regulation Standard No. 28 - Supervision and Penalties - the Government ensures that regional labour delegations are notified of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve exposure of workers to the occupational hazards referred to in this provision. The Committee also notes Order No. 25 of 29 December 1994 approving Regulatory Standard No. 9 on environmental risks, which inserts a new subsection to 5.16 of Regulatory Standard No. 5. It notes that these Orders contain provisions on procedures designed to correct irregularities observed during the visits by the labour inspection services, and on consultations which should take place during the elaboration of environmental risk prevention programmes. The Committee notes with regret that the information and the texts provided do not reply to the question raised under this Article of the Convention. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it pointed out that control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities are notified of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment. In addition the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the collective agreements which give effect to this Article of the Convention in certain activities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It notes with interest the four priority principles which will guide Government policies and action, as well as the appointment of new trade unionists to the principal positions in the Ministry of Labour and Employment.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information on developments in the situation relating to the health and safety of workers in relation to noise at the various branches of the TELEMAR enterprise. It therefore once again requests the Government to provide this information, including data on the inspections carried out, statistics on occupational accidents and diseases, infringements and measures taken to correct them.

With regard to the observations made by the various organizations of public employees, SERGIPE, alleging, among other matters, that the Regional Delegate of the Ministry of Labour prohibited inspectors from being accompanied by workers’ representatives, the Government indicates that the new Delegate is a person linked to the workers’ movement. The participation of workers will serve as a parameter for the consolidation of the Ministry’s inspection activities. The Committee notes the changes made in the Ministry of Labour. It requests the Government to keep it informed of the impact of the new changes on the application of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It hopes that the next report will include full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee recalls its previous direct request which referred to the following points:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the adoption of Interministerial Order No. 482 of 16 April 1999 approving the technical regulations and their annexes, the text of which was supplied with the report, on procedures for the installation and utilization of ethylene oxide gas and mixtures including the same gas in sterilization units. This text sets forth minimum technical specifications in respect of the physical dimensions of the installations and of environmental safety, as well as provisions on the responsibility of enterprises which produce, transport and use these products, on the obligation to employ duly trained and qualified technicians, and on medical examinations to be carried out on personnel intervening directly or indirectly in such processes.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that in accordance with SIT Directive No. 05 of 18 October 1999, a technical study has recently been formed to study the legislation on occupational safety and health. This group has the task of updating the rural regulatory standards. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the information given by the Government on the role played by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) regarding occupational accidents. Recalling that similar references were made to information of the same kind in its previous direct request, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that guarantee suitable alternative employment or maintenance of income through social security measures or otherwise, not only to workers who have suffered accidents but also to those workers whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be inadvisable.

Article 12. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that besides the conclusion of collective agreements in certain sectors, through the adoption of Orders DNSST/SNT Nos. 3 and 7 of 1992 amending Regulation Standard No. 28 - Supervision and Penalties - the Government ensures that regional labour delegations are notified on the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve exposure of workers to the occupational hazards referred to in this provision. The Committee also notes Order No. 25 of 29 December 1994 approving the Regulatory Standard No. 09 on environmental risks, which inserts a new subsection to 5.16 of Regulatory Standard No. 05. It notes that these Orders contain provisions on procedures designed to correct irregularities observed during the visits by the labour inspection services, and on consultations which should take place during the elaboration of environmental risk prevention programmes. The Committee notes with regret that the information and the texts provided do not reply to the question raised under this Article of the Convention. Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it pointed out that control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Committee therefore requests the Government again to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities are notified of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment. In addition the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the collective agreements which give effect to this Article of the Convention in certain activities.

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

The Committee notes the comments communicated by the Sindicato dos Trabalhadores nas Indústrias Quilmicas, Petroquimicas e Afins de Triunfo (SINDIPOLO). These comments are treated in conjunction with the Government’s reply under Convention No. 161. On the other hand, the Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to its previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the observations made by the Trade Union of Workers in enterprises of Telecommunication, Postal, Telegraphic and other similar Telephonic Operators in the State of Rio de Janeiro (SINTTEL-RJ) as well as the reply given by the Government to these observations.

The trade union refers to many occupational accidents in the enterprise TELEMAR due to the very high levels of noise or sound pressure. Moreover the said enterprise has had great difficulty in negotiating collective agreements with the union as can be seen from the two unfinished collective agreements. It requests that the risks to which the workers are exposed be investigated and that in the event that, after inspection of the workplace, it is found that any environmental factor, be it physical, chemical or biological, exceeds the limits fixed in the NR-15, it requests that measures be taken in accordance with sections 189 and 190 of the Consolidation of the Labour Laws (CLT).

The Committee notes from the annexes the information sent by the union regarding the types of occupational accidents and diseases and the functions of those who sustained them. It appears that most of the posts involved technical or operational functions (telephone operators, commercial and service staff, staff dealing with installation and repair work) and their accidents and diseases resulted in varying degrees of hearing problems and loss. Moreover, TELEMAR had suddenly eliminated the ten-minute break and the result has been increasing auditory lesions and loss in working capacity. Prior to the privatization of the activity an ergonomic study had indicated that work breaks were a way of minimizing such risks. In their view TELEMAR is not respecting the standards of NR-17 on the occupational safety and health of workers nor has it taken part in the round-table discussion with the Regional Delegation of Labour (DRT).

