Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine the application of Conventions Nos 13 (white lead), 115 (radiation), 127 (maximum weight), 136 (benzene), 161 (occupational health services), 162 (asbestos) and 187 (promotional framework for occupational safety and health) in a single comment.

Application in practice of Conventions Nos 13, 115, 127, 136, 161, 162 and 187. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health, including the number, nature and cause of the occupational accidents and diseases notified, as well as information on the inspection activities carried out, including the number of investigations and inspections conducted and the number of violations detected and penalties imposed.

A.General provisions

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Article 4(1) and (2) of the Convention. National occupational safety and health system. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes with regret that the regulations to determine activities and work that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours still have not been adopted and the Government has not provided information on the tripartite consultations undertaken in this respect. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication in its report that, on 5 August 2021, a Consultative Council on occupational safety and health was established with representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations. While recalling the importance of periodically reviewing the components of the national system, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, the Committee once again requests the Government toprovide a copy of the regulations determining the activities and work that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours, as soon as it is adopted following full tripartite consultations in the Consultative Council on occupational safety and health. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the tripartite consultations undertaken in this respect.

Article 2(3). Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant ILO Conventions on occupational safety and health.While noting the information provided by the Government on the process initiated with a view to ratifying the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176), the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the consideration given to the ratification of the relevant Conventions on occupational safety and health, including Convention No. 176. It also requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in this regard, including in the context of the Consultative Council on occupational safety and health.

Article 3. Formulation of a national policy in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy. It also notes that, according to Decree No. 47 of 2016 establishing the national occupational safety and health policy, the commitments for its implementation include the promotion of a participatory and tripartite analysis of the different issues concerning occupational safety and health, with a view to bringing the existing regulatory framework into line with the principles, objectives and commitments of the national policy (section VI(A)(2)). The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy, in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers.

Article 5. National programme. The Committee notes that Special Decree No. 31 of 2018 approved the national occupational safety and health programme for the period 2018-20 (section 1). According to the information available, the objectives of the national programme for the period 2018-20 included the development and promotion of a national culture of prevention on occupational safety and health, incorporating the prevention of occupational risks and the promotion of health in education, training and skills. The Committee also notes the adoption of the national plan on occupational safety and health for 2019, the objectives of which included the consolidation of the preventive advice model in workplaces and the strengthening of training processes as a key tool for promoting occupational safety and health. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any assessment carried out regarding the national plan for the period 2018-2020 and the plan for 2019 in consultation with themost representative organizations of employers and workers, and on the manner in which this assessment contributes to the development of the national programme for the subsequent period. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure the formulation, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and periodic review of the new national programme for the subsequent period in consultation with the mostrepresentative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific features of teaching work in the framework of the national programme. It also requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that the national programme is widely publicized and, to the extent possible, endorsed and launched by the highest national authorities, in compliance with Article 5(3) of the Convention.

B.Protection against specific risks

Radiation Protection Convention, 1960 (No. 115)

Articles 1, 3 and 6 of the Convention. Appropriate steps to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations, in the light of current knowledge. Review of the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, by means of technical protection standards, establishes the limits for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation that are in line with the exposure limits recommended by international bodies. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the dose limits established in the Safety Standard on basic criteria for radiation protection NS-02.0 of 2018 (points 1.2.1 and 1.2.3) and the Safety Standard on safety requirements for gammagraphy and industrial radiography facilities NS-05.0 of 2021 (point 1.3.2, 5) and 7)): (i) in relation to the dose limits for the occupational exposure of exposed workers: (a) an effective dose of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years and 50 mSv in any one year; (b) an equivalent dose for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv per year averaged over five consecutive years and 50 mSv in any one year; and (c) an equivalent dose for the hands and feet or skin of 500 mSv per year; and (ii) in relation to higher education students and staff trainees whose training involves exposure to radiation: (a) an effective dose of 6 mSv per year; (b) an equivalent dose for the lens of the eye of 20 mSv per year; and (c) an equivalent dose to the hands and feet or skin of 150 mSv per year.

Furthermore, with regard to protection measures against ionizing radiation, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in 2007, the Chilean Institute of Public Health established a personal radiological monitoring programme that detects doses exceeding the limits established in the Safety Standards, which are communicated for investigation to the employer, the worker and the competent authority, with the aim of identifying the cause and taking health measures. The Government adds that, in 2010, a quality assurance programme for personal dosimetry services was established to monitor and maintain the quality of risk assessments of exposure doses received by workers. The Government also indicates that, since 2018, the national registration of doses carried out by authorized personal dosimetry services has allowed for effective epidemiological evaluations to be conducted to support the development of measures and regulations on radiological protection. Lastly, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the dose limits for workers exposed to ionizing radiation established in Decree No. 3 of 1985 are currently being updated in accordance with the recommendations of international bodies. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the updating of Decree No. 3 of 1985, and to provide a copy of the new Decree once it has been adopted. It also requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in this respect, including the most representative organizations of employers and workers consulted and the outcome of the consultations.

Article 2. Application of the Convention to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionizing radiations in the course of their work. 1. Emergency workers. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, according to which the revision of Decree No. 3 of 1985 that is currently underway incorporates the ionizing radiation limits for workers who intervene in emergency situations. Referring to paragraphs 36 and 37 of its General Observation of 2015 on Convention No. 115, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to define the circumstances that constitute an emergency situation, and to ensure that the reference levels selected are within, or if possible, below the20–100 mSv band, and that no emergency worker is subject to an exposure in an emergency in excess of 50 mSv.

2. Overexposure of workers to ionizing radiationduring the maintenance of radioactive facilities. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 17 of Decree No. 3 of 1985, which establishes that, in situations in which it is necessary to overexpose a person to radioactive contamination, such as during the maintenance of radioactive facilities, express authorization must be granted by the Director of the Health Service, who shall set the limits of the doses that may be received in such situations. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, the Convention applies to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionizing radiation in the course of their work. Referring to paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of its General Observation of 2015 on Convention No. 115, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted, in the context of the revision and updating of Decree No. 3 of 1985, to ensure that workers carrying out maintenance work on radioactive facilities are within the dose limits recommended for occupational exposure. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that the overexposure of workers to ionizing radiation only occurs in emergency situations.

Article 6.Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiation for pregnant or breastfeeding workers. With regard to the protection of pregnant or breastfeeding workers, the Committee notes that the Safety Standard on basic criteria for radiation protection NS-02.0 and the Safety Standard on safety requirements for gammagraphy and industrial radiography facilities NS-05.0 do not stipulate the ionizing radiation limit for pregnant or breastfeeding workers. It also notes that section 14 of Decree No. 3 of 1985 approving the regulations on radiological protection in radioactive facilities, provides for a level of protection of 0.5 rem equivalent to 5 mSv. The Committee recalls that, in its General Observation on Convention No. 115, it considers that the methods of protection at work for women who are pregnant should provide a level of protection for the embryo/foetus broadly similar to that provided for members of the public, which is equivalent to an annual effective dose limit of 1 mSv. Furthermore, in order to ensure the same level of protection for breastfed infants, the same principle should be applied to breastfeeding workers (paragraph 33). While noting the information provided by the Government on the process to revise and update Decree No. 3 of 1985, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure a level of protection for pregnant or breastfeeding workers equivalent to 1 mSv.

Article 8. Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government refers to the radiation exposure limits for the public established in point 1.2.2 of the Safety Standard on the basic criteria for radiation protection, and in point 1.3.2.6 of the Safety Standard on safety requirements for gammagraphy and industrial radiography facilities. The Committee observes that the above-mentioned Safety Standards do not provide for the application of the limits applicable to the public to workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. Referring to paragraph 35 of its General Observation on Convention No. 115, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the dose limits established for the public apply to workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work and, if not, to specify the limits established for this category of workers.

Benzene Convention, 1971 (No. 136)

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure to benzene. With regard to its previous comments, the Committee notes that Supreme Decree No. 594 of 1999, approving the basic sanitary and environmental conditions for workplaces, has been amended twice since 2016 through Decree No. 30 of 2018 and Decree No. 10 of 2019.

The Committee notes with regret that, despite the amendments, particularly under Decree No. 30 of 2018, which amended, inter alia, section 66 of Supreme Decree No. 594 of 1999 on the permissible limits for chemical substances, the current occupational exposure limits for benzene (1 ppm (time-weighted) and 5 ppm (short-term) are still considerably higher than the limits recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) (0.5 ppm (time-weighted) and 2.5 ppm (short-term)). While noting the Government’s indication that the lowering of occupational exposure limits for benzene is being examined, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in this respect.

Article 7. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the repeal of Supreme Decree No. 90 of 1996 approving the safety regulations for the storage, refining, transport and sale to the public of petroleum-derived liquid fuels and the continuing applicability of Supreme Decree No. 160 of 2008 approving the safety regulations for facilities and operations for production and refining, transport, storage, distribution and supply of liquid fuels. The Committee notes that Supreme Decree No. 160 of 2008 establishes the provision of enclosed safety systems for the control of spills from tanks containing liquid fuels (sections 66 and 78), as well as for drainage (section 170) and the delivery of liquid fuels to supply units (section 259(f)). The Committee also notes that, according to section 69 of Supreme Decree No. 160 of 2008, as an alternative means to the enclosed safety systems, systems for conducting liquid fuel spills to remote locations may be used, in accordance with the requirements established in the above-mentioned section 69. The Committee takes note of this information.

Article 14. Application of the Convention. The Committee notes the information contained in the 2018 descriptive study provided by the Government entitled “The exposure of fuel station workers to volatile organic compounds, such as benzene, toluene and xylene”, conducted by the Chilean Institute of Public Health, which reports a decrease in benzene exposure of fuel station workers due to the installation of vapour recovery systems and the automation of dispensing machines. The Committee also notes that the Government’s indication that, as of June 2022, some 158 workers were under surveillance for exposure to benzene, which is 130 more than in 2016. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information in relation to the monitoring of workers exposed to benzene.

Asbestos Convention, 1986 (No. 162)

Article 14 of the Convention. Requirement of labelling. Further to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reference in its report to Chilean Standard No. 2245 of 2003, which establishes the required content of safety data sheets for chemical substances. In this regard, the Committee notes that under Chilean Standard No. 2245 of 2003, the supplier shall provide a safety data sheet giving details of the chemical substance and the supplier (point 5(b)); identification and categorization of risks (point 7(3)); and a general description of the chemical substance, allowing it to be easily identified in the event of an emergency (point 7(4)). This information must be drafted clearly and concisely in Spanish (point 5(5)). The Committee also notes the provisions of Chilean Standard No. 2190 of 2003 on badges for risk identification in transport of hazardous substances. It particularly notes the requirement that labels, marks and placards must include information on the risks of the hazardous substances listed in points 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the abovementioned Chilean Standard. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article 17(3). Consultation of workers or their representatives on the workplan. In reply to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, according to paragraph 12.3 of the “Guide for the formulation of a workplan for material containing asbestos (MCA)” workers undertaking work with materials containing asbestos must obligatorily receive training before the beginning of the work in the following areas: health risks and preventive measures; work procedures; personal protective equipment; environmental monitoring and workers’ health programme; handling and elimination of residues, and others.

The Committee notes that the Guide and Instructions on how to request authorization to undertake work with materials containing asbestos (MCA) do not include provisions relative to consultations with the workers and their representatives regarding the workplan. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted to ensure that consultations are held with the workers or their representatives on the workplan, in conformity with Article 17(3) of the Convention.

Article 18(3). Prohibition of taking home work clothing and special protective clothing. Further to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 27 of Supreme Decree No. 594 of 1999, which establishes that the employer shall wash the work clothes and adopt measures to prevent workers from taking work clothes out of the workplace. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article 20(1). Measurement and monitoring by the employer. In response to its earlier comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the methods of measuring the concentration of airborne suspensions of asbestos dust in workplaces and of monitoring workers’ exposure to asbestos. In particular, it notes: (i) the Protocol for determining the airborne concentration of asbestos fibres, in work environments, which is based on the phase-contrast microscopy (PCM) method, approved by Special Resolution No. 29 of 2013; (ii) the Protocol for the sampling of material that contains or may contain asbestos in the workplace, approved by Special Resolution No. 2357 of 2021; and (iii) the Handbook for the elaboration of a workplan for friable and non-friable material containing asbestos. The Committee notes that the Handbook stipulates that the workplan must include a sampling programme for workers and the environment (paragraph 4.2.8), workers must have proof that they are following a health monitoring programme for exposure to asbestos, as well as the result of their latest health check-up, in accordance with a Ministry of Health protocol (paragraph 4.2.13). The Committee requests the Government to indicate at what intervals measurement and monitoring is conducted, in conformity with Article 20(1) of the Convention.

Article 20(2). Period for which records must be kept. Regarding its earlier comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the results of the measurements and monitoring of the work environment and the exposure of workers must be kept by the mutual societies in original format, and may be microfilmed or digitalized, as provided under section 2 of Decree No. 2412 of 1978, establishing rules on recovery and updating of individual accounts and registers. The Government also indicates that, within the framework of the National Occupational Safety and Health Information System, administrative bodies and enterprises with delegated administration must submit information on monitoring programmes. The system is at the phase of technological development. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the manner in which it ensures that records of monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers to asbestos are kept, and also on progress achieved in submitting information on monitoring programmes by administrative bodies and enterprises with delegated administration within the framework of the National Occupational Safety and Health Monitoring System. It also requests the Government to indicate the period during which records of monitoring must be kept, in conformity with Article 20(2) of the Convention.

Article 20(3). Access to the records by the workers, their representatives, and the inspection services. In response to its previous comments, the Committee indicates that, according to section 24 of Decree No. 54 of 1969, approving the Regulations for the constitution and operation of the joint health and safety committees, the committees may request the environmental monitoring reports from the employer. The Government also indicates that, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of the Compendium of Social Security Rules for Employment Accidents and Work-related Diseases, administrative bodies and enterprises with delegated administration shall inform the workers of the results of health monitoring examinations, adopting safeguards for the protection of sensitive data, in compliance with the legislation in force. The Committee takes note of this information, which addresses its previous request.

Article 20(4).Right to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, by virtue of section 24 of Decree No. 54 of 1969, the joint safety and health committees may, if they deem it necessary, request the employer to conduct environmental evaluations. These committees may also receive and consider suggestions from the workers on situations they observe in workplaces.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that workers and their representative organizations may seek recourse to the competent authorities, in case of disagreement in respect of the quality of the prevention activities undertaken by the administrative bodies, including evaluations conducted by the latter in the context of monitoring programmes, and may report failure to respect risk-prevention procedures by the employer to the competent authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of Article 20(4) of the Convention with regard to monitoring of the working environment requested by the workers of their representatives.

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

Article 4(1) and (2) of the Convention. National occupational safety and health (OSH) system. The Committee recalls that the Governing Body approved, in March 2016, the report of the committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Chile of Convention No. 187, made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the College of Teachers of Chile AG (GB.326/INS/15/6). Subsequently, in November 2016, the College of Teachers of Chile AG made a second representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, in which it alleged non-observance by Chile of the recommendations relating to several issues raised in the previous representation. In March 2017, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, found that the second representation was receivable. It postponed the decision to appoint a tripartite committee to examine the new representation and invited this Committee to examine the allegations contained in the latest communication from the College of Teachers of Chile AG, in the context of the follow-up given to the recommendations relating to the previous representation (GB.329/INS/21/3).

In the Committee’s subsequent examination, it noted that, in the latest representation, the College of Teachers of Chile AG alleged that: (a) the Government had not implemented the recommendations of the tripartite committee relating to the previous representation, as it had not determined the time to be allocated for teacher appraisals in consultation with the College of Teachers of Chile AG, and Act No. 20903 of 2016 (Teaching Careers Act) did not indicate the number of non-teaching hours to be allocated to teachers for appraisals, or where they are to be undertaken; and (b) the hours spent on appraisals constitute additional, unpaid and mandatory work, which is therefore damaging to the occupational health of teachers. It also noted the Government’s indication that: (1) with respect to the alleged lack of consultations, the College of Teachers of Chile AG participated directly in the formulation of the teacher appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act; (2) with respect to the time required to carry out appraisals, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic had determined in repeated opinions that this type of appraisal was a non-teaching activity, and must be carried out within working hours and that work performed outside of working hours shall be paid as overtime; and (3) as appraisals are a mandatory process for teaching professionals in educational establishments that are dependent on municipal authorities, the parties are required to agree on, in the employment contracts as non-teaching curricula, the hours to be spent on this appraisal process. The Government indicated that it was in the process of developing regulations to determine more specifically the work and activities that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours, in accordance with section 6 of the Teachers’ Statute, as amended by the Teaching Careers Act.

The Committee recalls that in June 2018 and October 2020, the Governing Body postponed once again the appointment of a committee charged with examining the new representation pending examination by this Committee (GB.333/INS/8/1, June 2018 and GB.340/INS/19/9, October 2020).

The Committee recalls that, in its previous comments, it requested the Government to provide information on the consultations held on the development of the teaching appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act, and on the progress made in the formulation of regulations to determine non-teaching curricular hours.

In this regard, the Committee takes due note of the Government's indication in its report that the College of Teachers of Chile AG has participated directly and actively in the study and development of the process of evaluation and professional development of teachers and that it has been heard and received in all instances of the legislative process, as can be seen from the reports of the education committees and the two parliamentary chambers.

