Observación (CEACR) - Adopción: 2002, Publicación: 91ª reunión CIT (2003)

Convenio sobre el medio ambiente de trabajo (contaminación del aire, ruido y vibraciones), 1977 (núm. 148) - Brasil (Ratificación : 1982)

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.]