The Committee notes from a medical report annexed to these observations of the union that medical condition of the upper part of the body involving tendonitis, back problems, and other physical pain resulting from repetitive tasks, the use of equipment not adapted to the work, and other ergonomic and working environmental causes were noted. These conditions were progressive and at times resulting in invalidity. The consequences are serious not only for the workers but also for the enterprises. Women workers were among the ones most affected. This report indicates that even though definitive cures were hard to come by treatment included physiotherapy, anti-inflammation treatment, immobilization, rest, and surgery. The application of NR-17 of the Order No. 3214 was being progressively introduced in enterprises with a view to preventing and controlling these effects.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply, which conveys information relating to the results of inspection visits conducted at TELEMAR during the months of August, September and October of 1999. The same enterprise was also inspected last in the month of May (2000). These visits revealed that there were 9,690 workers employed of which 3,101 were women. The medical and safety and health staff of the enterprise were contacted during the visits and no violations of the principles of the Convention were uncovered. It notes that it was only one local of the enterprise and not the branches of the enterprise that was actually visited. The Committee notes from the actual reports of the visits that various irregularities such as failure to present documents (only ten out of the 22 medical certificates were produced) were noted and notification given to the enterprise including cases involving varying degrees of hearing problems and loss were noted. After examination of 22 workers and one ex-worker, nine workers were considered to have conditions suggestive of minor hearing loss due to high levels of noise in accordance with the provisions of Order 19/98 of MTE. Two workers of the enterprise were given certificates of disability due to loss of hearing due to high levels of noise. Another two or three workers of the enterprise continue to be followed up by a team of TELEMAR medical doctors. While the cases of two other workers have turned out not to be cases of hearing loss two other ones await conclusions.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide further information on the evolution of the situation of occupational safety and health of workers with respect to noise in the various branches of the enterprise TELEMAR, including reports on inspection visits conducted, statistics on occupational accidents and diseases, contraventions, and measures taken to correct them.

In addition, in its earlier observations, the Committee had noted the observations communicated by the Trade Union of Workers in the Civil Construction Industry, supported by the Trade Union of Mine and Metallurgy Workers (SINDIMINA), the Trade Union of Clothing and Textile Industry Workers (SINDITEXTIL), the Trade Union of Water Industry Workers, the Trade Union of Bakers and Pastry Cooks, the Trade Union of Port Workers (SINDIPESE), the Trade Union of Security Company Workers and the Trade Union of Oil Workers (SINDIPETRO), all workers’ organizations in the state of Sergipe, which alleged that the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour prohibits inspectors from being accompanied by workers’ representatives. These comments appear to highlight the seriousness of the situation denounced in 1993 by the representatives of the workers’ organizations, in that they indicate the existence of a policy on the part of the employers to prevent labour inspections, and the more so when the inspectors are accompanied by workers’ representatives. This question was the object of a 1995 observation by the Committee. The Committee had noted, in its observation of 1997, the Government’s reference to a draft standard instruction submitted to the National Labour Council, with a view to solving this problem. In its 1998 report the Government indicated that the "draft standard instruction" sent to the National Labour Council had been shelved on the grounds that the field covered by this regulation should be subject to collective bargaining and that the pertinent legislative measures would be adopted subsequently. The Government therefore indicates the adoption of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1998, issued by the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health (SSMT), which, under section 1(1) of Regulation No. 1, 1.7(c), IV(d), allows workers’ representatives to accompany inspectors on visits related to the enforcement of legal and regulatory texts on occupational safety and health. In its report, the Government adds that this Order is applied throughout the entire territory.

The Committee observes that the Order cited (No. 03 of 7 February) was adopted in 1988, and not in 1998, and was published in the Official Journal of 10 March 1988. The Committee thus understands that the problems highlighted by the workers’ organizations did not arise from the absence of a regulation, but from the failure to apply and respect a regulation, both by the employers and, more seriously, by a representative of the Government. The Committee therefore urges the Government to supply information on the measures adopted or envisaged to guarantee, under the terms of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1988 of the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health, that workers’ representatives may accompany inspectors on their inspection visits related to the enforcement of occupational safety and health legislation and regulations, in application of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as well as information on the measures adopted in respect of the representatives of the state (the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour) to ensure respect both for national legislation and for the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide all information relating to the measures adopted to resolve all the abovementioned problems raised by the workers’ organization.

The Committee is also addressing a request on a number of other questions relating to the application of the Convention directly to the Government.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee recalls its previous direct request which referred to the following points:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the adoption of Interministerial Order No. 482 of 16 April 1999 approving the technical regulations and their annexes, the text of which was supplied with the report, on procedures for the installation and utilization of ethylene oxide gas and mixtures including the same gas in sterilization units. This text sets forth minimum technical specifications in respect of the physical dimensions of the installations and of environmental safety, as well as provisions on the responsibility of enterprises which produce, transport and use these products, on the obligation to employ duly trained and qualified technicians, and on medical examinations to be carried out on personnel intervening directly or indirectly in such processes.

  Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention.  Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that in accordance with SIT Directive No. 05 of 18 October 1999, a technical study has recently been formed to study the legislation on occupational safety and health. This group has the task of updating the rural regulatory standards. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

  Article 11, paragraph 3.  The Committee notes the information given by the Government on the role played by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) regarding occupational accidents. Recalling that similar references were made to information of the same kind in its previous direct request, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that guarantee suitable alternative employment or maintenance of income through social security measures or otherwise, not only to workers who have suffered accidents but also to those workers whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be inadvisable.

  Article 12.  With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that besides the conclusion of collective agreements in certain sectors, through the adoption of Orders DNSST/SNT Nos. 3 and 7 of 1992 amending Regulation Standard No. 28 - Supervision and Penalties - the Government ensures that regional labour delegations are notified on the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve exposure of workers to the occupational hazards referred to in this provision. The Committee also notes Order No. 25 of 29 December 1994 approving the Regulatory Standard No. 09 on environmental risks, which inserts a new subsection to 5.16 of Regulatory Standard No. 05. It notes that these Orders contain provisions on procedures designed to correct irregularities observed during the visits by the labour inspection services, and on consultations which should take place during the elaboration of environmental risk prevention programmes. The Committee notes with regret that the information and the texts provided do not reply to the question raised under this Article of the Convention. Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it pointed out that control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Committee therefore requests the Government again to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities are notified of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment. In addition the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the collective agreements which give effect to this Article of the Convention in certain activities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Trade Union of Workers in enterprises of Telecommunication, Postal, Telegraphic and other similar Telephonic Operators in the State of Rio de Janeiro (SINTTEL-RJ) as well as the reply given by the Government to these observations.

The trade union refers to many occupational accidents in the enterprise TELEMAR due to the very high levels of noise or sound pressure. Moreover the said enterprise has had great difficulty in negotiating collective agreements with the union as can be seen from the two unfinished collective agreements. It requests that the risks to which the workers are exposed be investigated and that in the event that, after inspection of the workplace, it is found that any environmental factor, be it physical, chemical or biological, exceeds the limits fixed in the NR-15, it requests that measures be taken in accordance with sections 189 and 190 of the Consolidation of the Labour Laws (CLT).

The Committee notes from the annexes the information sent by the union regarding the types of occupational accidents and diseases and the functions of those who sustained them. It appears that most of the posts involved technical or operational functions (telephone operators, commercial and service staff, staff dealing with installation and repair work) and their accidents and diseases resulted in varying degrees of hearing problems and loss. Moreover, TELEMAR had suddenly eliminated the ten-minute break and the result has been increasing auditory lesions and loss in working capacity. Prior to the privatization of the activity an ergonomic study had indicated that work breaks were a way of minimizing such risks. In their view TELEMAR is not respecting the standards of NR-17 on the occupational safety and health of workers nor has it taken part in the round-table discussion with the Regional Delegation of Labour (DRT).

The Committee notes from a medical report annexed to these observations of the union that medical condition of the upper part of the body involving tendonitis, back problems, and other physical pain resulting from repetitive tasks, the use of equipment not adapted to the work, and other ergonomic and working environmental causes were noted. These conditions were progressive and at times resulting in invalidity. The consequences are serious not only for the workers but also for the enterprises. Women workers were among the ones most affected. This report indicates that even though definitive cures were hard to come by treatment included physiotherapy, anti-inflammation treatment, immobilization, rest, and surgery. The application of NR-17 of the Order No. 3214 was being progressively introduced in enterprises with a view to preventing and controlling these effects.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply, which conveys information relating to the results of inspection visits conducted at TELEMAR during the months of August, September and October of 1999. The same enterprise was also inspected last in the month of May (2000). These visits revealed that there were 9,690 workers employed of which 3,101 were women. The medical and safety and health staff of the enterprise were contacted during the visits and no violations of the principles of the Convention were uncovered. It notes that it was only one local of the enterprise and not the branches of the enterprise that was actually visited. The Committee notes from the actual reports of the visits that various irregularities such as failure to present documents (only ten out of the 22 medical certificates were produced) were noted and notification given to the enterprise including cases involving varying degrees of hearing problems and loss were noted. After examination of 22 workers and one ex-worker, nine workers were considered to have conditions suggestive of minor hearing loss due to high levels of noise in accordance with the provisions of Order 19/98 of MTE. Two workers of the enterprise were given certificates of disability due to loss of hearing due to high levels of noise. Another two or three workers of the enterprise continue to be followed up by a team of TELEMAR medical doctors. While the cases of two other workers have turned out not to be cases of hearing loss two other ones await conclusions.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide further information on the evolution of the situation of occupational safety and health of workers with respect to noise in the various branches of the enterprise TELEMAR, including reports on inspection visits conducted, statistics on occupational accidents and diseases, contraventions, and measures taken to correct them.