In addition, the Government indicates that in accordance with section 69 of the Teachers’ Statute, as amended by the Teaching Careers Act, teaching hours have been reduced to increase non-teaching working hours. Accordingly, since the 2019 school year, only 28 hours and 30 minutes of the 44 hours of work per week can be dedicated to teaching (65 per cent of working hours, in comparison with 75 per cent prior to the change). The Committee notes the document communicated by the Government entitled "Increase in non-teaching working hours, an opportunity for the professional development of teachers", published in 2019 by the Ministry of Education. The Government indicates that this document provides guidance on the use of non-teaching working hours for professional development activities and guides the management of institutions on managing the reduction in teaching hours. This document also shows the distribution between teaching hours, non-teaching hours and rest. Finally, the Committee notes that the regulations to determine the work and activities that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours are at the last stage of their preparation and are being examined for their finalization. The Committee welcomes the information communicated by the Government as well as the measures taken to give effect to the recommendations made in the context of the representation presented by the College of Teachers of Chile AG. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the regulations to determine activities and work that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours as soon as it is adopted following full tripartite consultations and to continue to provide information on the tripartite consultations carried out in this regard.

In addition, the Committee recalls that it intends to examine, in the context of the regular reporting cycle (2022), the following matters raised in its comments made in 2016, and hopes that the Government will provide full information in this regard.

Article 2(3). Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in relation to the measures that could be taken for the ratification of the relevant ILO Conventions on OSH.

Article 3. Formulation of a national policy in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy.

Article 5. National programme. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the formulation of the national programme and the consideration given to the specific features of teaching work in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Follow-up to the decision of the Governing Body (representation made under article 24 of the Constitution of the ILO)

Article 4(1) and (2) of the Convention. National OSH system. The Committee recalls that the Governing Body approved, in March 2016, the report of the committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Chile of Convention No. 187, made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the College of Teachers of Chile AG (GB.326/INS/15/6). Subsequently, in November 2016, the College of Teachers of Chile AG made a second representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, in which it alleged non-observance by Chile of the recommendations relating to several issues raised in the previous representation. In March 2017, the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, found that the second representation was receivable. It postponed the decision to appoint a tripartite committee to examine the new representation and invited this Committee to examine the allegations contained in the latest communication from the College of Teachers of Chile AG, in the context of the follow-up given to the recommendations relating to the previous representation (GB.329/INS/21/3).

In the Committee’s subsequent examination, it noted that, in the latest representation, the College of Teachers of Chile AG alleged that: (a) the Government had not implemented the recommendations of the tripartite committee relating to the previous representation, as it had not determined the time to be allocated for teacher appraisals in consultation with the College of Teachers of Chile AG, and Act No. 20903 of 2016 (Teaching Careers Act) did not indicate the number of non-teaching hours to be allocated to teachers for appraisals, or where they are to be undertaken; and (b) the hours spent on appraisals constitute additional, unpaid and mandatory work, which is therefore damaging to the occupational health of teachers. It also noted the Government’s indication that: (1) with respect to the alleged lack of consultations, the College of Teachers of Chile AG participated directly in the formulation of the teacher appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act; (2) with respect to the time required to carry out appraisals, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic had determined in repeated opinions that this type of appraisal was a non-teaching activity, and must be carried out within working hours and that work performed outside of working hours shall be paid as overtime; and (3) as appraisals are a mandatory process for teaching professionals in educational establishments that are dependent on municipal authorities, the parties are required to agree on, in the employment contracts as non-teaching curricula, the hours to be spent on this appraisal process. The Government indicated that it was in the process of developing regulations to determine more specifically the work and activities that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours, in accordance with section 6 of the Teachers’ Statute, as amended by the Teaching Careers Act. The Committee requested information on the consultations held on the development of the teaching appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act, and on the progress made in the formulation of regulations to determine non-teaching curricular hours.

The Committee notes that in June 2018, the Governing Body postponed once again the appointment of a committee charged with examining the new representation pending further examination by this Committee, and invited the Committee to examine the application of Convention No. 187 at its 2019 session (GB.333/INS/8/1, June 2018).

The Committee notes in this respect the Government’s indication in its report that it has made a formal consultation with the Ministry of Education and the Social Security Undersecretariat with a view to getting background information regarding the representation made under article 24. The Government states that it will provide this information once received. The Committee requests the Government to provide this up-to-date information once available, particularly on the consultations held on the development of the teaching appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act, and on the progress made in the formulation of regulations to determine non-teaching curricular hours, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.

In addition, the Committee recalls that it intends to examine, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, the following matters raised in its comments made in 2016, and hopes that the Government will provide full information in this regard.

Article 2(3). Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in relation to the measures that could be taken for the ratification of the relevant ILO Conventions on OSH.

Article 3. Formulation of a national policy in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy.

Article 5. National programme. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the formulation of the national programme and the consideration given to the specific features of teaching work in this regard.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]

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

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 161 (occupational health services) and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) together.

Convention No. 161: Occupational health services

In relation to its previous comment, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government with respect to Articles 2 and 4 (national policy and consultation), 5(a), (b), (f) and (h) (certain functions of the occupational safety and health services), 8 (cooperation between the employer, workers and their representatives) and 10 (professional independence) of the Convention, as well as the application in practice of the Conventions (court cases).

Convention No. 187: Promotional framework for OSH

The Committee intends to examine, in the context of the regular reporting cycle, the following matters raised in its comments made in 2016, and hopes that the Government will provide full information in this regard.

Article 2(3) of the Convention. Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in relation to the measures that could be taken for the ratification of the relevant ILO Conventions on OSH.

Article 3. Formulation of a national policy in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy.

Article 5. National programme. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the formulation of the national programme and the consideration given to the specific features of teaching work in this regard.

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

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on occupational safety and health (OSH), the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 161 (occupational health services) and 187 (promotional framework for OSH) together.

Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161)

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. National policy and consultation. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the formulation and implementation of a coherent national policy on occupational health services and the consultations held in this regard. The Committee notes with interest the Government’s indication that the national OSH policy (Supreme Decree No. 47 of 4 August 2016) has a component on occupational health services which establishes the fundamental principles for the operation of the administrative bodies responsible for providing social security for employment accidents and occupational diseases. The OSH policy was developed in three stages, during which consultations were held at the national and regional levels, with the participation of representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations.

Article 5(b) and (f). Surveillance of workers’ health and the factors in the working environment and working practices which may affect workers’ health. Silica. The Committee recalls that for several years it has been requesting the Government to take measures to ensure the surveillance of workers’ health and factors in the working environment where workers are exposed to silica. The Committee notes with interest the approval of the Protocol on the surveillance of the working environment and the health of workers exposed to silica (Resolution No. 268 of 2015) and Circulars Nos 2706, 2893, 2971 and 3064 of 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014 of the Social Security Supervisory Authority which instruct the employers’ insurance funds and the Occupational Safety Institute to develop programmes for the surveillance of the working environment and the health of workers exposed to silica. The purpose of the Protocol is to reduce the incidence and prevalence of silicosis, through guidelines for the development, application and supervision of programmes for the epidemiological surveillance of the health of workers exposed to silica and the environments in which they work. The guiding principles and strategic objectives of the National Silicosis Eradication Plan (PLANESI) must be taken into account, with the aim of increasing the number of persons monitored and improving the efficiency and timeliness of control measures in workplaces, to prevent the deterioration of workers’ health, and develop procedures for the early detection of silicosis in workers.

Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187)

Follow-up to the decision of the Governing Body (representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution)

The Committee recalls that the Governing Body approved, in March 2016, the report of the committee set up to examine the representation alleging non-observance by Chile of Convention No. 187, made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the College of Teachers of Chile AG (GB.326/INS/15/6). The Committee notes that the College of Teachers of Chile AG made a second representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, in which it alleges non-observance by Chile of the recommendations relating to several issues raised in the previous representation. In this regard, the Committee notes that in March 2017 the Governing Body, on the recommendation of its Officers, found that the second representation was receivable and invited the Committee to examine the allegations contained in the latest communication from the College of Teachers of Chile AG, in the context of the follow-up given to the recommendations relating to the previous representation at its session in November–December 2017. In this regard, the Committee also notes that the Governing Body postponed the decision to appoint a tripartite committee to examine the new representation (document dec GB.329/INS/21/3).

Article 4(1) and (2) of the Convention. National OSH system. The Committee notes that, in its latest representation, the College of Teachers of Chile AG alleges that: (a) the Government has not implemented the recommendations of the tripartite committee relating to the previous representation, as it has not determined the time to be allocated for teacher appraisals in consultation with the College of Teachers of Chile AG, and Act No. 20.903 (Teaching Careers Act) does not indicate the number of non-teaching hours to be allocated to teachers for appraisals, or where they are to be undertaken; and (b) the hours spent on appraisals constitute additional, unpaid and mandatory work, which is therefore damaging to the occupational health of teachers. With regard to this issue, in its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the review of the legislation on the teacher appraisal process and where it is to be undertaken.

The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (1) with respect to the alleged lack of consultations, the College of Teachers of Chile AG participated directly in the formulation of the teacher appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act; (2) with respect to the time required to carry out appraisals, while the aforementioned Act does not refer explicitly to the time at which such activities are to be carried out, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic has determined in repeated opinions that this type of appraisal is a non-teaching activity, and must be carried out within working hours. The Government also indicates that work performed outside of working hours shall be considered as overtime, and be paid as such (Opinions of the Comptroller No. 42.299 of 2008 and No. 91.155 of 2014); and (3) as appraisals are a mandatory process for teaching professionals in educational establishments that are dependent on municipal authorities, the parties are required to agree on, in the employment contracts as non-teaching curricula, the hours to be spent on this appraisal process (Labour Directorate, Ordinance No. 5414/100 of 2010). Moreover, the municipal authorities are responsible for adopting measures to ensure that such evaluation activities are carried out (Opinion of the Comptroller No. 62.598 of 2012).

Furthermore, in its previous comments, the Committee observed that the Government was taking measures to adjust the relevant legislation to address the occupational safety and health issues of teachers, mainly with regard to the excessive workload, and to revise section 69 of the Teachers’ Statute and its Regulations (Act No. 19.070 of 1996, as amended) with regard to the proportion of time assigned to non-teaching activities. The Government indicates that it is in the process of developing regulations to determine more specifically the work and activities that may be included in the definition of non-teaching curricular hours, in accordance with section 6 of the Teachers’ Statute, as amended by the Teaching Careers Act. With respect to the proportion of hours spent on non-teaching activities, since 2017, teaching hours have been reduced and non-teaching hours have been increased (70 per cent teaching hours). Non-teaching hours will increase again in 2019 (65 per cent teaching hours). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the consultations held on the development of the teaching appraisal process established by the Teaching Careers Act, and on the progress made in the formulation of regulations to determine non-teaching curricular hours, in consultation with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations.

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

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

General observation of 2015. The Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to its general observation of 2015 relating to the present Convention, and particularly the request for information in paragraph 30.

Article 1 of the Convention. Application of the Convention by means of laws or regulations or other appropriate means. Consultations with representatives of employers and workers. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take the necessary measures to consult the representatives of employers and workers about the means referred to in Article 1 (laws or regulations, codes of practice or other appropriate means for giving effect to the Convention), and to provide information on these consultations. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent any information on this matter in its report. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to consult the representatives of employers and workers about the means referred to in Article 1 and on the consultations actually held with the employers’ and workers’ representatives.

Article 2. Application of the Convention to all activities involving exposure of workers to ionizing radiations in the course of their work. Emergency workers. In its previous comments, the Committee once again asked the Government to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiations normally authorized and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure authorized in such circumstances, and to specify the manner in which these circumstances are defined. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided this information. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 36 and 37 of its general observation of 2015. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiations normally authorized and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure authorized in such circumstances, and to specify the manner in which these circumstances are defined.

Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and Article 6(1) and (2). Appropriate steps to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations, in the light of current knowledge. Review of the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to adopt standards without delay establishing the dose limits that are recommended internationally. The Committee also asked the Government to ensure, while new legislation is being adopted, that the dose limits are observed in practice, and to provide information on this subject. The Committee observes that the Government has not sent the information requested. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 30–32 of its general observation of 2015. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on any standards establishing the internationally recommended dose limits referred to in its general observation of 2015 and to indicate the manner in which it is ensured, pending the adoption of the new legislation, that the above dose limits are observed in practice.

Articles 6 and 8. Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for pregnant women and for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to ensure that the maximum dose limits established for pregnant women, from the declaration of pregnancy until its term, cannot be exceeded, and asked it to bring the annual dose limit for ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work into line with international recommendations. The Committee observes that the Government has not provided any information on this matter. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 33 and 35 of its general observation of 2015. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this subject.

Article 13(b). Obligation of the employer to notify the competent authority. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report to the effect that Ordinance No. 19292 of 2015 of the Social Security Supervisory Authority determined that the expression “any person” contained in section 17 of Act No. 18302 of 1984, concerning the obligation to report accidents or any other abnormalities in the operation of nuclear installations or equipment, includes employers. The Committee notes this information.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure to benzene. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to update the limit that is currently in force for occupational exposure to benzene in light of current scientific knowledge and, in particular, the limit recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), and to provide information on this subject. The Committee recalls that the ACGIH recommended that the concentration limit for occupational exposure to benzene should not be over 0.5 ppm (time-weighted) and 2.5 ppm (short-term). In this regard, the Committee notes with regret that, according to the information provided by the Government in its report, by Supreme Decree No. 594 of 1999, as amended in 2015, of the Ministry of Health, the limits for occupational exposure to benzene are clearly higher than the above exposure limits. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to establish threshold limit values in accordance with the ACGIH’s recommendation, and to provide information on this subject.

Article 7. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that work processes involving the use of benzene or products containing benzene shall, as far as practicable, be carried out in an enclosed system. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 9 of Decree No. 144 of 1985 of the Ministry of Health and Supreme Decree No. 90 of 1996 of the Ministry of Economy. The Committee notes that, although these texts contain protective provisions, it is not clear whether or not they give full effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that work processes involving the use of benzene or of products containing benzene shall, as far as practicable, be carried out in an enclosed system, and requests it to provide practical information on this subject.

Article 14(c). Requirement to provide appropriate inspection services for the purpose of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention, or to satisfy itself that appropriate inspection is carried out. Application in practice. In relation to its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Social Security Supervisory Authority requested the social security administrative bodies covered by Act No. 16744 to report on the monitoring programmes carried out in 2014 in accordance with the implementing regulations of the Act. The Government indicates that the required information was sent by the administrative bodies to the Social Security Supervisory Authority, but that it is currently in the process of being revised. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that, without prejudice to the above, it is known that at least 28 workers are following programmes as a result of exposure to benzene. The Committee trusts that the information provided to the Social Security Supervisory Authority will be communicated, together with any updated information, in the Government’s next report.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report in relation to the application of Article 16 of the Convention on the implementation of practical measures for the prevention and control of exposure and protection against hazards, Article 21(3) on the requirement to inform workers of the results of their medical examinations and Article 22(2) on policies and procedures for the education and periodic training of workers.

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Periodic review of legislation in the light of technical progress and advances in scientific knowledge. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the effect given to this Article of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report indicating that the Ministry of Health prepared monitoring protocols for workers exposed to asbestos, as approved by Decisions Nos 18 and 29, of 24 January 2013, copies of which have been communicated by the Government with its report.

Article 9. Prevention and control, including authorizations. Article 15(3). Adoption of appropriate measures to prevent or control the release of asbestos dust into the air. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that, in accordance with section 9 of Decree No. 656 of 2002 of the Ministry of Health, activities related to insulation containing friable asbestos fibres, such as the demolition, dismantling or modification of buildings or installations, require previous authorization. To obtain such authorization, it is necessary to submit a workplan setting out measures to protect the health of the workers and the neighbouring population. This plan is required prior to initiating the activities, and in cases in which friable asbestos fibres are found which were not known of beforehand. The Committee also notes section 5 of the Decree, which establishes the requirement to obtain authorization in the case that asbestos is used in the manufacture of products, and for the import of products containing asbestos. Finally, it notes the other legislation indicated by the Government respecting the storage of asbestos and ventilation of workplaces. The Committee notes this information.

Article 14. Requirement of labelling. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken in law and practice to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 17(3). Consultation of workers or their representatives on the workplan. Article 18(3). Prohibition of taking home work clothing and special protective clothing. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to give full effect to Articles 17(3) and 18(3) of the Convention.

Article 20. Monitoring of the working environment. The Committee notes with interest that section 57 of Supreme Decree No. 594/99, as amended by Decree No. 123 of the Ministry of Health, published on 24 January 2015, establishes the requirement for the employer, when maximum permissible limit values have been exceeded, to monitor the health risks for workers at their origin and, if it is not possible to eliminate them completely, to take protection measures. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that effect is given in practice to section 57 of Supreme Decree No. 594/99, as amended by Decree No. 123 of the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, and with reference to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that records are kept of the monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers to asbestos (Article 20(2)), that workers have access to such records (Article 20(3)) and the right to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring (Article 20(4)).

Decisions by courts of law. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, and particularly the two court rulings, the first from the Appeal Court of Santiago, No. 49630-2014 on the right of workers to obtain information on their medical history which had been denied by a mutual association, and the second from the Court of Appeal of Antofagasta, No. 81-2013 on a disease related to asbestos 27 years after the worker left the work. The Committee takes note of this information.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Continuous improvement of occupational safety and health. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government on the measures adopted to promote continuous improvement of occupational safety and health. In particular, it notes: (1) Act No. 20691, of 14 October 2013, creating the Occupational Safety and Health Department, reinforcing the Occupational Safety and Health Superintendence and updating its functions and responsibilities; (2) Act No. 20773, of 17 September 2014, making the regulations on joint committees applicable to the work performed by personnel on board ship or seafarers and by dockworkers; and (3) the new standards of the labour inspection services respecting the obligation of workers to undertake medical examinations for fitness to perform work considered to be unhealthy or hazardous, the reassignment of workers engaged in work at great heights found to be unfit for the performance of their work, and the requirement of the availability of clinics for work at heights of over 3,000 metres.

Article 2(3). Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in relation to the measures that could be taken for the ratification of the relevant ILO Conventions on occupational safety and health.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Follow-up to the recommendations of the tripartite committee (representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution)

The Committee notes that in March 2016 the Governing Body approved the report of the tripartite committee set up to examine the representation alleging non observance of the Convention by Chile, made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the College of Teachers of Chile AG (GB.326/INS/15/6).