In addition, in its earlier observations, the Committee had noted the observations communicated by the Trade Union of Workers in the Civil Construction Industry, supported by the Trade Union of Mine and Metallurgy Workers (SINDIMINA), the Trade Union of Clothing and Textile Industry Workers (SINDITEXTIL), the Trade Union of Water Industry Workers, the Trade Union of Bakers and Pastry Cooks, the Trade Union of Port Workers (SINDIPESE), the Trade Union of Security Company Workers and the Trade Union of Oil Workers (SINDIPETRO), all workers’ organizations in the state of Sergipe, which alleged that the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour prohibits inspectors from being accompanied by workers’ representatives. These comments appear to highlight the seriousness of the situation denounced in 1993 by the representatives of the workers’ organizations, in that they indicate the existence of a policy on the part of the employers to prevent labour inspections, and the more so when the inspectors are accompanied by workers’ representatives. This question was the object of a 1995 observation by the Committee. The Committee had noted, in its observation of 1997, the Government’s reference to a draft standard instruction submitted to the National Labour Council, with a view to solving this problem. In its 1998 report the Government indicated that the "draft standard instruction" sent to the National Labour Council had been shelved on the grounds that the field covered by this regulation should be subject to collective bargaining and that the pertinent legislative measures would be adopted subsequently. The Government therefore indicates the adoption of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1998, issued by the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health (SSMT), which, under section 1(1) of Regulation No. 1, 1.7(c), IV(d), allows workers’ representatives to accompany inspectors on visits related to the enforcement of legal and regulatory texts on occupational safety and health. In its report, the Government adds that this Order is applied throughout the entire territory.

The Committee observes that the Order cited (No. 03 of 7 February) was adopted in 1988, and not in 1998, and was published in the Official Journal of 10 March 1988. The Committee thus understands that the problems highlighted by the workers’ organizations did not arise from the absence of a regulation, but from the failure to apply and respect a regulation, both by the employers and, more seriously, by a representative of the Government. The Committee therefore urges the Government to supply information on the measures adopted or envisaged to guarantee, under the terms of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1988 of the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health, that workers’ representatives may accompany inspectors on their inspection visits related to the enforcement of occupational safety and health legislation and regulations, in application of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as well as information on the measures adopted in respect of the representatives of the state (the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour) to ensure respect both for national legislation and for the provisions of the Convention.

The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide all information relating to the measures adopted to resolve all the abovementioned problems raised by the workers’ organization.

The Committee is also addressing a request on a number of other questions relating to the application of the Convention directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the adoption of Interministerial Order No. 482 of 16 April 1999 approving the technical regulations and their annexes, the text of which was supplied with the report, on procedures for the installation and utilization of ethylene oxide gas and mixtures including the same gas in sterilization units. This text sets forth minimum technical specifications in respect of the physical dimensions of the installations and of environmental safety, as well as provisions on the responsibility of enterprises which produce, transport and use these products, on the obligation to employ duly trained and qualified technicians, and on medical examinations to be carried out on personnel intervening directly or indirectly in such processes.

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that in accordance with SIT Directive No. 5 of 18 October 1999, a technical study has recently been formed to study the legislation on occupational safety and health. This group has the task of updating the rural regulatory standards. The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the information given by the Government on the role played by the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) regarding occupational accidents. Recalling that similar references were made to information of the same kind in its previous direct request, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures that guarantee suitable alternative employment or maintenance of income through social security measures or otherwise, not only to workers who have suffered accidents but also to those workers whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be inadvisable.

Article 12. With reference to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government that besides the conclusion of collective agreements in certain sectors, through the adoption of Orders DNSST/SNT Nos. 3 and 7 of 1992 amending Regulation Standard No. 28 -- Supervision and Penalties -- the Government ensures that regional labour delegations are notified on the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve exposure of workers to the occupational hazards referred to in this provision. The Committee also notes Order No. 25 of 29 December 1994 approving the Regulatory Standard No. 9 on environmental risks, which inserts a new subsection to 5.16 of Regulatory Standard No. 5. It notes that these Orders contain provisions on procedures designed to correct irregularities observed during the visits by the labour inspection services, and on consultations which should take place during the elaboration of environmental risk prevention programmes. The Committee notes with regret that the information and the texts provided do not reply to the question raised under this Article of the Convention. Finally, the Committee recalls that in its previous comments it pointed out that control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Committee therefore requests the Government again to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the competent authorities are notified of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment. In addition the Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the collective agreements which give effect to this Article of the Convention in certain activities.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

In its earlier comments, the Committee had noted the observations communicated by the Trade Union of Workers in the Civil Construction Industry, supported by the Trade Union of Mine and Metallurgy Workers (SINDIMINA), the Trade Union of Clothing and Textile Industry Workers (SINDITEXTIL), the Trade Union of Water Industry Workers, the Trade Union of Bakers and Pastry Cooks, the Trade Union of Port Workers (SINDIPESE), the Trade Union of Security Company Workers and the Trade Union of Oil Workers (SINDIPETRO), all workers' organizations in the state of Sergipe, which alleged that the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour prohibits inspectors from being accompanied by workers' representatives. These comments appear to highlight the seriousness of the situation denounced in 1993 by the representatives of the workers' organizations, in that they indicate the existence of a policy on the part of the employers to prevent labour inspections, and the more so when the inspectors are accompanied by workers' representatives. This question was the object of a 1995 observation by the Committee. The Committee had noted, in its observation of 1997, the Government's reference to a draft standard instruction submitted to the National Labour Council, with a view to solving this problem. In its 1998 report the Government indicated that the "draft standard instruction" sent to the National Labour Council had been shelved on the grounds that the field covered by this regulation should be subject to collective bargaining and that the pertinent legislative measures would be adopted subsequently. The Government therefore indicates the adoption of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1998, issued by the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health (SSMT), which, under section 1(1) of Regulation No. 1, 1.7(c), IV(d), allows workers' representatives to accompany inspectors on visits related to the enforcement of legal and regulatory texts on occupational safety and health. In its report, the Government adds that this Order is applied throughout the entire territory.

The Committee observes that the Order cited (No. 03 of 7 February) was adopted in 1988, and not in 1998, and was published in the Official Journal of 10 March 1988. The Committee thus understands that the problems highlighted by the workers' organizations did not arise from the absence of a regulation, but from the failure to apply and respect a regulation, both by the employers and, more seriously, by a representative of the Government. The Committee therefore urges the Government to supply information on the measures adopted or envisaged to guarantee, under the terms of Order No. 03 of 7 February 1988 of the Secretariat of Occupational Safety and Health, that workers' representatives may accompany inspectors on their inspection visits related to the enforcement of occupational safety and health legislation and regulations, in application of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as well as information on the measures adopted in respect of the representatives of the state (the regional delegate of the Ministry of Labour) to ensure respect both for national legislation and for the provisions of the Convention.

With regard to the observations made by SINDIMARMORE of 23 February, 17 and 23 March 1999, the Committee refers the Government to its comments on the application of Convention No. 155.

The Committee is also addressing a request on a number of other questions directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Article 1, paragraph 1, and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for 1990 that the Urban Regulation Standard No. 15 (NR-15), made applicable to rural workers by NRR-1, did not cover all the hazards inherent in rural activities, particularly those resulting from the use of chemical substances. The Committee notes with interest the publication of the Rural Regulations Standards Nos. 1 to 5 in a document issued by the Ministry of Labour in 1993, in particular, Standard No. 5 (NRR-5) which sets forth general provisions concerning the use of chemical products in rural work. It further notes the Government's indication in its latest report that a working group will soon be established to revise the Rural Regulation Standards as regards the application of exposure limits to harmful chemical substances and with respect to new environmental agents posing occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise and vibration. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 3. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government in its report for 1990 on the various rehabilitation measures for the victims of industrial accidents. In its latest report, the Government refers to section 216 of Decree No. 611/92 which provides that, following rehabilitation, the Social Security Institute (INSS) will issue a certificate indicating the functions which the rehabilitated person is occupationally fit to carry out. The Government indicates that this section must be applied in cases of transfer of a worker from one post to another when advisable for medical reasons or in the event of an accident. The Committee would recall that this provision of the Convention concerns not only rehabilitated persons, but also workers for whom it is found that continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is medically inadvisable. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that every effort is made to provide such workers with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise.

Article 12. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's indication that prior notification must be made for work involving the use of ionizing radiation and ethylene oxide. The Committee pointed out that this Article of the Convention provided for the notification of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involved the exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise or vibration. The Government had indicated in its report for 1991 that the question of notification would be examined during the revision of the occupational health and safety legislation. In its latest report, the Government has indicated that the previously existing obligation to notify the use of certain substances were repealed by virtue of Act No. 7855 of 24 October 1989. The Committee must, therefore, reiterate that this provision of the Convention provides that the competent authority shall specify certain processes, substances, machinery and equipment, the use of which shall be notified so that the competent authority may authorize the use on prescribed conditions or prohibit it. Control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Government is, therefore, requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment, to be specified by the competent authority, must be notified.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

The Committee notes the observations communicated by the Trade Union of Workers in the Civil Construction Industry, supported by the Trade Union of Mine and Metallurgy Workers (SINDIMINA), the Trade Union of Clothing and Textile Industry Workers (SINDITEXTIL), the Trade Union of Water Industry Workers, the Trade Union of Bakers and Pastry Cooks, the Trade Union of Port Workers (SINPESE), the Trade Union of Security Company Workers and the Trade Union of Oil Workers (SINDIPETRO), which are all workers' organizations in the State of Sergipe. These organizations allege that the Regional Delegate of the Ministry of Labour prohibits inspectors from being accompanied by workers' representatives.

The Committee notes the Government's reply, according to which the allegations of the above-mentioned organizations are not based on any proof of irregularities whatsoever.

With reference to its previous comment, the Committee recalls the examination of the application of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, providing the opportunity for representatives of the employer and representatives of the workers of the undertaking to accompany inspectors supervising the application of the measures prescribed in pursuance of the Convention, following an observation communicated by the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO). On that occasion, the Government referred to a draft standard sent to members of the National Labour Council for discussion before its publication in the Official Gazette.

In the absence of new information on the follow up concerning this draft standard, the Committee requests the Government to supply a copy of the text once it is published along with all information on the application in practice of the right of workers' representatives to accompany inspectors supervising the application of the measures prescribed in pursuance of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

I. The Committee notes the communication from the Trade Union of Workers in the Construction Industry of the State of Sergipe, together with other trade unions from the same State, alleging that the representative of the Ministry of Labour inhibits the work of the labour inspectorate, resulting in a serious occupational accident in the port of Sergipe, caused by defects in the maintenance of machinery on a vessel. The lack of safety in the working conditions in the port is confirmed by the report of the inspection services, in accordance with which: (i) some operators work without personal protective equipment; (ii) port workers are not subject to a medical examination for admission to employment; (iii) certain operators engaged in loading operations do not receive adequate training.