Article 3 of the Convention. Formulation of a national policy in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee notes with interest from the Government’s report that the national occupational safety and health (OSH) policy was approved by Supreme Decree No. 47 of 4 August 2016. The Committee notes that the policy was developed in three phases in which consultations were held at the national and regional levels with the participation of various social actors, representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations and various public bodies having expertise in occupational safety and health matters. The Committee also notes that, in relation to the representation, the Government and the College of Teachers of Chile AG have held consultations in a number of round tables since November 2014, and particularly the technical round table on the excessive workload of teachers. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consideration given to the specific problems of teachers within the framework of the national policy.

Article 4(1) and (2). Progressive development of a national system for occupational safety and health. The Committee notes that the tripartite committee that examined the representation considered that the Government was taking measures to adapt the relevant legislation to the OSH problems of teachers, and particularly the problems related to the “excessive teaching workload”, and to revise section 69 of the Teachers’ Statute and its regulations in terms of the proportion of hours spent on non-teaching or supplementary activities. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any developments in this regard.

The Committee also notes that the tripartite committee trusted that the Government would take the necessary measures as soon as possible, in consultation with the College of Teachers, to re-examine the legislation with regard to the time required for the teacher appraisal process and the locations assigned for the process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on this subject.

Article 5. National programme. The tripartite committee encouraged the Government to set up a national OSH programme which takes account of the specific features of teaching work and includes objectives, targets and indicators of progress. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, with a view to the approval of the national OSH policy, a first workshop would be held in December 2016 to prepare the national programme. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the preparation of the national programme and the manner in which the specific features of teaching work have been taken into account in this respect.

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

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

With reference to its observations, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following additional points.

Article 5 of the Convention. Restricting the exposure of workers to ionizing radiations to the lowest practicable level. The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government and requests it to continue to report on the measures adopted or envisaged to restrict the exposure of workers to ionizing radiations to the lowest practicable level and to avoid any unnecessary exposure, and in particular on the manner in which the legislation being drafted gives effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 13. Occupational exposure during an emergency. The Committee again asks the Government to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiations normally allowed and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure authorized in such circumstances, and to specify the manner in which these circumstances are defined. The Committee requests the Government, in drafting the new legislation, to take account of paragraphs 16–27 of its general observation of 1992 on this Convention, which concern the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency, and to provide information on this matter.

Article 13(a). Duty to provide an appropriate medical examination. The Committee again asks the Government to provide full information on the type of examinations envisaged in the legislation to give effect to the other situations covered by clause (a) of this Article. The Committee also requests the Government, when issuing regulations on these examinations in the new provisions, to take into account Paragraphs 20–26 of the Radiation Protection Recommendation, 1960 (No. 114).

Article 13(b). Employers’ duty to notify any accident or emergency to the competent authority. In its previous comments, noting that under section 17 of Act No. 18302 of 2 May 1984, accidents or any anomaly in the functioning of installations or in nuclear devices should be communicated within 24 hours by the person noticing the anomaly to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, the Committee asked the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to prescribe such a duty for employers. The Committee noted that, according to the Government, this provision applies to employers and that, as regards the aspects strictly relating to work, section 76 of Act No. 16744 provides that the employer shall notify occupational accidents to the appropriate administrative body and that fatal or serious accidents shall likewise be notified to the Labour Inspectorate and the Health Secretariat. The Committee pointed out to the Government that this Article goes beyond accidents and includes the situations addressed by paragraph 34 of its general observation of 1992, according to which “under Article 13 of the Convention, circumstances must be specified by laws or regulations or otherwise, in which, because of the nature or degree of the exposure, prompt action shall be taken, including any necessary remedial action by the employer, based on technical findings and medical advice”. Noting that the Government has not supplied the information requested, the Committee once again asks it to send information on the duty to notify cases in which, because of the nature or degree of the exposure, measures shall be taken promptly, as indicated in the general observation and, if such a duty has not been established, to include it in the new legislation and to provide information on the matter.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed first report.

Article 2(1) of the Convention. Continuous improvement. The Committee notes that the Government has provided charts showing a steady drop in occupational accidents, and that it has set the goals and targets to be achieved by 2015: to reduce the accident rate to 4 per cent and no more than five deaths per 100,000 workers. Furthermore, the coverage of work insurance has been extended and as from 2012 self-employed workers have been included. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to promote the continuous improvement of occupational safety and health (OSH).

Article 2(2). Principles. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it gives effect to the following principles: a prevention-based approach; the evaluation, monitoring and treatment of risks from the outset; improvement of health conditions in work places; information, education and training; research and consultations, particularly at workplace level. The Committee points out to the Government that this provision of the Convention relates to the question put in paragraph 2 of the report form. Consequently, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the manner in which the principles set out in the ILO instruments relevant to the promotional framework for occupational safety and health have been taken into account and are those set out in the Annex to the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Recommendation, 2006 (No. 197).

Article 2(3). Measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO. The Committee notes that since this Convention was ratified, two bodies have been set up to review legal and technical standards, so that the possibility of ratifying other Conventions can be assessed. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held with the most representative organizations of employers and workers on the measures that could be taken to ratify relevant OSH Conventions of the ILO, and on the outcome of the consultations.

Article 3(1). Formulation of the national OSH policy. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, although no national OSH policy has as yet been officially adopted it is conducting consultations on the matter, and that the Government provides the schedule of the activities undertaken for the purpose: in April 2012, the Government organized a course for the formulation of the national policy, with technical assistance from the Office, drafts were prepared for comments and by October/November 2013 the third draft of the national policy will be ready for submission to the most representative organizations of employers and workers to seek their views. The draft could be adopted in the form of a presidential decree in January 2014. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held with the most representative organizations of employers and workers to give effect to this Article of the Convention, and on the results of the consultations. Please provide a copy of the national policy once it has been adopted.

Article 4(1) and (2). Establishing, developing and periodically reviewing a national system for OSH in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers. Components of the system. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied by the Government to the effect that since this Convention was ratified, the Government has set up two new bodies to review the legislation and consider the possibility of ratifying new instruments: the Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health and the Committee of Ministers for Occupational Safety and Health; and that intensive work is being done in the area of OSH. Among other things, the report indicates that since 2010, a National OSH Information System (SISESAT), which the Government describes in detail, has been launched, that it is already partly operational and that it will provide full and reliable information with a view to better OSH management, It also notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that the country has an institutionalized OSH system, based on Act No. 16744 of 1968 (updated in 2011) on occupational accidents and diseases, the Labour Code, Ministry of Health Decree No. 544 (Regulations on basic conditions of health and environment in workplaces) and other regulations by sector, and also has a system for monitoring and for cooperation in enterprises with more than 25 workers. Measures are being adopted to promote cooperation in enterprises with 10 to 25 workers. The Committee further notes the legislation being drafted and the various bodies that bring together the employers, workers and/or the State. It notes, however, that although thorough, the Government’s report does not contain sufficient information on the consultations held with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and on the outcome. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held with the most representative organizations of employers and workers to develop and periodically review the national system, and in particular on the legislation being drafted and on the provisions to promote, at the level of the undertaking, cooperation between management, workers and their representatives in enterprises with fewer than 25 workers. Please also include information on the organizations consulted and on the results of the consultations. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would indicate whether consultations have been held on the manner in which the national OSH system is developed and periodically reviewed.

Article 4(3). National tripartite advisory body or bodies addressing OSH issues. The Government provides information on the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and Health, which is national in scope and which, although it holds consultations with organizations of employers and workers, does not appear to include these organizations among its members. In the preparatory work on the Convention (Report IV (I), ILC, 93rd Session, 2005, paragraph 49), it was indicated that “an essential component of any national OSH system is a national mechanism or body comprising the government’s competent authorities and the most representative organizations of employers and workers, for the purposes of consultation, coordination and collaboration on key OSH issues.” Although the components set forth in Article 4(3) are not required in the same conditions as those set forth in Article 4(2) and may evolve as the national system is developed, the Committee deems it relevant to point out that in order to be considered as such, the tripartite body or bodies referred to in this paragraph of the Convention should include the most representative organizations of employers and workers. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any such developments as ensure the participation of the most representative organizations of employers and workers in this or in some other national tripartite advisory body dealing with OSH issues.

Article 5. National programme. The Committee notes with interest the information supplied on the Annual Plan for the Prevention of Occupational Accidents and Occupational Diseases, 2013, the National Plan for the Eradication of Silicosis, and the Plan “ConstruYo Chile” (OSH for the construction sector), among others, which have specific objectives and targets. The Committee notes, however, that according to the Government Chile has no specific and comprehensive national OSH programme, having opted to entrust the development of prevention plans to the insurance administrators. The Committee points out that according to this Article of the Convention, each Member shall formulate, implement, monitor and periodically review a national programme on OSH in consultation with the most representative organizations or employers and workers, and that the programme must meet the requirements set forth in paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to endeavour to adopt measures to establish a national occupational safety and health programme as required by paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, and to supply information on the measures taken, on the organizations of employers and workers that have been consulted, and the outcome of the consultations. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the results of the plans referred to and any other plans that contribute to the gradual attainment of the objective of a safe and healthy work environment.

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Legislation. Consultations with representatives of employers and workers. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to provide information on consultations actually held with employers’ and workers’ representatives on the measures referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, including on the draft legislation to amend the dose limits referred to by the Government. The Committee notes that the Government repeats the information it supplied in its previous report, but does not provide the information requested by the Committee regarding this Article of the Convention. In earlier comments the Committee noted that, according to the Government, since 2008 a process has been under way to update the rules on radiological safety and protection and it is hoped that they will enter into force at the end of 2010 or 2011. It notes that, according to the report, the new regulations on radiological protection will shortly enter into force and that their purpose is to change the dose limits for occupationally exposed workers, to bring them into line with the standards in force internationally. The Government also refers to draft regulations on authorizations, which include authorizations pertaining to persons who are occupationally exposed to ionizing radiations. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to consult the representatives of employers and workers about the measures referred to in Article 1 of the Convention, including the abovementioned regulations, and again asks the Government to provide information on these consultations, specifying the employers’ and workers’ representatives consulted, the issues discussed, and the results of the consultations. It also asks the Government, in drafting the regulations, to take account of the Committee’s comments, including those on the dose limits for workers who are not occupationally exposed, and to provide information on this subject.

Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and Article 6(1) and (2). Appropriate measures to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations; revision of the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations. For several years, the Committee has been pointing out to the Government that the maximum doses indicated in the relevant legislation are significantly higher than those recommended in its general observation of 1992, which recommends for workers who are occupationally exposed a maximum annual dose of 20 mSv for the body and 15 mSv for the eyes. According to section 98 of Decree No. 745 of 23 July 1992, read in conjunction with section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, the annual maximum dose currently in force for workers exposed to ionizing radiations is 5 rem (=50 mSv) for the body and 30 rem (=300 mSv) for the eyes. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that the dose limits indicated previously are still in force but that, according to the Government, the system for monitoring workers who are occupationally exposed is governed by the limits that are currently recommended internationally. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that the competent authority, the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, endorses the rules set in this Article of the Convention and has the discretion to fix a series of limits and conditions, which are constantly updated. The Committee notes, however, that the Government has not provided the limits or the information requested by the Committee. The Committee once again urges the Government to adopt standards without delay establishing the dose limits that are recommended internationally and are set out in its general observation of 1992; and in so doing, to take account of the Committee’s general observation and comments and to provide a copy of the legislation adopted. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to ensure, once the legislation is adopted, that the dose limits referred to by the Committee are observed in practice, and to provide information on this subject.

Article 7(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 3(3). Measures to fix appropriate levels for certain categories of workers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, pregnant women may not receive radiation of occupational origin of above 0.5 rem (=5 mSv) until their pregnancy has come to term. The Committee referred to the recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP), mentioned in paragraph 13 of its 1992 general observation, according to which the unborn child should be protected from ionizing radiation by applying an equivalent dose limit of 2 mSv to the surface of the woman’s abdomen from the declaration of the pregnancy until its term. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, since these limits are established in a decree, which is not easily amended given its rank as a legal instrument, it has been established that in cases where employers establish in their radiological protection manuals a dose limit lower than the one established in the Decree, those limits shall be enforced. The Committee is of the view that voluntary alignment of this nature will not ensure the enforcement of the dose limits the Committee has been referring to for years. The Committee again expresses its concern at the delay in amending the maximum permissible doses given the serious repercussions it may have for the unborn child. The Committee urges the Government to ensure that an equivalent dose limit of 2 mSv to the surface of the woman’s abdomen shall not be exceeded throughout the pregnancy, from the declaration of the pregnancy until its term, and to provide information on this subject.

Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 3. Maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that, according to the Government, these doses would be reflected in the rules undergoing amendment. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that Chilean legislation draws no distinction between workers who are directly exposed and those who are not directly exposed in the course of their work. The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO code of practice Radiation protection of workers (ionizing radiations), and to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation on the Convention, which fix the annual dose limit for ionizing radiation at 1 mSv for workers not engaged in radiation work, which is the same as that for members of the public. The Committee again urges the Government to fix the annual dose limit of ionizing radiations at 1 mSv for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work, and to provide information on this subject.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Further to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

Article 5(a), (b) and (f) of the Convention. Occupational health services which ensure that the functions set out in this Article are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking. Identification and assessment of the risks from health hazards in the workplace; surveillance of the factors in the working environment and working practices which may affect workers’ health, and surveillance of workers’ health in relation to work. In its previous comments, the Committee examined a communication by the Latin American Confederation of Workers (CLAT) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) alleging failure to comply with Articles 5(a), (b), (f) and (h) and 10 of the Convention in relation to the Chilean National Copper Corporation (CODELCO), in the context of a situation that occurred between 2000 and 2003 in which, according to the trade unions, there was allegedly a silicosis epidemic caused by a dust and silica concentration which exceeded the maximum permitted level. The Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the concept of the weighted permitted limit (LPP) corresponds to the international terminology of the maximum permitted limit. The Committee also requested the Government to continue its efforts to give full effect to paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) of Article 5, so as to ensure that the work environment and practices are such that no workers are exposed to levels exceeding the maximum permitted exposure limit and to provide information in that regard. Furthermore, the Committee requested the Government to extend the medical surveillance relating to silicosis to categories of workers who, without exceeding the permitted exposure limits, work in places where there are risks of exposure, and to provide information in this regard. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the concept of LPP corresponds to the international concept of maximum permitted limit, adjusted for exposure during eight-hour days and 45 hours a week, as indicated in the manual on the minimum standards for the development of silicosis monitoring programmes. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on medical silicosis monitoring. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the manner in which it guarantees that the occupational health services of CODELCO and other enterprises where workers are exposed to silica comply with the obligation to ensure the functions set out in the following provisions of Article 5: (a) identification and assessment of the risks from health hazards in the workplace; (b) surveillance of the factors in the working environment and working practices which may affect workers’ health; and (f) surveillance of workers’ health in relation to work.

Article 5(h). Vocational rehabilitation. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health does not have statistics on the redeployment of workers in the country. The Committee understands, according to information provided by the Government, that the competent authorities in respect of the Convention are the Directorate of Labour, the Social Security Supervisory Authority and health sector bodies. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the competent authorities ensure compliance with Article 5(h).

Article 10. Full professional independence of the personnel of health services. The Committee notes that the Government refers to certain laws, but does not indicate how they give effect to this Article of the Convention. This Article relates to the conditions of recruitment and termination of employment of the personnel of health services. For further information, the Committee refers the Government to Paragraph 37 of the Occupational Health Services Recommendation, 1985 (No. 171). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which the professional independence is guaranteed of the personnel providing occupational health services in relation to the functions listed in Article 5 of the Convention, as required by Article 10 of the Convention, in the case of delegated administrations, including the delegated administration of the Andina division of CODELCO Chile, as well as in the case of the new system established in the Radomiro Tomic division.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. Workers presumably affected, referred to in the communications of the CLAT and WCL. With regard to the information requested concerning the current state of health of the 171 workers whose initial silicosis diagnosis was overturned as a result of the change in methodology relating to medical surveillance, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that medical health surveillance is carried out by the administrations, with no requirement to send the Ministry of Health specific information on individual cases, and that in the event of disagreement on whether or not a disease is occupational, the matter is determined by the Social Security Supervisory Authority. The Committee requests the Government to provide any information made available by the Supervisory Authority or other competent bodies on the current state of health of these workers.

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government with regard to the effect given to Article 9 of the Convention. Noting that the Government has not provided information on some of the questions referred to in its previous comments, the Committee repeats those comments, which read as follows:

Part IV of the report form. Judicial and administrative decisions. The Committee notes that, according to the observation, among the 171 workers diagnosed by COMPIN as having silicosis and a disability causing them a loss of earnings of between 27.5 and 80 per cent, 41 had been relieved of their functions and, at the time of the submission of the observation, another 23 were in the process of being relieved of their functions. It indicates that, at the end of 2003, a group of 23 active workers who were sick took legal action against the company, claiming compensation for damages, while 17 of the workers relieved of their functions filed a criminal complaint alleging responsibility on the part of the company for what they referred to as an epidemic of silicosis. They referred to the defencelessness and helplessness of the workers, who were to receive US$10,000 due to have contracted silicosis. They indicated that the company denied everything, and even questioned the validity of the examinations requested by the company itself at the Clínica Santa María and the Clínica las Condes, calling into question these institutions and the competence of the health services, in particular of COMPIN, for certifying disability. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there have been no dismissals but that workers who requested it were able to take advantage of voluntary retirement plans which included special compensation. It also indicates that the Social Security Supervisory Authority reported that eight workers had taken legal action against the company entrusted with delegated administration and that the Supervisory Authority had received a series of appeals from workers from the Andina Division of CODELCO – Chile, which have not yet been resolved and are awaiting a judicial decision. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any developments relating to the cases which are being dealt with through judicial and or administrative channels with regard to the situation under examination.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the establishment of health services in practice, indicating the number of workers covered by the health services and the estimated number of workers not covered, the sector in which they work and the measures to provide these services. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including summaries of labour inspection reports, contraventions identified in relation to the Convention, indicating the number and nature of the contraventions, as well as statistical information in this regard, where such statistics exist.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

The Committee notes the comments of the Trade Union Federation of Supervisors (ROL A) and Professionals CODELCO (the National Copper Corporation) Chile (FESUC), received on 14 June 2012 and forwarded to the Government on 22 June 2012. The Committee also notes the Government’s report received on 11 September 2012, which does not contain observations on the FESUC’s comments.

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. Formulation, implementation and periodic review, in consultation with the social partners, of a coherent national policy on occupational health services. Consultation with organizations of employers and workers on the measures to be taken to give effect to the Convention. In its comments, the FESUC indicates that Act No. 16744 authorizes employers to administer occupational accident and disease insurance either through external bodies (employers’ mutual associations) or through an internal entity, known as a delegated administration. Currently, in the Adina, Salvado and Chuquicamata divisions of the El Teniente company, the system of delegated administrations is in place and offers many benefits and positive features both for the company and for prevention in relation to the health and safety of its workers. The Radomiro Tomic division had the same arrangement until February 2012, when the Social Security Supervisory Authority learnt of the decision of the employer (CODELCO Chile) to hand over the administration and the health facilities to a private mutual company. According to FESUC, this decision is clearly detrimental to the health and safety of the company’s workers employed in the Radomiro Tomic division and imposes a model that jeopardizes the situation of workers in other plants. The FESUC considers that the manner in which the decision was taken is in breach of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to continue providing information on its national policy on occupational health services and on the consultations held with the social partners on the measures to be taken to give effect to the Convention. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicated that the Ministry of Health does not have the competence to ensure its implementation. The Committee recalls that it is the responsibility of the Government to give effect to ratified Conventions, and not of any specific ministry. The Committee also recalls that Article 2 of the Convention sets out the obligation to formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent national policy on occupational health services in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers and that Article 4 establishes the obligation of the competent authority to consult the most representative organizations of employers and workers on the measures to be taken to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which effect has been given to these Articles of the Convention, namely on the consultations held and their outcome, including with regard to the type of health services applicable to the Radomira Tomic division.

Articles 5 and 8. Functions of the occupational health services as are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking and participation of workers. Requirement for the employer, the workers and their representatives to cooperate and participate in the implementation of organizational and other measures relating to occupational health services on an equitable basis. The Committee notes the FESUC’s reference to the introductory paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention, under the terms of which “... with due regard to the necessity for the workers to participate in matters of occupational health and safety, occupational health services shall have such of the following functions as are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking”. The FESUC also makes reference to Article 8 of the Convention, in accordance with which the employer, the workers and their representatives, where they exist, shall cooperate and participate in the implementation of the organizational and other measures relating to occupational health service on a equitable basis. The FESUC considers that the new system will have an impact on the application of the above Articles. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures that effect is given to these Articles of the Convention through the health services model recently adopted in the Radomiro Tomic division, in both law and practice. Please indicate in particular the manner in which it is ensured that the employer, the workers and their representatives cooperate and participate in the implementation of organizational and other measures relating to occupational health services on an equitable basis. The Committee also requests the Government to pay particular attention to how effect is given to Article 5 of the Convention in CODELCO as for some years it has been making comments on the application of this Article in another division of the same company.

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with employers’ and workers’ representatives. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare informs workers’ and employers’ representatives of any measure to be taken in accordance with the present Convention. They do so through the reports requested from the Government and under the terms of Article 5(d) of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144), in accordance with which the purpose of the procedures provided for in the Convention shall be consultations on questions arising out of reports to be made to the International Labour Office under article 22 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organization. The Committee observes that, irrespective of the manner in which they are held, it is essential for consultations to be effective and it requests the Government to provide information on the consultations held in practice with employers’ and workers’ representatives on the measures referred to in Article 1 of the present Convention, including with regard to the amendment of the legislation, to which reference is made in the following paragraph.

Article 3(1), (2) and (3)(a) and (b), and Article 6(1) and (2). Appropriate measures to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations; revision of the maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations. With reference to its previous comments, in which the Committee indicated that the maximum doses indicated in the relevant legislation are significantly higher than those recommended in its general observation in 1992, which recommends maximum annual doses of 20 mSv for the body and 15 mSv for the eyes, the Committee notes that the dose limits indicated previously are still maintained, but that the system for monitoring of workers who are occupationally exposed is governed by the limits that are currently recommended at the international level. The Government adds that in 2008 the process was initiated of updating the rules respecting radiological safety and protection and it is hoped that they will enter into force at the end of 2010 or 2011. The Committee urges the Government to adopt in the near future standards establishing the internationally recommended dose limits, which were set out in its general observation of 1992 and in so doing to take into account the general observation and the Committee’s comments. It invites the Government to hold consultations on that legislation with workers’ and employers’ representatives, in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention. Please provide detailed information on this subject.

Article 5. Reduction of the exposure of workers to ionizing radiations to the lowest practicable level. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government to the effect that employers are required to maintain the equipment and installations that are technically necessary to reduce to their minimum level the risks that may arise at the workplace. Nevertheless, the Committee is referring to the organization of work processes in relation to this Article, and not only to equipment and installations. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on this subject, and particularly on the manner in which the new legislation gives effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 7(1), read in conjunction with Article 3(3). Measures to fix appropriate levels for certain categories of workers. In its previous comments, the Committee pointed out that, under the terms of section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, the annual dose limit of ionizing radiations for workers directly exposed is 50 mSv. It recalled that, according to its general observation of 1992, the 1990 recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommend an annual dose limit of 20 mSv for workers directly exposed to ionizing radiation and who are 18 years or over. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that pregnant women may not receive radiation of occupational origin above 0.5 rem (5 mSv) until their pregnancy has come to term. The Committee referred previously to the recommendations of the ICRP to which it refers in paragraph 13 of its 1992 general observation, according to which the unborn child should be protected from ionizing radiation by applying an equivalent dose limit to the surface of the woman’s abdomen of 2 mSv from the declaration of the pregnancy until its term. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, the legislation will be updated to reflect international standards, according to the information provided with regard to the application of Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee expresses concern at the delays in amending the legislation, which may have serious repercussions on unborn children. The Committee once again urges the Government to amend the legislation rapidly and to provide information on the subject.

Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 3. Admissible maximum doses of ionizing radiations for workers not directly involved with radiation. The Committee notes that these doses will be reflected in the amended legislation and it requests detailed information on this subject.

Article 13. Occupational exposure during an emergency. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 16 to 27 of its general observation of 1992 on this Convention, which relate to the limitation of occupational exposure during and after an emergency. The Government is asked to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiations normally allowed and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure authorized in such circumstances, and to specify the manner in which such circumstances are defined.

Article 13(a). Duty to provide appropriate medical examination. The Committee notes the Government’s indications relating to emergency situations. The Committee requests the Government to provide full information on the type of examinations envisaged in the legislation to give effect to the other situations covered by clause (a) of this Article. The Committee also requests the Government, when issuing regulations on such examinations in the new provisions to take into account Paragraphs 20 to 26 of the Radiation Protection Recommendation, 1960 (No. 114), and to provide detailed information on this subject.

Article 13(b). Employers’ duty to notify the competent authority of any accident or emergency. In its previous direct request, noting that under section 17 of Act No. 18302, of 2 May 1984, accidents or any anomaly in the functioning of installations or of nuclear devices should be communicated within 24 hours by the person noticing the anomaly to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to prescribe such a duty for employers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that this provision applies to employers, and with regards to the labour aspects, section 76 of Act No. 16744 provides that the employer shall notify the respective administrative body of employment accidents and, in the case of fatal or serious accidents, the Labour Inspectorate and the Health Secretariat shall also be notified. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that this Article goes beyond accidents and includes the situations addressed by paragraph 34 of its 1992 general observation, according to which “under Article 13 of the Convention, circumstances must be specified, by laws or regulations or otherwise, in which, because of the nature or degree of the exposure, prompt action shall be taken, including any necessary remedial action by the employer, based on technical findings and medical advice”. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the duty to notify cases in which, because of the nature or degree of the exposure, measures shall be taken promptly, as indicated in the general observation and, if such an obligation has not been established, to include it in the new legislation and to provide information on this subject.

Article 14. Alternative employment or other measures to maintain the earnings of workers when the continuation of such workers in work involving exposure is inadvisable for medical reasons. The Committee notes that, in the information provided concerning the application of the previous Article, the Government indicates that in cases in which workers are affected by an occupational disease, the workers have to be transferred to other work where they are not exposed to the cause of the disease. In this respect, the Committee recalls that in paragraph 32 of its 1992 general observation on the Convention it indicates that every effort must be made to provide the workers concerned (those whose continued employment in a particular job is inadvisable for health reasons) with suitable alternative employment or to maintain their income through social security measures or otherwise, where continued assignment to work involving exposure is found to be medically inadvisable. This requirement does not only relate to workers who have already been found to be suffering from an occupational disease, but also prior to that stage with a view to preventing a disease. The Committee therefore requests the Government to consider the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure that no worker shall be employed or shall continue to be employed in work in which the worker could be exposed to ionizing radiations which would be inadvisable for medical reasons for such workers, and that the efforts that are necessary will be made to provide them with alternative employment or other means of maintaining their income. It requests the Government to provide information on this subject.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. It notes the existence of an inspection and monitoring programme of the Department of Nuclear and Radiological Safety of the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission and on compliance with environmental conditions in workplace and regarding workers who are occupationally exposed. The Chilean Safety Association, in its capacity as the body administering social insurance under Act No. 16744, is the competent body in relation to environmental prevention and the protection of workers exposed to risks of ionizing radiation. It therefore has a physical risks unit which administers the radiation programme. The Committee notes that an average of 15,000 workers who are occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation are recorded as undergoing dosage examinations and that in 2009 the monitoring system detected 46 doses that were significantly higher than those corresponding to 5 mSv a quarter, and that in all cases it was concluded that the worker had not suffered irradiation. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it is essential that the Government ensures that the dose of 100 mSv is not exceeded in a five-year period and requests it to indicate whether this obligation is ensured in the country, and in what manner. The Committee also requests the Government to continue providing information on the application of the Convention in practice.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]

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

New legislation. The Committee notes the communication by the Government of a copy of Decree No. 50 of 11 November 2007, approving the Regulations implementing section 3 of the Labour Code (work by young persons under 18 years of age) and Decree No. 148 of 12 June 2003 approving the Health Regulations on the handling of hazardous wastes. While noting that this legislation regulates important issues for the health and safety of workers, the Committee requests the Government to specify the provisions of these Decrees which give effect to specific Articles of the Convention and to indicate which Articles, so that it is able to assess more fully the impact of this legislation on the application of the present Convention.

Article 6(2) of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure to benzene. The Committee notes that the Government reiterates the same information as that provided in its previous report to the effect that the exposure limits are 8 parts per million (ppm). The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to update the limit that is currently in force for occupational exposure to benzene in light of current scientific knowledge and, particularly, the limit recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), which has recommended that the concentration limit for occupational exposure to benzene should be no more than 0.5 ppm, and to provide information on this subject.

Article 7. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. The Committee notes the reference by the Government to section 9 of Decree No. 144 of 1985 of the Ministry of Health and to Supreme Decree No. 90 of 1996 of the Ministry of the Economy. The Committee notes that these texts contain protective provisions, but that it is not however clear whether or not they give full effect to this Article of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that work processes involving the use of benzene or of products containing benzene shall as far as possible be carried out in an enclosed system and it requests it to provide practical information on this subject.

Article 10. Medical examinations free of charge carried out by qualified personnel. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government, effect is given to this Article of the Convention.

Article 14(c) and Part IV of the report form. Requirement to provide appropriate inspection services for the purpose of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention, or to satisfy itself that appropriate inspection is carried out. Application in practice. The Committee notes that the Government is awaiting further information from the health authorities responsible for undertaking inspections in matters relating to the Convention, as indicated by the Government in its first report. The Committee recalls the fundamental importance of providing information on the manner in which effect is given to the Convention in practice and once again requests the Government to provide information on the various inspection activities to supervise compliance with the provisions of this Convention and their findings, including extracts from the inspection reports produced when undertaking such inspections.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Article 7 of the Convention read in conjunction with Part V of the report form. Statistics on lead poisoning among working painters. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under the terms of section 184(4) and (5) of Legislative Decree No. 2 of 1967, as amended by sections 4 and 5 of Act No. 20123, published in the Diario Oficial of 16 October 2006, the Labour Directorate has to notify the respective administrative body under Act No. 16744 on social security for occupational accidents and diseases of all violations or shortcomings in the field of safety and health, with a copy to the Social Security Supervisory Authority. The administrative body, within 30 days of notification, is under an obligation to inform the Labour Directorate and the supervisory authority referred to above regarding the specific safety measures that the enterprise has been ordered to take to remedy the infringements or shortcomings notified. It also notes that, according to the report, inspection reports and data on the number and nature of the violations relating to the application of the Convention are not available. The Committee nevertheless understands that the enforcement of the texts referred to above will make it possible to identify the number and nature of violations relating to the Convention. Moreover, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided information for many years on the application of Article 7 of the Convention, that is on lead poisoning among working painters. The Committee, recalling that Article 7 of the Convention establishes the obligation to obtain statistics on lead poisoning among working painters in relation to morbidity and mortality, requests the Government to take the necessary measures to compile and provide such information, where possible covering the period of five years of the report, so that the Committee is able to examine trends in this respect. The Committee also once again requests the Government to provide summaries of the reports of the labour inspection services, where they are related to the Convention, with an indication of the number and nature of the violations of the Convention identified, either through the machinery envisaged in Act No. 16744 referred to by the Government in its report, or through other machinery, and on the specific remedial measures ordered by the administrative body to remedy the violations or shortcomings reported.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Further to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Communication by the Latin American Confederation of Workers (CLAT) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL). Background. In its previous comments, the Committee examined a communication by the CLAT and the WCL alleging a failure to comply with Articles 5(a), (b), (f) and (h) and 10 in relation to the Chilean National Copper Corporation (Codelco), Andina Division, in which there was allegedly a silicosis epidemic between 2000 and 2003 caused by a dust and silica concentration which exceeded the maximum permitted. The Committee noted in its previous comments that, according to the trade unions, 271 workers were examined using computerized axial tomography (CAT), which revealed 171 cases of silicosis. In other words, 60 per cent of the workers who underwent the examination were found to have silicosis. The Committee also noted that, according to the Government, during the period mentioned in the communication, the authority of the Aconcagua Health Service declared 115 workers to be disabled and 50 per cent of these declarations were subsequently overturned by the health authority on the basis of false positives and incorrect diagnosis using the CAT technique, which is not suitable for diagnosing this disease.

Article 5(a), (b) and (f) of the Convention. Occupational health services which ensure that the functions set out in this Article are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking. Identification and assessment of the risks from health hazards in the workplace; surveillance of the factors in the working environment and working practices which may affect workers’ health and surveillance of workers’ health in relation to work. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which occupational risks are identified and how factors in the working environment are subject to surveillance, including information on prevention and exposure levels in the copper industry and, in particular, in the company mentioned. It also asked the Government to provide information on the manner in which surveillance of workers’ health is carried out in the copper industry and, in particular, in the company concerned and requested the Government to indicate, in particular, the type and frequency of examinations carried out by the medical services to prevent and detect silicosis. The Committee notes the Government’s report and the report prepared by Codelco, Andina Division, attached to the Government’s report. This report contains information concerning the handling of this issue at the national level and concerning Codelco, Andina Division, which is only part of Codelco.

National measures. The Committee notes the relevant legislative provisions relating to the employer’s responsibility concerning prevention and information and also notes that, according to the Government, section 71 of Act No. 16744 establishes the requirement to carry out chest x-rays every six months. It also notes that Ministry of Health Order No. 4D/5809 of 1992 provides that x-rays shall be carried out periodically and shall take into account the environmental concentration, years of exposure, working day and altitude of the workplace and that circular B2 No. 32 of 10 June 2005 of the Ministry of Health instructs that the diagnosis and evaluation of silicosis shall be carried out by means of a chest x-ray in accordance with ILO standards and that once this has been carried out, it shall be compared with the ILO’s standard plates. However, the Committee understands that in the specific case of crystallized silica, the method established by the “Manual on the minimum standards on the surveillance of silicosis”, which establishes four levels of risk, should have been followed at the national level from April 2010. According to Codelco, the four levels of risk are determined by the relation between the concentration level and the weighted permissible limit (LPP). For risk level 1, the concentration is less than 0.25 times the LPP and a chest x-ray is carried out every four years; for level 2, the concentration is equal to or higher than 0.25 times and less than 0.5 times the LPP and a chest x-ray is carried out every three years; for level 3, the concentration is equal to or higher than 0.5 times and up to 1 time the LPP and a chest x-ray is carried out every two years; and for level 4, the concentration is higher than 1 time the LPP and a chest x-ray is carried out every year.