The Committee notes the Government's detailed reply indicating that the competent administrative and judicial authorities are examining the facts in relation to this case, but that they have not yet reached any decision on them.

The Committee also refers to its observation on Convention No. 81. It requests the Government to indicate the measures which have been taken or are envisaged with a view to giving effect to the Convention in ports, and in particular the measures taken in the port of Sergipe to improve the situation, with particular reference to Article 10 in relation with Article 7, Article 11, paragraph 1 and Article 13 of the Convention.

II. Furthermore, the Committee recalls that its 1995 observation read as follows:

1. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the comments made by the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO) on the application of the Convention, which were received by the Office on 1 November 1993, and it requested the Government to supply detailed information in reply to these comments. The Committee notes the detailed reply provided by the Government in two communications received on 21 April and 25 October 1994.

In its comments, the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO) reported that in September 1993 the workers' representatives of SINDIPOLO and another trade union (SINDICONSTRUPOLO) had been invited to accompany two agents of the inspection service of the regional labour delegation (DTR) on their visit to the Copesul S/A-Companhia Petroquímica do Sul in order to check the occupational safety situation in the enterprise, particularly as regards noise, vibration and air pollution. They were not admitted onto the enterprise's land. They were only able to participate with the inspectors in their inspection visit the next day after the intervention of federal police officers. The SINDIPOLO alleges that such treatment of workers' representatives by the enterprise is in contravention of a series of provisions of the national legislation (section 1(7) of Regulatory Standard 01 of Ministerial Regulation No. 03 of 7 February 1988, Legislative Decree No. 56 of 9 October 1981 and Decree No. 93.413/86) and it constitutes non-observance of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as well as of Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

SINDIPOLO states that in a court action brought by Copesul S/A-Companhia petroquímica do sul against the regional labour delegate, the right to accompany the inspection officers of the DTR was not recognized for workers' representatives, who were considered to be alien persons, and section 1(7) of Regulatory Standard 01 of Regulation No. 03 of 7 February 1988 was considered to be a very doubtful provision. Finally, the judge's ruling abolished the supervisory mandate over occupational safety in respect of Copesul S/A-Companhia petroquímica do sul and restricted the access of inspectors to its territory. SINDIPOLO also states that similar judicial rulings had been handed down previously in similar cases.

In reply, the Government states that the facts described by SINDIPOLO are known to the Ministry, which adopts a similar position in this respect. As indicated by SINDIPOLO, workers' representatives had the right to accompany officers of the inspection service to control the observance of laws and regulations respecting occupational safety and medicine. However, judicial decisions which find against this right are binding on all parties (government, employers and workers) and will need to be appealed in due time, as was done. In order to find a solution to future situations and give statutory recognition to the important practice of inspection visits being accompanied by representatives of the enterprise as well as by the representative trade union of the workers at the workplace, a directive has been prepared and transmitted to all the members of the National Labour Council, who are to examine it within 90 days with a view to its publication in the Official Journal.

The Committee hopes that the above directive will make it possible to ensure that effect is given to Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the directive when it has been adopted, as well as any information on the application in practice of the right of workers' representatives to accompany inspectors when they supervise the application of the measures prescribed in pursuance of this Convention.

2. With regard to a number of other provisions of the Convention, the Committee refers to the comments that it made in the form of a request addressed directly to the Government in 1994.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

1. In its previous observation, the Committee noted the comments made by the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO) on the application of the Convention, which were received by the Office on 1 November 1993, and it requested the Government to supply detailed information in reply to these comments. The Committee notes the detailed reply provided by the Government in two communications received on 21 April and 25 October 1994.

In its comments, the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO) reported that in September 1993 the workers' representatives of SINDIPOLO and another trade union (SINDICONSTRUPOLO) had been invited to accompany two agents of the inspection service of the regional labour delegation (DTR) on their visit to the Copesul S/A-Companhia Petroquímica do Sul in order to check the occupational safety situation in the enterprise, particularly as regards noise, vibration and air pollution. They were not admitted onto the enterprise's land. They were only able to participate with the inspectors in their inspection visit the next day after the intervention of federal police officers. The SINDIPOLO alleges that such treatment of workers' representatives by the enterprise is in contravention of a series of provisions of the national legislation (section 1(7) of Regulatory Standard 01 of Ministerial Regulation No. 03 of 7 February 1988, Legislative Decree No. 56 of 9 October 1981 and Decree No. 93.413/86) and it constitutes non-observance of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as well as of Article 3 of the Workers' Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135).

SINDIPOLO states that in a court action brought by Copesul S/A-Companhia petroquímica do sul against the regional labour delegate, the right to accompany the inspection officers of the DTR was not recognized for workers' representatives, who were considered to be alien persons, and section 1(7) of Regulatory Standard 01 of Regulation No. 03 of 7 February 1988 was considered to be a very doubtful provision. Finally, the judge's ruling abolished the supervisory mandate over occupational safety in respect of Copesul S/A-Companhia petroquímica do sul and restricted the access of inspectors to its territory. SINDIPOLO also states that similar judicial rulings had been handed down previously in similar cases.