Measures implemented in Codelco, Andina Division. Codelco indicates that it is the only mining enterprise in Chile to have implemented a laboratory for the measurement of free silica with a system that enables the results of the silica measurements to be obtained within 24 hours, so that operational decisions can be taken at the right time, thereby increasing the confidence of workers and their representatives. Both the laboratory and the methodology for measurement and the taking of samples are validated by the quality programme of the Institute of Public Health of Chile (ISP) and the measuring equipment used by Codelco, Andina Division is the same as that used by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the United States. Furthermore, Codelco, Andina Division is certified under Standard OSHAS 18000 under version OSHAS 18001:2007 and has specific surveillance programmes for silica, noise, vibrations, geographic altitude and ionizing radiation. Codelco provides detailed information on methodologies relating to: (1) the identification of risks; (2) risk assessment; (3) preventive action; and (4) corrective action. Furthermore, Codelco indicates that its Andina Division ensures that all workers exposed to silica above the Standard undergo annual checks from the start of their work and that for the last four years, checks are also carried out in respect of workers who are exposed to environments with silica concentrations above 50 per cent but below 100 per cent of the LPP, by means of a chest x-ray using the ILO technique and a spirometer. Furthermore, it indicates that since 2005 it has had a risk map and that a plan on improving environmental conditions is in the process of being implemented, which has achieved a significant reduction in exposure to breathable dust and crystallized silica in the areas of mines and plants and that it hopes to achieve, as the first major goal, permissible limits in at least 85 per cent of jobs by 2011.

Based on the above information, the Committee understands that Codelco, Andina Division implements rules, methodology and advanced technology for the identification of risks, surveillance of the work environment and the health of workers which are beyond those applied at the national level. The Committee hopes that Codelco can be a driving force of scientific progress at the national and international levels for other sectors with less developed standards, given that occupational safety and health is closely linked to research and is constantly developing. The Committee notes that only one of the four levels of exposure taken as a reference at the national level to determine the frequency of medical examinations is lower than the LPP and notes that Codelco also takes as a reference for its examinations values above the LPP. The Committee indicates that it is essential to achieve the objective of not exceeding the maximum exposure limit for all workers and that examinations should also be carried out where there is a risk of exposure to silica, even if the permitted exposure limits have not been exceeded. It is not a question of exceeding the limits and then carrying out periodic examinations, but rather a question of not exceeding the maximum permitted limit and carrying out periodic examinations. The Committee therefore stresses the need to place the emphasis on prevention so as not to exceed the maximum permitted limit. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the concept of LPP corresponds to the international terminology of Maximum Permitted Limit. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to give full effect to paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) of this Article, so as to ensure that the work environment and practices are such that no workers are exposed to levels exceeding the maximum permitted exposure limit and to provide information in that regard. Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to extend the medical surveillance relating to silicosis to categories of workers who, without exceeding the permitted exposure limits, work in places where there are risks of exposure and to provide information in that regard.

Workers presumably affected mentioned in the communication. With regard to the information requested concerning the current state of health of the 171 workers whose initial silicosis diagnosis was overturned as a result of the change in methodology relating to medical surveillance, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided any new information on this matter. The Committee emphasizes that the cause of this communication was the health of these workers. The Committee confirms that life is at the centre of OSH and that, regardless of the new methodology relating to examinations and the development of prevention, the life and health of these workers continues to be a source of concern for the Committee. The Committee therefore urges the Government to provide information on the current state of health of these workers.

Furthermore, the Committee notes that the Government has not provided certain information requested in its previous observation and that it indicated in general that it would provide further information when it received it from the central authority. Some of the questions for which no information has been provided relate to the allegations concerning the lack of vocational rehabilitation and the abandonment of the 171 workers concerned. The Committee is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments as follows:

Article 5(h). Vocational rehabilitation. According to the observation, the company has not transferred the workers, in accordance with section 71 of Act No. 16744, to other workplaces where they would not be exposed to the agent which caused the disease and the Aconcagua Health Service expressly indicates that it has not been established that the workplaces to which workers were transferred were free of the agent which caused the disease. In this regard, the Government indicates that, on 1 January 2005, the Andina Division had already transferred all workers for whom a valid decision had been issued declaring incapacity due to silicosis to other jobs in which they were not exposed to dust. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on this matter, including on the measures taken in respect of the workers who have lodged appeals against the invalidation of their initial diagnosis.

Article 10. Full professional independence of health services personnel. According to the observation, Coldelco, the Andina Division, has the delegated administrative authority provided for in Act No. 16744, but it adds that this authority is not appropriate given that section 72 of the Act concerned requires an enterprise to have at least 2,000 employees before it can act as a delegated administrator and the company in question only has 600 employees. It indicates that by having delegated administration, Codelco, the Andina Division, controls the entire system of health and management of risk prevention plans and operates as a closed system in which workers are unable to resort to an external system. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Codelco, the Andina Division, is authorized to act as a delegated social insurance administrator in accordance with section 71 of the above Act and section 23 of the Ministry of Labour Supreme Decree No. 101 of 1968. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures the professional independence of the personnel providing occupational health services in relation to the functions listed in Article 5 of the Convention as required under Article 10 of the Convention, in the case of delegated administrators, including Codelco, the Andina Division.

Part IV of the report form. Judicial and administrative decisions. The Committee notes that, according to the observation, among the 171 workers diagnosed by COMPIN as having silicosis and a disability causing them a loss of earning of between 27.5 and 80 per cent, 41 had been relieved of their functions and, at the time of the submission of the observation, another 23 were in the process of being relieved. It indicates that, at the end of 2003, a group of 23 active workers who were sick took legal action against the company, claiming compensation for damages, while 17 of the workers relieved of their functions filed a criminal complaint alleging responsibility on the part of the company for what they referred to as an epidemic of silicosis. They referred to the defencelessness and helplessness of the workers, who were to receive $10,000 due to having contracted silicosis. They indicated that the company denied everything, and even questioned the validity of the examinations requested by the company itself at the Clínica Santa María and the Clínica las Condes, calling into question these institutions and the responsibility of health services, in particular of COMPIN, for certifying disability. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there have been no dismissals but that workers who requested it were able to take advantage of voluntary retirement plans which included special compensation. It also indicates that the Social Security Supervisory Authority reported that eight workers had taken legal action against the company attributed delegated administration and that the Supervisory Authority had received a series of appeals from workers from the Andina Division of Codelco-Chile which have not yet been resolved and are awaiting a judicial decision. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any developments relating to the cases which are being dealt with through judicial and/or administrative channels with regard to the situation being examined.

Furthermore, in relation to the regular follow-up to the application of the Convention, the Committee repeats its request to the Government to provide the information requested in its previous direct request concerning Articles 9(1) and (2) and 10 and their application in practice.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2012.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied in the Government’s report. It also notes the information provided by the Government concerning the measures giving effect to the following provisions of the Convention: Article 2 of the Convention on definitions and Article 6(3) on emergency situations.

Legislation. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report that Ministry of Health Decree No. 17 of 2009 replaces section 9 of Supreme Decree No. 656/2000 containing provisions on asbestos. The Committee notes that the report does not explain the significance of the changes. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the relationship of the amendments to its obligations under the Convention introduced by the aforementioned legislation.

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Periodic review of legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it will send information in the near future. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in this regard.

Article 15(3). Adoption of appropriate measures to prevent or control the release of asbestos dust into the air. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the need for authorization from the health services in cases of work involving demolition and storage of asbestos. The Committee requests the Government to supply further information in this respect, including, if applicable, technical codes of practice and in relation to all sectors of work in which asbestos is used.

Article 16. Practical measures for prevention and control of exposure and protection against hazards. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that Act No. 16744 and its implementing regulations contain the provisions requiring every employer to adopt measures for the prevention and control of exposure to asbestos. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which sections of the legislation cover each of the matters referred to in this Article of the Convention.

Article 17(3). Consultation of workers or their representatives on the workplan. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, there is no obligation in law to consult workers with regard to a workplan but there is an obligation to duly inform workers about the hazards involved in their work, about preventive measures and correct working methods and also about substances to be used and permissible exposure limits. The company must also supply information to the joint committees. The Committee recalls that the Convention states that workers or their representatives must be consulted with regard to the workplan which has to be drawn up before demolition work is undertaken, and it therefore requests the Government to ensure the application of this provision of the Convention and to supply information in this respect.

Article 18(3). Prohibition on taking home work clothing and special protective clothing. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report that in places where workers are exposed to toxic or infectious substances, they must have two separate and independent individual lockers, one intended for work clothes and the other for personal clothing, and that the employer shall be responsible for the washing of work clothing and for the adoption of measures to prevent workers from removing such clothing from the workplace. The Committee notes that although the provisions on which information is provided are helpful, they do not give effect to Article 18(3), according to which national laws or regulations shall prohibit the taking home of work clothing and special protective clothing and of personal protective equipment. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the national legislation lays down the prohibitions referred to by this paragraph and requests it to supply information in this respect.

Article 21(3). Notification of the results of workers’ medical examinations and advice concerning their health in relation to their work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, under the terms of section 72 of Supreme Decree No. 101 of 1968, administrative bodies are obliged to conduct examinations, either automatically or at the request of workers or of employers, in order to ascertain the possible existence of an occupational disease, and notes that the results must be communicated to the workers concerned and to the employer. Noting that this information covers only part of what is required by this provision and that the Government states that it is awaiting more information from different sectors, the Committee requests the Government to send further information in its next report.

Article 22(2). Policies and procedures on measures for the education and periodic training of workers. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report that mutual insurance associations must conduct ongoing activities in risk prevention with the assistance of departments responsible for the prevention of occupational hazards and/or joint committees. These bodies must provide courses of training and guidance for workers to enable them to be elected as representative members in the joint committees. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in 2009 the Ministry of Health prepared a “Handbook for drawing up a plan of work involving materials containing friable and non-friable asbestos”, and that this was attached to its report. The Committee notes that the handbook was not attached to the report and requests the Government to send the handbook and also any training material or other information illustrating the manner in which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

With reference to its previous comments, in which the Committee urged the Government to take all necessary steps to apply the national legislation covering activities involving asbestos exposure, the Committee notes that the Government has still not supplied any information on the application of certain legislative provisions but that it will do so once it has compiled the necessary information. The Committee therefore reminds the Government of the need to adopt measures regarding the following matters: labelling of asbestos and products containing asbestos (Article 14); appropriate measures to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace (Article 19(2)); keeping of records of the monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers to asbestos (Article 20(2)); access of workers to records kept (Article 20(3); the right to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring (Article 20(4)); and requests the Government to supply information in this regard.

Part V of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee notes Ruling No. 2849 of 22 June 2010, Rancagua, imposing a fine of 20 UTM (monthly tax units) on a construction firm for dismantling roofs and piling up material in the entrance to a nursery, kindergarten and primary school without submitting a plan for the dismantling and removal of the roof, without obtaining authorized documentation, and without the use of personal protective equipment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the amount of fines for violations of the Convention is calculated and established. It also requests the Government to continue to supply copies of court decisions and also any general information concerning the manner in which the Convention is applied, including extracts from inspection reports and information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of infringements reported, and the number of occupational diseases reported as being caused by asbestos.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Articles 2 and 4 of the Convention. Formulation, implementation and periodic review, in consultation with the social partners, of a coherent national policy on occupational health services. Consultation with organizations of employers and workers on the measures required to give effect to the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government in its report that, in the context of the formulation and implementation of occupational health services, an Occupational Accident and Occupational Disease Information System (SIATEP) was implemented and the Occupational Safety Institute was established under Act No. 20255 of 11 March 2008. Furthermore, as a result of the National Agreement on the Prevention of Occupational and Fatal Accidents of 2005, Act No. 20123 on subcontracting was adopted in October 2006, which provides that, without prejudice to the responsibilities of the main, contracting or subcontracting enterprise, the main enterprise shall adopt measures to protect the life and health of all the workers, regardless of their status. The main enterprise shall also ensure the establishment and operation of a joint safety and health committee and a risk prevention department. Furthermore, the Act establishes the employer’s obligation to notify the Labour Inspectorate and the Ministerial Regional Department (SEREMI) immediately of any serious and fatal accidents and to take other measures. The Ministry of Labour is also obliged to produce quarterly reports on fatal occupational accidents. Through the SIATEP, the administrative bodies will be obliged to keep a database containing information on occupational accidents and occupational diseases. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on its national policy on occupational health services and the consultations held with the social partners on the measures that need to be taken to give effect to the Convention.

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

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

Further to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the following points.

Article 2 of the Convention. Formulation, implementation and periodic review, in consultation with the social partners, of a coherent national policy on occupational health services. The Committee notes that on 25 May 2005, the National Agreement on the Prevention of Occupational Accidents 2005–10 was concluded between the Government, the Single Confederation of Workers, the Confederation of Production and Trade and the Association of Mutual Societies. The Committee notes that in the third clause of the abovementioned Agreement, the parties decided to set up a quadripartite committee for the purpose of evaluating the progress made every three months. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on: (1) the action taken, if any, by the quadripartite committee with regard to the formulation, implementation and review of occupational health services; (2) other plans or policies developed by other bodies in accordance with this Article in which representatives of employers and workers participate; and (3) the application in practice of these points, including, for example, extracts from the reports of the abovementioned quadripartite committee.

Article 4. Consultation with organizations of employers and workers on the measures to give effect to the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the consultations undertaken, which have resulted in various agreements, most recently in 2005, as mentioned above. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the consultations held with the social partners to give effect to the Convention.

Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2. Composition of occupational health services and cooperation with the other services in the undertaking. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on measures taken, in law and in practice, which concern the inclusion of medical personnel in occupational health services, as well as on the cooperation existing between the occupational health services and other services in the undertaking.

Article 10. Full independence of the personnel providing occupational health services. The Committee notes that the information provided on this point is insufficient. The Committee also refers to its comments made in its observation concerning the application of this Article. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the legislation which ensures the independence of the abovementioned personnel, including personnel hired by the enterprises to which section 72 of Act No. 16744 applies (delegated administrators), and on the application of this legislation in practice, including any administrative and/or court decisions.

Part VI of the report form. Application in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the establishment of health services in practice, indicating the number of workers covered by the health services and the estimated number of workers not covered, the sector in which they work and the measures to provide them with these services. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including summaries of labour inspection reports, and statistical information, including data on the number of workers covered, disaggregated by gender, if possible, and the number and nature of contraventions reported.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s first two reports and the comments made by the Government concerning the observations submitted by the Latin American Confederation of Workers (CLAT) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL), to which it referred briefly in its previous observation.

Article 5, paragraphs (a), (b) and (f), of the Convention. Occupational health services which ensure that the functions set out in this Article are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking. The observations allege a failure to comply with the above provisions in relation to the Chilean National Copper Corporation (Codelco), Andina Division, in which there was allegedly a silicosis epidemic caused by a dust and silica concentration which exceeded the maximum permitted. It is indicated that the company threatened workers, denied the existing epidemic and failed to assume responsibility. According to the observation between 2000 and 2003, following the assessment of occupational diseases carried out by the Preventive Medicine and Disability Committee (COMPIN), Aconcagua Health Service, 171 cases of silicosis were detected. The trade unions state that, taking into account that there was a total of 600 employees, the figure of 171 cases of silicosis indicates that 28 per cent of the company’s workers were affected. The trade unions state that the real situation could be even more serious given that the tests were limited to only a group and not to all workers in the company. Only 271 workers were examined using computerized axial tomography (CAT), which revealed 171 cases of silicosis. In other words, 60 per cent of the workers who underwent the examination were found to have silicosis. According to the communication, this indicates that the workers were exposed to physical agents which exceeded the permissible limits. The trade unions indicate that, as a result of this, the company prohibited the use of CAT and doctors were limited in the future to using only conventional X-ray systems, which, according to the trade unions, are clearly not sufficient for diagnosing silicosis. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, during the period mentioned in the observation, the authority of the Aconcagua Health Service declared 115 workers to be disabled. The Government indicates that 50 per cent of these declarations were subsequently overturned by the health authority on the basis of various technical arguments put forward in the respective appeal processes initiated in accordance with the law. The Government indicates that approximately half of the cases in which partial disability was originally declared as a result of silicosis were rejected on appeal on the basis of false positives and incorrect diagnosis using the CAT technique, which is not suitable for diagnosing this disease. The Government also indicates that, in November 2003, the country’s 28 COMPINs met together and concluded that CAT scans of the chest would not be used to assess silicosis. Instead, X-rays would be carried out every six months. With regard to exposure levels, the Government indicates that levels of exposure to silica decreased between 1999 and 2004, including exposure thereto by staff. In the working areas of the underground mine and crushing plant plans were implemented to mitigate and reduce dust contamination. The Committee recalls that under Article 5 of the Convention, occupational health services shall ensure that the functions set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) of that Article (identification and assessment of risks, surveillance of factors in the working environment and surveillance of workers’ health) are adequate and appropriate to the occupational risks of the undertaking. The Committee cannot fail to note that the use of a methodology determined by a COMPIN and subsequently declared unsuitable by the same institutions once serious diagnoses have been established, as well as the uncertainty thereby created among the workers initially diagnosed with silicosis, raises doubts as to whether these functions have been carried out in an adequate and appropriate manner. With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Article, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which occupational risks are identified and how factors in the working environment are subject to surveillance, including information on prevention and exposure levels in the copper industry and in particular in the company concerned, and to include documentation on this matter, such as reports of the company’s joint health and safety committees. With regard to paragraph (f) of this Article, the Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which surveillance of workers’ health is carried out in the copper industry and, in particular, in the company in question, indicating, in particular, the type and frequency of examinations carried out by the medical services to prevent and detect silicosis. It also requests information on the current state of health of the 171 workers whose initial diagnosis of silicosis was reversed by subsequent X-ray examinations.

Article 5(h). Vocational rehabilitation. According to the observation, the company has not transferred the workers, in accordance with section 71 of Act No. 16744, to other workplaces where they would not be exposed to the agent which caused the disease and the Aconcagua Health Service expressly indicates that it has not been established that the workplaces to which workers were transferred were free of the agent which caused the disease. In this regard, the Government indicates that, on 1 January 2005, the Andina Division had already transferred all workers for whom a valid decision had been issued declaring incapacity due to silicosis to other jobs in which they were not exposed to dust. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on this matter, including on the measures taken in respect of the workers who have lodged appeals against the invalidation of their initial diagnosis.

Article 10. Full professional independence of health services personnel. According to the observation, Coldelco, the Andina Division, has the delegated administrative authority provided for in Act No. 16744, but it adds that this authority is not appropriate given that section 72 of the Act concerned requires an enterprise to have at least 2,000 employees before it can act as a delegated administrator and the company in question only has 600 employees. It indicates that by having delegated administration, Codelco, the Andina Division, controls the entire system of health and management of risk prevention plans and operates as a closed system in which workers are unable to resort to an external system. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, Codelco, the Andina Division, is authorized to act as a delegated social insurance administrator in accordance with section 71 of the above Act and section 23 of the Ministry of Labour Supreme Decree No. 101 of 1968. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the manner in which it ensures the professional independence of the personnel providing occupational health services in relation to the functions listed in Article 5 of the Convention as required under Article 10 of the Convention, in the case of delegated administrators, including Codelco, the Andina Division.

Part IV of the report form. Judicial and administrative decisions. The Committee notes that, according to the observation, among the 171 workers diagnosed by COMPIN as having silicosis and a disability causing them a loss of earning of between 27.5 and 80 per cent, 41 had been relieved of their functions and, at the time of the submission of the observation, another 23 were in the process of being relieved. It indicates that, at the end of 2003, a group of 23 active workers who were sick took legal action against the company, claiming compensation for damages, while, 17 of the workers relieved of their functions filed a criminal complaint alleging responsibility on the part of the company for what they referred to as an epidemic of silicosis. They referred to the defencelessness and helplessness of the workers, who were to receive $10,000 due to having contracted silicosis. They indicated that the company denied everything, and even questioned the validity of the examinations requested by the company itself at the Clínica Santa María and the Clínica las Condes, calling into question these institutions and the responsibility of health services, in particular of COMPIN, for certifying disability. The Committee notes that the Government indicates that there have been no dismissals but that workers who requested it were able to take advantage of voluntary retirement plans which included special compensation. It also indicates that the Social Security Supervisory Authority reported that eight workers had taken legal action against the company attributed delegated administration and that the Supervisory Authority had received a series of appeals from workers from the Andina Division of Codelco-Chile which have not yet been resolved and are awaiting a judicial decision. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on any developments relating to the cases which are being dealt with through judicial and/or administrative channels with regard to the situation being examined.

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

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

1. Further to its observation, the Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report received in January 2006. The Committee notes in particular the information provided by the Government concerning the measures giving effect to the following provisions of the Convention: Article 4. Consultations held by the competent authority with the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned; Article 8. Cooperation between employers and workers at all levels in the undertaking; Article 17, paragraphs 1–2. Demolition of plants by employers or contractors on the basis of a workplan drawn up prior to the commencement of the work; Article 18, paragraphs 2–3. Control over the handling and cleaning of protective clothing; prohibition for the workers to take such clothing home; Article 21,
paragraphs 1–2. Medical examinations of workers during working hours; Article 22, paragraph 3. Obligation for the employer to ensure that all workers exposed or likely to be exposed to asbestos are informed about the health hazards related to their work.

2. Article 2. Definitions. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to Supreme Decree No. 656 of 2000 of the Ministry of Health prohibiting the use of asbestos in the products indicated and which contains definitions of the terms. “asbestos”, “friable asbestos” and “asbestos fibres”. The Committee requests the Government to provide the legal definitions of the terms “asbestos dust” and “exposure to asbestos”.

3. Article 3, paragraph 2. Periodic review of legislation. The Committee notes that the legislation respecting the protection of the health of workers exposed to chemical substances and other risk factors is reviewed periodically by a technical committee composed of specialists from the Ministry of Health and its dependent agencies, with representatives being invited from other ministries, the most representative organizations of workers and employers. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the outcome of such reviews.

4. Article 6, paragraph 3. Emergency situations. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the procedures for dealing with such situations. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any reply and requests the Government once again to indicate the procedures for dealing with emergency situations.

5. Article 10. Replacement of asbestos by other materials or products or the prohibition of the use of asbestos. In its previous comments, the Committee recalled that technical impracticability was the sole valid reason for failing to replace asbestos by other materials and that this Article of the Convention does not recognize economic grounds for granting derogations to the prohibition against the use of asbestos, in contrast with the provisions of section 5 of Decree No. 656, by virtue of which the health authority may authorize the use of asbestos in the manufacture of products or components which are not construction materials, on condition that it can be proved that it is neither technically nor economically feasible to replace asbestos by another material. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure full compliance with this Article of the Convention.

6. Article 17, paragraph 3. Consultation of workers or their representatives on the workplan. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the requirement for an explicit authorization by the competent health service for demolition work in which the measures to be taken to provide protection for the health of workers and the neighbouring population are determined. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with the above paragraph, the employer or contractor shall consult the workers or their representatives on the workplan drawn up for demolition work. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the workers or their representatives are consulted on the workplans referred to above.

7. Article 18, paragraph 3. Prohibition against taking home work clothing and special protective clothing. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to sections 53 and 54 of Supreme Decree No. 594, under which the employer shall provide the workers with personal protective equipment that is appropriate to the risk. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the provisions in national legislation which prohibit workers from taking home work clothing and special protective clothing.

8. Article 22, paragraph 2. Policies and procedures on measures for the education and periodic training of workers. In its previous comments, the Committee reminded the Government that, in accordance with this provision of the Convention, the employer is under the obligation to establish written policies and procedures on measures for the education and periodic of training of workers on asbestos hazards and methods of prevention and control, and that this requirement goes beyond the mere dissemination of information on existing safety and health regulations. As the Government’s report does not contain any information on this subject, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

9. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the need to adopt measures regarding the following matters: labelling of asbestos and products containing asbestos (Article 14); appropriate measures to prevent or control the release of asbestos dust into the air (Article 15, paragraph 3); practical measures for the prevention and control of the exposure of workers to asbestos (Article 16); record keeping (Article 20, paragraph 2); access of workers to records kept (Article 20, paragraph 3); the right to request and appeal results of monitoring of the working environment (Article 20, paragraph 4); and information on results of medical examinations and individual advice concerning their health in relation to their work (Article 21, paragraph 3).

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

With reference to its previous comment concerning the observations made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) on the use of asbestos by a number of enterprises and its harmful effects both to the workers exposed to it and on the population in the vicinity (Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention), the Committee notes with regret that the Government’s detailed report on the application of this Convention, examined further in a request addressed directly to the Government, contains no reply to its comments nor any information on measures taken in response thereto. It hopes that a report will be submitted for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous observation, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the Government’s comments indicating that the exposure of workers had occurred many years earlier, even before the Convention was adopted, and when the dangers of exposure to asbestos were not realized. The Government indicates that at the time the Convention was ratified, the Supreme Decree No. 745/92 concerning the Regulation on basic health and environmental conditions in workplaces was already in force. According to the Government, this instrument contains an obligation for the employer to maintain in workplaces the necessary conditions to protect the life and health of the workers. The Government however indicates that the time when asbestos is dangerous is when it is being handled during manufacture of products. It indicates, furthermore, that as from July 2000 the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism has prohibited the use of products or elements containing asbestos cement in construction work. It also indicates that by mistake asbestos cement and free asbestos have been assimilated and classed as having similar levels of toxic hazard. The Government recalls that in 1991 the Ministry of Health indicated, through the Department of Occupational Health, that “the risk of cancer is probably undetectable or extremely low and has not been really quantified”. The Government indicates that the firm mentioned in the WFTU’s comments, the Sociedad Industrial Pizarreño, SA, did manufacture fibre cement products for construction, using asbestos as a raw material. Nevertheless, the Government indicates that this firm has not manufactured products with asbestos since 1999. Since that year, according to the Government,  asbestos-free processes have been used by firms of very different sizes, embracing over 80 per cent of national fibre cement production which has consequently involved a reduction in imports of asbestos in the same proportion. Finally, the Government indicates that the affected persons concerned have legal advice and access to the courts.

2. Noting the Government’s comments, the Committee wishes to recall that, as indicated inter alia in the preparatory work on Convention No. 162, “The health consequences of asbestos exposure were recognized rather late ... The main reason for these delays has been the long latency – up to several decades – between the start of work with asbestos and the development of clinical signs of the diseases. The illness can also appear many years after cessation of work in persons who had left jobs where they had been exposed to asbestos without any evident health impairment” (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, pages 3 and 4). Consequently, the protection measures to be adopted must take into account the fact that workers who were exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos even before the Convention was adopted or ratified by a specific State. Proof is furnished by the fact that, as the Government indicates, provisions had been adopted in Chile before ratification of the Convention. Moreover, the fact that a number of firms have stopped using asbestos in their manufacturing processes does not mean that the harmful effects of the material on workers’ health have disappeared, all the more so since the Committee understands from the Government’s statement that the number of firms may be very large. Consequently, it is now that the harmful effects of exposure to asbestos are being felt and it is now that workers who were exposed should be provided, inter alia, with such medical examinations as are necessary to supervise their health in relation to the occupational hazard they incurred, as provided in Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, the same Report of the Conference also states that “Although there is no evidence of adverse effects of commercial use of asbestos on the health of the general population, the question of possible long-term health effects arises because of the uncertainty about safe limits of exposure to carcinogens” (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, page 5). The Committee accordingly considers that appropriate measures should be taken to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace, as provided in Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and that action should be taken to screen those persons of the population who have been subject to exposure to asbestos, in order to adopt appropriate measures in favour of them. The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt all necessary measures to give effect to national legislation covering activities related to exposure to asbestos, thus guaranteeing application of the relevant provisions of the Convention.

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. Consultation with employers’ and workers’ representatives. The Committee notes that the Government in its response refers to the adoption of Law No. 19.825 amending Law No. 18.302 on nuclear safety. It also notes, once again, the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Health, being the competent authority in the field, has not provided information on the consultation carried out with employers’ and workers’ representatives to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government, once again, to indicate the way in which employers’ and workers’ representatives are consulted on the measures to give effect to this Article of the Convention.

3. Article 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) and (b) and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. Effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations; revision of maximum permissible doses and amounts. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that according to section 98 of Decree No. 745 of 23 July 1992, read in conjunction with section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, the current annual dose limit for the body of workers exposed to ionizing radiation is 5 rem (equivalent to 50 mSv) and for the eyes is 30 rem (equivalent to 300 mSv). With reference to the content of Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee notes that to guarantee an effective protection to workers, the admissible maximum doses of ionizing radiation have to be reviewed constantly in the light of “knowledge available” and of “current knowledge”. As indicated in the Committee’s 1992 general observation, relevant information in this respect can be found in the recommendations adopted in 1990 by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) contained in the publication International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (IAE Security Collection, Series No. 115). In this respect, the Committee notes that the Government seems to indicate that the International Basic Safety Standards are being applied in the country. The Committee notes, however, that the maximum doses previously referred to are significantly higher than those recommended by the IAE, which recommends maximum annual doses of 20 mSv for the body and 15 mSv for the eyes. As a consequence, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to inform the Committee, in the near future, of the adoption of new dose limits for workers directly exposed to ionizing radiations.

4. Article 5. Reduction of the exposure of workers to ionizing radiations to the lowest practicable level. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it referred to section 2 of Law No. 15737 of 24 October 1964 which limits to six hours the daily working time for workers exposed to ionizing radiation at work and for those engaged in radiotherapy (section 1 of the Law) and to section 1 of Law No. 15778 of 30 October 1964 according to which these groups of workers should enjoy 30 working days of holidays in the summer and 15 working days of holidays in the winter and that it is only section 13 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 which aims explicitly at reducing to the lowest practicable level the exposure to ionizing radiations for a specific group of workers, that is, women. The Committee notes that the last report does not contain any information in this respect and reiterates its request to the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged with a view to reducing to the lowest practicable level the exposure of all workers to ionizing radiations and to avoid all unnecessary exposure.

5. Article 7, paragraph 1(a), read in conjunction with Article 3, paragraph 3. Measures to fix appropriate levels for certain categories of workers. The Committee pointed out in its previous comments that, according to the terms of section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, the annual dose limit of ionizing radiation for workers directly exposed is 50 mSv. It recalls that the 1990 recommendations of the ICRP recommend an annual dose limit of 20 mSv for workers directly exposed to ionizing radiation and who are 18 years of age or over. The Committee notes the Government’s indication according to which pregnant women cannot receive occupational radiation doses higher than 0.5 rem (5 mSv) throughout the pregnancy. The Committee refers to the recommendations of the ICRP referred to in paragraph 13 of its 1992 general observation, according to which the unborn child should be protected from ionizing radiation by applying an equivalent dose limit to the surface of the woman’s abdomen (lower trunk) of 2 mSv from the declaration of the pregnancy until its term. The Committee requests the Government to take measures so as to bring into conformity the current annual dose limits for the referred categories of workers and dose limits for pregnant women with those recommended by the ICRP in 1990.

6. Article 8 read in conjunction with Article 3. Admissible maximum doses of ionizing radiations for workers not directly involved with radiation. According to the indications contained in the Government’s last report, no special levels have been fixed for the cases treated under this Article of the Convention and that the standards applied are the same as those set for members of the general public. In this respect, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO code of practice, and to paragraph 14 of its 1992 general observation which fixes the annual dose limit for ionizing radiation at 1 mSv for this category of workers, its average being calculated over a five-year period. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to fix the appropriate levels for this category of worker.

7. Article 13(a). Duty to provide appropriate medical examination to workers exposed to radiation after an accident or in cases of emergency. In the context of medical examinations workers should benefit from after an accident or in emergency situations, the Government refers once again to the provisions of Act No. 16744. In this regard, the Committee noted in its previous comments that the provisions of this law aim only at prescribing preventive measures for professional risks. It noted that these provisions do not provide for measures in order to optimize the protection of workers in cases of accidents or emergency situations, in particular as regards the requirement to provide such workers with medical examinations. In consequence, the Committee requests the Government to take appropriate measures to ensure that workers affected could benefit from medical examinations in emergency situations in accordance with the Convention.

8. Article 13(b). Employers’ duty to notify the competent authority of any accident or anomaly. With reference to section 17 of Act No. 18302 of 2 May 1984, which provides that accidents or any anomaly in the functioning of undertakings or of nuclear devices should be communicated within 24 hours by the person noticing the anomaly to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission, the Committee requested the Government, in its previous comments, to indicate measures adopted or envisaged to prescribe such a duty for employers. As the Government’s last report did not contain any information in this regard, the Committee once again urges the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to prescribe that employers be required to notify the competent authority of any accident or anomaly.

9. Part V of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to give a general indication on the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country, including, for instance, extracts from inspection reports, statistical information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of registered infringements, the number and causes of registered accidents and the measures taken to solve those accidents, individual protective equipment provided to workers such as dosimeters, etc.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. In particular, it notes the information on the application of Article 8 of the Convention.

2. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure to benzene. The Committee notes with interest that section 1 of Decree No. 201 of 27 April 2001 modified the occupational exposure limit established in section 66 of Decree No. 594/99 and set the limit at the level of 8 parts per million (ppm). At the same time, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that the limit established in the Convention was based on scientific knowledge available in 1971, at the time that the Convention was adopted, and that over the years that have elapsed since the beginning of the 1970s, based on scientific progress, the concentration limit for occupational exposure has been reconsidered by a number of competent bodies. For example, the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has recommended that the concentration limit for occupational exposure to benzene should be no more than 0.5 ppm. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information in its next report on measures taken or envisaged to harmonize the concentration limit currently in force for occupational exposure to benzene with current scientific knowledge, and particularly the limit recommended by the ACGIH.

3. Article 6, paragraph 3. Issuing of directions by the competent authorities for the measurement of benzene in the air. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the Basic Manual on Measurement and Biological Samples in Occupational Health, Chapter VIII, which includes a guide for taking samples of chemical agents in the workplace, including organic solvents. With a view to examining the application of this provision of the Convention in greater depth, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the above Manual with its next report.

4. Article 7. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. The Committee notes that, in its reply to its previous comments, the Government refers to the national legislation that is in force, by virtue of which, in cases in which the health authority authorizes the use of benzene on the grounds that it cannot be replaced by another product, the process of the production, distribution, sale and use of organic solvents which are harmful to health shall be carried out as far as practicable in enclosed installations. The Government is requested to indicate the provisions of this legislation which give effect to the present Article.

5. Article 9, paragraph 1, and Article 10, paragraph 1. Pre-employment medical examinations and periodic re-examinations. The Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 68 of Act No. 16744 on social insurance against occupational injury and section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 40 implementing the Act, establishing the obligation for enterprises to adopt occupational safety and health measures and the obligation for employers’ mutual societies to undertake continuous activities for the prevention of the risk of employment accidents and occupational diseases. The Committee notes that none of the above provisions establish the obligation for workers exposed to benzene or to products containing benzene to undergo a thorough pre-employment medical examination for fitness for employment and periodic re-examinations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the necessary measures taken to ensure that all workers concerned undergo medical examinations of the two types indicated above and that such medical examinations are carried out under the responsibility of a qualified physician, approved by the competent authority, or of various categories of physicians whose qualifications or functions make them especially competent to carry out such examinations.

6. Article 10, paragraph 2. Medical examination free of charge for workers. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that there is no provision in the national legislation explicitly providing that the preventive examinations that have to be carried out in the context of the programme of surveillance shall be free of charge. The Government is requested to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the medical examination is free of charge for workers.

7. Part IV of the report form. Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government to provide general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied, as well as extracts from labour inspection reports, statistical data, including information on the number of workers covered and the number and nature of contraventions reported.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report. It notes with satisfaction the adoption of Act No. 20001 of 28 January 2005 on the maximum human load weight and Supreme Decree No. 63, July 2005, of the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare, regulating the application of the Act. It notes that these texts give full effect to Article 3 (maximum weight to be transported manually by a worker), Article 6 (suitable technical devices to facilitate the transport of loads), Article 7 (assignment of women and young workers under 18 years of age) of the Convention, and also take into account the provisions of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied with the Government’s report as well as the information supplied in response to its comments. It notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 594 published on 29 April 2000, issued by the Minister of Health, concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, repealing and replacing Decree No. 745 of 1992 on the same issue, the adoption of Decree No. 656 of 13 January 2001, issued by the Minister of Health, prohibiting the use of asbestos in products indicated thereunder as well as resolution No. 1.157 of 13 July 2000, issued by the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications, prohibiting the putting into circulation of vehicles containing asbestos materials in their break system.