In reply, the Government states that the facts described by SINDIPOLO are known to the Ministry, which adopts a similar position in this respect. As indicated by SINDIPOLO, workers' representatives had the right to accompany officers of the inspection service to control the observance of laws and regulations respecting occupational safety and medicine. However, judicial decisions which find against this right are binding on all parties (government, employers and workers) and will need to be appealed in due time, as was done. In order to find a solution to future situations and give statutory recognition to the important practice of inspection visits being accompanied by representatives of the enterprise as well as by the representative trade union of the workers at the workplace, a directive has been prepared and transmitted to all the members of the National Labour Council, who are to examine it within 90 days with a view to its publication in the Official Journal.

The Committee hopes that the above directive will make it possible to ensure that effect is given to Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the directive when it has been adopted, as well as any information on the application in practice of the right of workers' representatives to accompany inspectors when they supervise the application of the measures prescribed in pursuance of this Convention.

2. With regard to a number of other provisions of the Convention, the Committee refers to the comments that it made in the form of a request addressed directly to the Government in 1994.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government's latest report and requests the Government to provide further information on the following points:

Article 1, paragraph 1 and Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's indication in its report for 1990 that the Urban Regulation Standard No. 15 (NR-15), made applicable to rural workers by NRR-1, did not cover all the hazards inherent in rural activities, particularly those resulting from the use of chemical substances. The Committee notes with interest the publication of the Rural Regulations Standards Nos. 1 to 5 in a document issued by the Ministry of Labour in 1993, in particular, Standard No. 5 (NRR-5) which sets forth general provisions concerning the use of chemical products in rural work. It further notes the Government's indication in its latest report that a working group will soon be established to revise the Rural Regulation Standards as regards the application of exposure limits to harmful chemical substances and with respect to new environmental agents posing occupational hazards due to air pollution, noise and vibration. The Government is requested to indicate, in its next report, the progress made in this regard.

Article 11, paragraph 3. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government in its report for 1990 on the various rehabilitation measures for the victims of industrial accidents. In its latest report, the Government refers to section 216 of Decree No. 611/92 which provides that, following rehabilitation, the Social Security Institute (INSS) will issue a certificate indicating the functions which the rehabilitated person is occupationally fit to carry out. The Government indicates that this section must be applied in cases of transfer of a worker from one post to another when advisable for medical reasons or in the event of an accident. The Committee would recall that this provision of the Convention concerns not only rehabilitated persons, but also workers for whom it is found that continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is medically inadvisable. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that every effort is made to provide such workers with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise.

Article 12. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's indication that prior notification must be made for work involving the use of ionizing radiation and ethylene oxide. The Committee pointed out that this Article of the Convention provided for the notification of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involved the exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise or vibration. The Government had indicated in its report for 1991 that the question of notification would be examined during the revision of the occupational health and safety legislation. In its latest report, the Government has indicated that the previously existing obligations to notify the use of certain substances were repealed by virtue of Act No. 7855 of 24 October 1989. The Committee must, therefore, reiterate that this provision of the Convention provides that the competent authority shall specify certain processes, substances, machinery and equipment the use of which shall be notified so that the competent authority may authorize the use on prescribed conditions or prohibit it. Control over the use of certain processes, substances, etc., necessary for the adequate protection of workers against the hazards due to air pollution, noise or vibration would be difficult to ensure without a corresponding obligation upon the employer to notify such use. The Government is, therefore, requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment, to be specified by the competent authority, must be notified.

Point IV of the report form. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the Government's statement that the statistics available were not sufficient to give a picture of the practical application of the Convention. In its latest report, the Government indicates that the federal labour inspection system is being set up at the level of regional labour delegations in all states and that, in the future, they will submit reports of the inspection services and on the practical measures relating to the application of the Convention. The Government is again requested to supply information concerning the practical application of the Convention, including relevant extracts from inspection reports and any statistics available with respect to the number of infractions of the relevant legislation and any sanctions imposed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee has noted the information provided in the Government's report received by the Office on 5 January 1994. It further notes the comments made by the Trade Union of Chemical and Petrochemical Industry Workers (SINDIPOLO) received by the Office on 1 November 1993 and hopes the Government will supply detailed information in reply to SINDIPOLO's comments for examination at its next session.

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

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1994.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It notes in particular that Decree No. 3223 of 29 July 1989 to revise the occupational health and safety legislation established working groups to examine and revise the law, including the regulations applicable to rural workers. According to the information supplied by the Government, the work carried out at the state level has been submitted for analysis to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any progress made in this regard.

Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Further to its previous comments on the application of the Convention to rural workers, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the criteria for determining the exposure risk to air pollution, noise and vibration in rural work are established by Rural Regulation No. 1, approved by Decree No. 3067 of 12 April 1988; this Regulation refers to Regulation No. 15, approved by Decree No. 3214 of 8 June 1978. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that Regulation No. 15 does not cover all the hazards inherent in rural activities, and particularly those resulting from the use of chemical substances in the rural environment. It adds that, on the occasion of the revision of the Rural Regulations, the relevant provisions will be expanded to cover this aspect.