The Committee further notes with interest the information provided by the Government on Article 15, paragraph 4, Article 19, paragraph 1, and Article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention giving effect to the provisions of these Articles of the Convention.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 2. The Committee notes that article 4 of Decree No. 656 defines the terms "asbestos", "friable asbestos", and "respirable asbestos fibres". It notes that article 3 of the Labour Code defines the terms "employer", "worker" and "independent worker", and that the definition of the term "workers’ representatives" is to be found in Decree No. 649 of 20 April 2000, issued by the Minister of External Relations, promulgating Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). The Committee asks the Government to indicate the legal definition of the terms "asbestos dust", "airborne asbestos dust" and "exposure to asbestos".

2. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that article 66 of Decree No. 594, concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, establishes permissible exposure level for workers to chemical substances, inter alia, asbestos, measured in terms of time-weighted average concentrations in the environment for a specific reference period, that is exposure expressed as an eight-hour time-weighted average concentration, which is a measure of exposure intensity that has been averaged over an eight-hour work shift. Article 68 of this Decree prescribes that exposure rated "A.1", which includes asbestos, are evidently carcinogenic to human beings, and therefore the furthest protective and personnel hygiene measures have to be taken. In this context, the Committee notes that articles 1 to 3 of Decree No. 656 of 2001, prohibiting the putting into circulation of motorized vehicles containing asbestos material in their break system, provides for the prohibition of certain types of asbestos as well as certain products containing asbestos with regard to their production, import, distribution, sale and use. Moreover, Decree No. 27 of 23 April 1988, issued by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, has added to the schedule of article 19 of Decree No. 109 of 1968 concerning recognized harmful agents and occupational diseases, two diseases which are caused in particular by work involving exposure to asbestos. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to indicate the periodicity in which the legislation on measures to be taken to prevent and control health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos and to protect workers against these hazards is reviewed.

3. Article 4. With regard to consultations to be carried out between the competent authority and the representative organizations of employers and workers concerned on the preventive and protective measures to be taken, the Government indicates that consultations with the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned are carried out as far as they exist. However, consultations take place to the extent possible taking into account their suitability for the country. Moreover, the joint safety and health committee in the enterprises, having the necessary competence, are heard on the measures to be taken. The Committee requests the Government to explain in detail the above-described procedure between the government authorities and the organizations of employers and workers concerned, as well as its modalities. It also requests the Government to indicate whether this procedure is standardized to ensure that effective consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations provided for in this Article of the Convention take place.

4. Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the cooperation requirement between employers who undertake simultaneously activities at one workplace to comply with prescribed protective measures, the Committee notes that reference is made by the Government to article 66 of Act No. 16.744 on the establishment of social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, which describes the different functions of the joint safety and health committee in enterprises. The Government further refers to article 67 of Act No. 16.744, in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40 of 1969 concerning regulations on occupational risks prevention with regard to Chapter VII of Act No. 16.744, which deal with the worker’s obligation to cooperate with the employer on the implementation of safety and health measures at the enterprise. The Committee therefore recalls that Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls for cooperation among the different employers performing work at the same time at one workplace. The Government is therefore requested to indicate the general procedures of cooperation to be followed in this case.

5. Article 6, paragraph 3. With regard to the preparation of procedures for dealing with emergency situations, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedures to be prepared for dealing with emergency situations.

6. Article 8. As concerns the cooperation between employers and workers or their representatives in the undertaking in the application of preventive and protective measures, the Government refers to article 67 of Act No. 16.744 in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40. The Committee states that these provisions concern the worker’s obligation to comply with the internal safety and health regulations established at the enterprise as well as external safety and health regulations. The Committee notes however that article 66 of Act No. 16.744 provides for a joint safety and health committee to be established in enterprises with more than 25 workers for cooperation purposes on safety and health issues. Composed of workers and employers, such committees take decisions for which authority is conferred on employers and workers by the abovementioned Act. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in enterprises with fewer than 25 workers, workers and employers cooperate on the implementation of the measures prescribed by the health and security legislation, particularly in respect of hazards due to asbestos.

7. Article 10(a) and (b). The Committee notes that article 1 of Decree No. 656 prohibiting the use of asbestos in the products indicated thereunder, provides for the prohibition to produce, to import, to distribute, to sell and to use crocidolite (blue asbestos) in the country. Its article 2 prohibits the production, import, distribution and sale of construction material containing any type of asbestos, and article 3 likewise prohibits the import, distribution, sale and use of certain types of asbestos or mixtures of asbestos, which do not constitute construction material. However, article 3 provides for the possibility of granting derogations to the prohibitions spelled out, in accordance with the requirements established under article 5. By virtue of article 5, the health authority may authorize the use of asbestos in the production of products or ingredients, which are not construction materials, under the condition that the interested person can prove that it is neither technically nor economically feasible to replace asbestos by another material. The Committee recalls that, while lacking technical practicability constitutes a valid reason for non-replacement of asbestos by another material, this Article of the Convention does not recognize economic grounds for granting derogations to the prohibition of asbestos. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full compliance with this Article of the Convention.

8. Article 17, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. The Committee notes that article 9 of Decree No. 656 deals with the demolition of buildings and installations containing friable asbestos insulation materials in which asbestos is liable to become airborne. In order to carry out such work, the enterprise assigned needs to obtain the express authorization of the competent health service. In the framework of this authorization procedure, measures are established that are designed to protect the health of workers and the population in the neighbourhood. The established procedures are to be pursued during the entire demolition work. In the event that a building or installation contains asbestos, which is only found at a later stage, that is after the demolition work has started, the enterprise carrying out this work is nevertheless obliged to ask at that stage for authorization at the health service in order to continue the demolition work. The Committee infers that working plans specifying the measures to be taken have to be drawn up by the employer before starting demolition work in order to obtain the authorization from the health service to carry out demolition work. With regard to the work plans, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the workers or their representatives are consulted on these work plans established in relation to safety measures to be taken when carrying out demolition work, in conformity with paragraph 3 of this Article.

9. Article 18, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. The Committee notes with interest the provision of article 27 of Decree No. 594 providing for changing rooms to be put at the workers’ disposal if the activities performed require a change of clothing. Article 27 further describes the manner in which such changing rooms should be equipped. In the case that the worker is exposed to toxic or infectious substances at the workplace, two individual and separated deposit boxes for clothing should be put at the worker’s disposal, one for the working clothing and another for the worker’s usual clothing. The employer is responsible for the cleaning of the work clothing and is obliged to adopt measures to impede the worker to take away work clothing from the workplace. The Committee infers that, although article 27 of Decree No. 594 is not explicit in this respect, the employer must provide appropriate work clothing to the workers, which shall not be worn outside the workplace, as provided for in Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee would request the Government to confirm that the employer is obligated to provide appropriate work clothing to the workers in the event that workers’ personal clothing may become contaminated with asbestos dust.

10. Article 21, paragraph 1. With regard to the provision of medical examinations to workers, the Government refers to the provisions of articles 9, 12(b) and (c), 71 and 76 of Act No. 16.744. The Committee notes that article 9 deals with the duties of the Institute of Social Security and article 12(b) and (c) concerns medical examination of workers, however, with a view to administrative issues. Article 71 provides for medical examinations of workers already affected by an occupational disease in relation to their transfer to other work, and article 76 imposes the obligation on the employer to notify immediately to the respective administrative authority the occurrence of any accident or disease which could cause the worker’s incapacity to continue his work or could lead to his death. The Committee states that, in particular, articles 71 and 76 of Act No. 16.744 anticipate the existence of medical examinations of workers. In this regard, it points out that the main purpose of medical examinations of workers is, however, primary prevention of work-related injuries and diseases to ensure that their state of health is compatible with their job assignment and that occupational exposure does not have any detrimental effects on their health. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the provisions of the law that prescribe preventive medical examinations for workers, specifying the nature of these examinations.

11. Article 21, paragraph 2. With regard to medical examination free of charge for workers, the Committee notes that reference is made by the Government to article 29 of Act No. 16.744, which provides for curative treatments, as enumerated, free of charge for workers who are victims of occupational accidents. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether preventive medical examinations for workers are also free of charge, and to indicate the legal basis.

12. Article 22, paragraph 2. The Committee notes article 67 of Act No. 16.744 in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40 prescribing that enterprises or entities are obliged to maintain up to date their internal regulations on safety and health at work. The worker, for his part, is obliged to apply the requirements imposed on him by the regulations. Furthermore, the enterprise or entity must supply a free copy of these regulations to the worker. The Committee wishes to point out that Article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls for the establishment of written policies and procedures on measures for the education and periodic training of workers on asbestos hazards and methods of prevention and control, which goes beyond the mere dissemination of information on existing safety and health regulations. It accordingly asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

13. Article 22, paragraph 3. The Committee notes that article 21 of Decree No. 40 provides for the employer’s obligation to inform the workers duly on the risks inherent in their work, on the preventive measures to be taken, as well as on the correct working methods. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific measures taken or envisaged with a view to asbestos.

14. Furthermore, the Committee draws once again the Government’s attention to the need to adopt measures on the following: identification of asbestos or products containing asbestos by appropriate labelling (Article 14); appropriate measures to prevent or control release of asbestos dust into the air to ensure compliance with specified exposure limits (Article 15, paragraph 3); practical measures for the prevention and control of the exposure of workers to asbestos and for their protection against hazards due to asbestos (Article 16); measures taken by the competent authority and the employer to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace (Article 19, paragraph 2); prescription of a period during which the records of the monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers must be kept (Article 20, paragraph 2); workers’ access to such records (Article 20, paragraph 3); the right of workers to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring (Article 20, paragraph 4); and information of the workers on the results of their medical examinations and individual advice concerning their health in relation to their work (Article 21, paragraph 3).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points and requests the Government to supply further information as required.

1. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure. The Committee notes article 66 of Decree No. 594 of 29 April 2000 concerning basic health conditions and the working environment, establishing a concentration limit of benzene in the air of the environment of 1.3 mg/m3, which is below the concentration level established by the Convention. The Committee, however, would draw the Government’s attention to the fact that this limit has been established based on the scientific knowledge available in 1971, at the time when the Convention had been adopted. In the meantime, following scientific progress, the concentration limit for occupational exposure recommended by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is nearly ten times lower, namely 0.5 ppm. The exposure limit of 1.3 mg/m3 fixed by the above Decree corresponds to 1.625 ppm. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider the possibility to align the limit value currently in force for occupational exposure to benzene to the limit value recommended by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

2. Article 6, paragraph 3. Issuing of directives by the competent authority for measuring benzene in the air. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the competent authority has issued directives for the measurement of the concentration of benzene in the air in places of employment.

3. Article 7, paragraph 1. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the use of benzene or products containing benzene, to the extent permitted according to article 10 of Decree No. 144 of 26 July 1985 on the production, distribution, store and use of organic solvents harmful to health, must be carried out, as far as practicable, in an enclosed system.

4. Article 8. Provision of personal protection means to workers against the risk of inhaling or absorbing benzene through the skin. The Committee notes article 68 of Act No. 16.744 of 1 February 1968 on the establishment of social insurance against accidents and occupational diseases, read together with article 11 of Decree No. 144 of 26 July 1985 on the production, distribution, store and use of organic solvents harmful to health, requiring the enterprise to provide workers with the necessary means of protection against the risk inherent in their work. In the same way, article 53 of Decree No. 594 of 29 April 2000 concerning basic health conditions and the working environment, obliges the employer to provide, according to the risks inherent to the work, adequate protection equipment to the workers. However, it does not derive from these provisions that specific means of personal protection against the risks of absorbing benzene through the skin or of inhaling benzene vapour have to be provided to the workers. Hence, the Committee requests the Government to specify the protection means that are put at the disposal of the workers concerned.

5. Article 9, paragraph 1, and Article 10, paragraph 1. Medical examination. With regard to the medical examination of workers, the Committee notes that the Government refers to article 12 of Act No. 16.744 of 1 February 1968 on the establishment of social insurance against accidents and occupational diseases. Article 12(c) provides for the carrying out of permanent activities related to the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the organs of the Social Security (Mutualidades), on the basis of this law, carry out pre-employment examinations of the workers at the request of the enterprises. The Committee, while taking into consideration the Government’s indications on the understanding of the above provision, observes that it appears to be left to the discretion of the individual employer to request medical examinations of his workers. In contrast, the Convention provides for medical examinations for fitness for employment of all workers exposed to benzene in the course of their work. These examinations must be carried out at different stages, namely prior to employment and periodically thereafter, and must include biological tests and blood tests at intervals to be fixed by national laws or regulations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers concerned are subject to medical examinations prior to employment and periodically thereafter. With regard to the manner in which the medical examinations are to be carried out, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 10 of the Convention providing for the obligation of the competent authority to approve qualified physicians responsible for such examinations, or categories of physicians whose qualifications or functions make them especially competent to carry out the examinations, with the assistance, as appropriate, of a competent laboratory.

6. Article 10, paragraph 2. Medical examination free of charge for workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the medical surveillance does not involve the workers in any expense. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legal basis providing for medical surveillance free of charge for workers.

7. Article 11, paragraph 2. Prohibition to employ young persons under the age of 18 years in work processes involving their exposure to benzene. The Committee notes that pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, young persons between 15 and 18 years of age may only be parties to a labour contract with the authorization of the persons indicated therein. Article 14 of the Labour Code specifies that young persons under the age of 18 years may not be employed, inter alia, in activities which are dangerous for their health, safety and morality. Hence, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether activities involving exposure to benzene are covered by the prohibition set out under article 14 of the Labour Code, and to provide a copy of the list of activities prohibited for young persons under the age of 18.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments. In response to the Committee’s preceding observation the Government indicates that no regulations have been issued under the Labour Code. The Committee again accordingly draws the Government’s attention to the following points on which it has focused for several years.

1. Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the list of legislation, contained in the Government’s report, that Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941, issuing general regulations on occupational safety and health, is still in force. Section 57 fixes the maximum weight of a load that may be transported by a single male worker at 80 kg. In contrast, Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, issued by the Director of Labour and communicated to the Regional Directors of Labour and the Regional and Communal Labour Inspectors, which lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be manually transported by workers, establishes a maximum weight of 55 kg for the manual transport of loads by a single worker. Noting the divergent maximum weight values of the above two texts, the Committee would consider that the Circular, contrary to the Presidential Decree, does not have a legal thus binding character. The Committee accordingly hopes that the maximum weight value suggested in the Circular is applied in practice in the country, for, as the Committee had already noted in 1988, it would give effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee however urges the Government to adopt regulations that will provide for clear limits for the different categories of workers concerning the maximum weights in load lifting and carrying. In this context, the Committee again notes the Government’s indication that, in view of the adoption of regulations to be issued under the Labour Code, the different actors involved in the drafting process support different maximum weight limits. The Superintendent of Social Security, through its medical department, proposed that the maximum weight limit for the transport of loads by a single worker should be set at 50 kg, whereas the Chilean Safety Association, being one of the mutual benefit societies of employers that administers social assistance in the field of employment injury, proposed to establish a maximum weight limit of 55 kg. The Occupational Health Department of the Ministry of Health, which the Government had consulted, considered that the provisions of sections 187 and 202 of the Labour Code of 1994 were insufficient to ensure the application of measures provided for by the Convention. The Minister concluded that the regulations concerning the basic health and environment conditions in workplaces have to be amended to enable the incorporation of provisions concerning the ergonomic risks to which workers are exposed. In this respect, the Committee notes that the National Ergonomic Commission, in its 202nd session of 29 November 2000, has approved and published in the Official Gazette of 15 December 2000, the classification of 1,371 occupational activities of which 1,249 have been determined as heavy and 122 have been qualified as not being heavy. Among the 1,249 activities that have been qualified as heavy, a number of them involve the lifting and carrying of loads. The Government indicates that the loads to be transported during that work have a weight of 61 kg and above. In view of these facts, the Committee expresses its firm hope that, while the maximum weight limits proposed of both the Chilean Safety Association and the Superintendent of Social Security would comply with the maximum weight recommended in paragraph 14 of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128), the Government will soon adopt regulations to lower considerably the existing maximum weight limits applied in the country, in order to fully apply this provision of the Convention.

2. Moreover, the Committee recalls that it has raised a certain number of points concerning other provisions of the Convention. The Government however has not provided any information in this regard. Recalling these questions, the Committee expresses its firm hope that the Government will take the necessary action in the very near future, and that the next report of the Government will indicate the progress achieved in this respect.

Article 6. The Committee has noted section 8 of Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985 providing for the use of mechanical devices for the transportation of loads in excess of 55 kg. The Committee again recalls that, while this represents an improvement over the previous weight limit of 80 kg required for the use of such mechanical devices, Article 6 of the Convention calls for the universal use of suitable technical devices whenever possible and irrespective of the weight of the loads to be transported. The Committee hopes that the Government, in the framework of its indicated legal action, will take the necessary measures to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee has noted that Circular No. 30 does not contain a provision to limit the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transportation of loads other than light loads. The Committee accordingly reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to this end in the framework of its above-indicated legislative action.