The Committee hopes that the changes that are under way will take due account of the requirements of the Convention in respect of rural workers and requests the Government to supply the text of the amended provisions when they have been adopted.

Article 8, paragraph 3. The Committee referred in its previous comments to the increase in occupational hazards resulting from simultaneous exposure to several harmful factors at the workplace. It notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that this issue has been taken into account by the experts in their current revision, which covers Regulation No. 15. The Committee requests the Government to supply the text of the relevant provisions when they have been adopted.

The Committee also noted in its previous direct request that Order No. 3067 of 12 April 1988, to approve regulations respecting occupational safety and health for rural workers, does not establish criteria for the definition of the exposure risks to air pollution, noise and vibration.

The Committee hopes that criteria for the determination of exposure risks have been provided for in the above-mentioned texts that are currently under revision.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the regulations adopted pursuant to the Consolidation of Labour Laws to establish exposure limits and other measures necessary for the application of the Convention, do not specifically apply to rural workers.

The Committee hopes that the revision work that is currently under way will specifically supplement the legislation respecting rural work as regards the application of exposure limits for air pollution, noise and vibration.

Article 11, paragraph 3. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the various rehabilitation measures for the victims of industrial accidents. The Government also cites section 300 of the Consolidation of Labour Laws, which provides for the transfer for health reasons of an employee engaged in work underground to work on the surface. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures that have been taken to provide for the transfer of a worker, irrespective of the sector of activity, to another job where continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is found to be medically inadvisable, and not only in the event of an accident.

Article 12. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous direct request. It notes the provisions referred to by the Government covering the various authorisations and approval that are necessary concerning installations. The Government also refers to the obligation to provide prior notification in two cases (ionising radiation and ethylene oxide). The Committee notes the Government's statement that there are no other obligations to provide notification in the sense of the Convention, but that this question will be examined during the revision of the occupational health and safety legislation.

The Committee wishes to point out that the Convention establishes the obligation to provide notification of the use of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which involve the exposure of workers to occupational hazards in the working environment due to air pollution, noise or vibration at the workplace. The Committee hopes that this point has been duly taken into account in the current revision and requests the Government to supply the relevant texts when they have been adopted.

2. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the available statistics are not sufficient to give a picture of the extent to which the Convention is given effect in practice.

The Committee requests the Government to supply documents such as extracts from the reports of the inspection services or to indicate other practical measures relating to the application of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's reports. It requests the Government to provide further clarifications in its next report on the following points:

Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest the adoption of Order No. 3067 of 12 April 1988 which approves regulations concerning occupational safety for rural workers. It further notes that this Order prescribes the type of protective equipment which shall be provided to rural workers, as well as preventive measures to be taken concerning the hazards created by chemical substances in the workplace. The Order No. 3067 does not, however, fix exposure limits to air pollution, noise and vibration as required by Article 8. The Committee had noted in its previous direct request that section 4 of Decree No. 73626 of 12 February 1974 provided only for the application of specific sections of the Consolidation of Labour Laws to rural workers and that the provisions on safety and health were not contained in these sections. The Committee observes that the regulations adopted pursuant to the Consolidation of Labour Laws which establish exposure limits and other measures necessary to the application of the Convention are not specifically applicable to rural workers. It understands, however, that article 7 of the Brazilian Constitution provides that rural workers shall have the same rights as urban workers. The Government is requested to indicate the provision which specifically applies the above-mentioned regulations to rural workers or, if no such provision exists, the specific measures taken to ensure that exposure limits concerning air pollution, noise and vibration are specified for rural work.

Article 8, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that any increase in occupational hazards resulting from simultaneous exposure to several harmful factors at the workplace will be taken into account on the occasion of any revision of the standards set out in Regulation NR 15. It requests the Government to indicate whether this revision has occurred and, if so, how consideration for hazards resulting from simultaneous exposure has affected the revision of exposure limits.

Article 11, paragraph 3. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its latest report concerning the provision of financial assistance from the social welfare system for workers during rehabilitation. The Committee would recall, however, that this provision of the Convention also refers to efforts to be made to provide the worker, whose continued assignment to work involving exposure to air pollution, noise and vibration is medically inadvisable, with suitable alternative employment. In its report dated 21 December 1988, referring to Regulations NR 7, 9, 16 and 28, the Government has stated that workers who are medically unfit for such work have a right to be moved out of the sector in question. The Committee notes that section 7.3.4.2 of NR 7 provides that, upon medical examination, a worker who is found to have been exposed to excessive levels of chemical agents shall immediately stop work involving such exposure. It notes, however, that these Regulations do not provide for alternative work situations to be made available under such circumstances. It requests the Government, therefore, to indicate the measures taken to promote alternative work situations when continued assignment involving exposure to air pollution, noise or vibration is inadvisable.

Article 12. The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's report concerning the inspection of equipment generally. It would recall, however, that this Article refers to the notification of processes, substances, machinery and equipment which shall be specified by the competent authority. It, therefore, requests the Government to indicate which processes, substances, machinery and equipment must be notified to the regional authorities on occupational safety and medicine before they may be used in an undertaking.

2. As the Government has not yet supplied detailed information on the practical application of the Convention, the Committee once again requests the Government to supply with its next report extracts from inspection service reports and any available statistics, in conformity with point IV of the report form.