Article 7, paragraph 2.  The Committee has noted that section 4 of the above Circular No. 30 prescribes in general terms that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without specifying maximum weight limits. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to fix appropriate maximum weight limits for women and young workers, in order to fully apply this Article of the Convention.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the comments of the Confederation of Autonomous Workers (CAT) forwarded by the Latin American Confederation of Workers (CLAT), and those of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 1 April, 3  May and 22 July 2004 respectively, alleging among other objections, shortcomings in the way the Convention is applied to workers of the Chilean National Copper Corporation CODELCO, División Andina. The Committee notes the abovementioned comments and requests the Government to provide detailed information on the matters raised in them. At its next meeting the Committee will examine the comments, together with any observations the Government may wish to make on them, in the light of the information contained in the Government’s earlier reports.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its earlier observation in which it noted the comments made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the documentation sent by the National Trade Union Confederation of Chilean Construction, Wood, Construction Materials and Allied Workers. The WFTU’s comments concern the use of asbestos by a number of enterprises and its harmful effects both on the workers exposed to it and on the population in the vicinity.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments indicating that the exposure of workers had occurred many years earlier, even before the Convention was adopted, and when the dangers of exposure to asbestos were not realized. The Government indicates that at the time the Convention was ratified, the Supreme Decree No. 745/92 concerning the Regulation on basic health and environmental conditions in workplaces was already in force. According to the Government, this instrument contains an obligation for the employer to maintain in workplaces the necessary conditions to protect the life and health of the workers. The Government however indicates that the time when asbestos is dangerous is when it is being handled during manufacture of products. It indicates, furthermore, that as from July 2000 the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism has prohibited the use of products or elements containing asbestos cement in construction work. It also indicates that by mistake asbestos cement and free asbestos have been assimilated and classed as having similar levels of toxic hazard. The Government recalls that in 1991 the Ministry of Health indicated, through the Department of Occupational Health, that "the risk of cancer is probably undetectable or extremely low and has not been really quantified". The Government indicates that the firm mentioned in the WFTU’s comments, the Sociedad Industrial Pizarreño, S.A., did manufacture fibre cement products for construction, using asbestos as a raw material. Nevertheless, the Government indicates that this firm has not manufactured products with asbestos since 1999. Since that year, according to the Government, asbestos-free processes have been used by firms of very different sizes, embracing over 80 per cent of national fibre cement production which has consequently involved a reduction in imports of asbestos in the same proportion. Finally, the Government indicates that the affected persons concerned have legal advice and access to the courts.

Noting the Government’s comments, the Committee wishes to recall that, as indicated inter alia in the preparatory work on Convention No. 162, "The health consequences of asbestos exposure were recognized rather late ... The main reason for these delays has been the long latency - up to several decades - between the start of work with asbestos and the development of clinical signs of the diseases. The illness can also appear many years after cessation of work in persons who had left jobs where they had been exposed to asbestos without any evident health impairment" (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, pages 3 and 4). Consequently, the protection measures to be adopted must take into account the fact that workers who were exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos even before the Convention was adopted or ratified by a specific state. Proof is furnished by the fact that, as the Government indicates, provisions had been adopted in Chile before ratification of the Convention. Moreover, the fact that a number of firms have stopped using asbestos in their manufacturing processes does not mean that the harmful effects of the material on workers’ health have disappeared, all the more so since the Committee understands from the Government’s statement that the number of firms may be very large. Consequently, it is now that the harmful effects of exposure to asbestos are being felt and it is now that workers who were exposed should be provided, inter alia, with such medical examinations as are necessary to supervise their health in relation to the occupational hazard they incurred, as provided in Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, the same Report of the Conference also states that "Although there is no evidence of adverse effects of commercial use of asbestos on the health of the general population, the question of possible long-term health effects arises because of the uncertainty about safe limits of exposure to carcinogens" (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, page 5). The Committee accordingly considers that appropriate measures should be taken to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace, as provided in Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and that action should be taken to screen those persons of the population who have been subject to exposure to asbestos, in order to adopt appropriate measures in favour of them.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt all necessary measures to give effect to national legislation covering activities related to exposure to asbestos, thus guaranteeing application of the relevant provisions of the Convention.

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

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Health, which is the competent authority for such matters, has not sent information regarding consultations held with the representatives of employers and workers in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which employers’ and workers’ representatives are consulted on the measures to be taken in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) and (b), and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that, according to section 98 of Decree No. 745 of 23 July 1992 read in conjunction with section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, for workers exposed to ionizing radiations the maximum annual value currently in force is 5 rem (= 50 mSv) for the whole body and 30 rem (= 300 mSv) for the lens of the eye. The Committee draws the Government’s attention in this connection to the fact that according to Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, all appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that workers are effectively protected against ionizing radiations. To this end, maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations must be constantly reviewed in the light of "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge". The Committee recalls that the maximum permissible doses of radioactive substances were set in Recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990 and reproduced in 1994 in the international basic standards established under the auspices of the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. In its Recommendations, the ICRP advocates a maximum annual dose of 20 mSv for the whole body and of 15 mSv for the lens of the eye. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will shortly be in a position to inform it of the adoption of new dose limits for workers directly assigned to work involving ionizing radiations.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes the provision of section 2 of Act No. 15.737 of 24 October 1964 restricting daily working time to six hours for workers exposed to X-rays in the course of their work and who are involved in radiotherapy (section 1 of the above Act). Furthermore, under section 1 of Act No. 15.778 of 30 October 1964, the abovementioned workers are entitled to leave of 30 working days in summer and 15 working days in winter. The Committee notes that, although these measures mean less exposure to ionizing radiations for the workers concerned, this Article of the Convention aims to restrict exposure to the lowest practicable level. In this connection, the Committee notes that only section 13 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 expressly provides for exposure to ionizing radiations to be reduced to the lowest practicable level for a specific category of workers, in this case women. Consequently, it asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to restrict the exposure of all workers to the lowest practicable level and to avoid all unnecessary exposure.

4. Article 7, paragraph 1(a). The Committee notes that according to section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 the annual maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiations where workers are involved directly in work involving ionizing radiations is 50 mSv. The Committee refers the Government to the Recommendations adopted by the ICRP in 1990 which fix an annual limit of 20 mSv for workers aged 18 and over engaged directly in radiation work, and asks it to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to align the annual maximum permissible dose with that recommended by the ICRP in 1990.

5. Article 8. The Committee notes from the information in the Government’s report that there are no specific provisions fixing maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In this context, the Government points out that the maximum annual doses set in sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1995 also apply to this category of workers. The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention requires specific maximum levels to be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work but whose duties may expose them to such radiations. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO’s code of practice and paragraph 14 of its general observation of 1992 on the Convention which fix the maximum annual dose of ionizing radiations, on the basis of the ICRP, at 1 mSv for this category of workers which is the dose set for members of the public. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to set appropriate levels for this category of workers.

6. Article 13(a). In the context of medical examinations to be undergone by workers following an accident or emergency, the Government refers to the provisions of Act No. 16.744. The Committee notes in this connection that the relevant provisions (sections 65-71) of the Act provide only for preventive measures to be prescribed in respect of occupational hazards. They do not provide for measures to optimize the protection of workers during accidents or emergency operations, particularly as regards availability of medical examinations in the event of exposure in exceptional circumstances. The Committee asks accordingly the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the workers concerned are entitled to undergo medical examination in emergencies.

7. Article 13(b). The Committee notes that, under section 17 of Act No. 18.302 of 2 May 1984, accidents or any other abnormality in the operation of the facility or in nuclear equipment must be reported to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission by any person noting the abnormality, within 24 hours at most. The Committee notes that there would appear to be no specific obligation on the employer in this respect, as required by Article 13(b) of the Convention, and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to establish such an obligation for the employer.

8. Part V of the report form. The Committee asks the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country including, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them, the individual protective equipment allocated to workers, such as dosimeters.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of the "code of practice on physical hazards" published by the Ministry of Health in 1982.

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

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report. It draws the Government’s attention to the following points and requests the Government to supply further information as required.

1. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Establishment of limits for occupational exposure. The Committee notes article 66 of Decree No. 594 of 29 April 2000 concerning basic health conditions and the working environment, establishing a concentration limit of benzene in the air of the environment of 1.3 mg/m3, which is below the concentration level established by the Convention. The Committee, however, would draw the Government’s attention to the fact that this limit has been established based on the scientific knowledge available in 1971, at the time when the Convention had been adopted. In the meantime, following scientific progress, the concentration limit for occupational exposure recommended by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is nearly ten times lower, namely 0.5 ppm. The exposure limit of 1.3 mg/m3 fixed by the above Decree corresponds to 1.625 ppm. The Committee therefore invites the Government to consider the possibility to align the limit value currently in force for occupational exposure to benzene to the limit value recommended by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).

2. Article 6, paragraph 3. Issuing of directives by the competent authority for measuring benzene in the air. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the competent authority has issued directives for the measurement of the concentration of benzene in the air in places of employment.

3. Article 7, paragraph 1. Processes involving the use of benzene to be carried out in an enclosed system. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the use of benzene or products containing benzene, to the extent permitted according to article 10 of Decree No. 144 of 26 July 1985 on the production, distribution, store and use of organic solvents harmful to health, must be carried out, as far as practicable, in an enclosed system.

4. Article 8. Provision of personal protection means to workers against the risk of inhaling or absorbing benzene through the skin. The Committee notes article 68 of Act No. 16.744 of 1 February 1968 on the establishment of social insurance against accidents and occupational diseases, read together with article 11 of Decree No. 144 of 26 July 1985 on the production, distribution, store and use of organic solvents harmful to health, requiring the enterprise to provide workers with the necessary means of protection against the risk inherent in their work. In the same way, article 53 of Decree No. 594 of 29 April 2000 concerning basic health conditions and the working environment, obliges the employer to provide, according to the risks inherent to the work, adequate protection equipment to the workers. However, it does not derive from these provisions that specific means of personal protection against the risks of absorbing benzene through the skin or of inhaling benzene vapour have to be provided to the workers. Hence, the Committee requests the Government to specify the protection means that are put at the disposal of the workers concerned.

5. Article 9, paragraph 1, and Article 10, paragraph 1. Medical examination. With regard to the medical examination of workers, the Committee notes that the Government refers to article 12 of Act No. 16.744 of 1 February 1968 on the establishment of social insurance against accidents and occupational diseases. Article 12(c) provides for the carrying out of permanent activities related to the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the organs of the Social Security (Mutualidades), on the basis of this law, carry out pre-employment examinations of the workers at the request of the enterprises. The Committee, while taking into consideration the Government’s indications on the understanding of the above provision, observes that it appears to be left to the discretion of the individual employer to request medical examinations of his workers. In contrast, the Convention provides for medical examinations for fitness for employment of all workers exposed to benzene in the course of their work. These examinations must be carried out at different stages, namely prior to employment and periodically thereafter, and must include biological tests and blood tests at intervals to be fixed by national laws or regulations. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all workers concerned are subject to medical examinations prior to employment and periodically thereafter. With regard to the manner in which the medical examinations are to be carried out, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to Article 10 of the Convention providing for the obligation of the competent authority to approve qualified physicians responsible for such examinations, or categories of physicians whose qualifications or functions make them especially competent to carry out the examinations, with the assistance, as appropriate, of a competent laboratory.

6. Article 10, paragraph 2. Medical examination free of charge for workers. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the medical surveillance does not involve the workers in any expense. The Committee requests the Government to specify the legal basis providing for medical surveillance free of charge for workers.

7. Article 11, paragraph 2. Prohibition to employ young persons under the age of 18 years in work processes involving their exposure to benzene. The Committee notes that pursuant to article 13, paragraph 2, of the Labour Code, young persons between 15 and 18 years of age may only be parties to a labour contract with the authorization of the persons indicated therein. Article 14 of the Labour Code specifies that young persons under the age of 18 years may not be employed, inter alia, in activities which are dangerous for their health, safety and morality. Hence, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether activities involving exposure to benzene are covered by the prohibition set out under article 14 of the Labour Code, and to provide a copy of the list of activities prohibited for young persons under the age of 18.

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

The Committee notes the comments of the Confederation of Autonomous Workers (CAT) forwarded by the Latin American Confederation of Workers (CLAT), and those of the World Confederation of Labour (WCL) dated 1 April, 3 May and 22 July 2004 respectively, alleging among other objections, shortcomings in the way the Convention is applied to workers of the Chilean National Copper Corporation CODELCO, División Andina. The Committee notes the abovementioned comments and requests the Government to provide detailed information on the matters raised in them. At its next meeting the Committee will examine the comments, together with any observations the Government may wish to make on them, in the light of the information contained in the Government’s earlier reports.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports. It asks the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Health, which is the competent authority for such matters, has not sent information regarding consultations held with the representatives of employers and workers in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which employers’ and workers’ representatives are consulted on the measures to be taken in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) and (b), and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that, according to section 98 of Decree No. 745 of 23 July 1992 read in conjunction with section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, for workers exposed to ionizing radiations the maximum annual value currently in force is 5 rem (= 50 mSv) for the whole body and 30 rem (= 300 mSv) for the lens of the eye. The Committee draws the Government’s attention in this connection to the fact that according to Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, all appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that workers are effectively protected against ionizing radiations. To this end, maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations must be constantly reviewed in the light of "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge". The Committee recalls that the maximum permissible doses of radioactive substances were set in Recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990 and reproduced in 1994 in the international basic standards established under the auspices of the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. In its Recommendations, the ICRP advocates a maximum annual dose of 20 mSv for the whole body and of 15 mSv for the lens of the eye. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will shortly be in a position to inform it of the adoption of new dose limits for workers directly assigned to work involving ionizing radiations.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes the provision of section 2 of Act No. 15.737 of 24 October 1964 restricting daily working time to six hours for workers exposed to X-rays in the course of their work and who are involved in radiotherapy (section 1 of the above Act). Furthermore, under section 1 of Act No. 15.778 of 30 October 1964, the abovementioned workers are entitled to leave of 30 working days in summer and 15 working days in winter. The Committee notes that, although these measures mean less exposure to ionizing radiations for the workers concerned, this Article of the Convention aims to restrict exposure to the lowest practicable level. In this connection, the Committee notes that only section 13 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 expressly provides for exposure to ionizing radiations to be reduced to the lowest practicable level for a specific category of workers, in this case women. Consequently, it asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to restrict the exposure of all workers to the lowest practicable level and to avoid all unnecessary exposure.

4. Article 7, paragraph 1(a). The Committee notes that according to section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 the annual maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiations where workers are involved directly in work involving ionizing radiations is 50 mSv. The Committee refers the Government to the Recommendations adopted by the ICRP in 1990 which fix an annual limit of 20 mSv for workers aged 18 and over engaged directly in radiation work, and asks it to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to align the annual maximum permissible dose with that recommended by the ICRP in 1990.

5. Article 8. The Committee notes from the information in the Government’s report that there are no specific provisions fixing maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In this context, the Government points out that the maximum annual doses set in sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1995 also apply to this category of workers. The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention requires specific maximum levels to be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work but whose duties may expose them to such radiations. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO’s code of practice and paragraph 14 of its general observation of 1992 on the Convention which fix the maximum annual dose of ionizing radiations, on the basis of the ICRP, at 1 mSv for this category of workers which is the dose set for members of the public. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to set appropriate levels for this category of workers.

6. Article 13(a). In the context of medical examinations to be undergone by workers following an accident or emergency, the Government refers to the provisions of Act No. 16.744. The Committee notes in this connection that the relevant provisions (sections 65-71) of the Act provide only for preventive measures to be prescribed in respect of occupational hazards. They do not provide for measures to optimize the protection of workers during accidents or emergency operations, particularly as regards availability of medical examinations in the event of exposure in exceptional circumstances. The Committee asks accordingly the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the workers concerned are entitled to undergo medical examination in emergencies.

7. Article 13(b). The Committee notes that, under section 17 of Act No. 18.302 of 2 May 1984, accidents or any other abnormality in the operation of the facility or in nuclear equipment must be reported to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission by any person noting the abnormality, within 24 hours at most. The Committee notes that there would appear to be no specific obligation on the employer in this respect, as required by Article 13(b) of the Convention, and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to establish such an obligation for the employer.

8. Part V of the report form. The Committee asks the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country including, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them, the individual protective equipment allocated to workers, such as dosimeters.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of the "code of practice on physical hazards" published by the Ministry of Health in 1982.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

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

The Committee notes the Government’s last report and the information supplied by the Government in reply to its previous comments. In response to the Committee’s preceding observation the Government indicates that no regulations have been issued under the Labour Code. The Committee again accordingly draws the Government’s attention to the following points on which it has focused for several years.

1. Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the list of legislation, contained in the Government’s report, that Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941, issuing general regulations on occupational safety and health, is still in force. Section 57 fixes the maximum weight of a load that may be transported by a single male worker at 80 kg. In contrast, Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, issued by the Director of Labour and communicated to the Regional Directors of Labour and the Regional and Communal Labour Inspectors, which lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be manually transported by workers, establishes a maximum weight of 55 kg for the manual transport of loads by a single worker. Noting the divergent maximum weight values of the above two texts, the Committee would consider that the Circular, contrary to the Presidential Decree, does not have a legal thus binding character. The Committee accordingly hopes that the maximum weight value suggested in the Circular is applied in practice in the country, for, as the Committee had already noted in 1988, it would give effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee however urges the Government to adopt regulations that will provide for clear limits for the different categories of workers concerning the maximum weights in load lifting and carrying. In this context, the Committee again notes the Government’s indication that, in view of the adoption of regulations to be issued under the Labour Code, the different actors involved in the drafting process support different maximum weight limits. The Superintendent of Social Security, through its medical department, proposed that the maximum weight limit for the transport of loads by a single worker should be set at 50 kg, whereas the Chilean Safety Association, being one of the mutual benefit societies of employers that administers social assistance in the field of employment injury, proposed to establish a maximum weight limit of 55 kg. The Occupational Health Department of the Ministry of Health, which the Government had consulted, considered that the provisions of sections 187 and 202 of the Labour Code of 1994 were insufficient to ensure the application of measures provided for by the Convention. The Minister concluded that the regulations concerning the basic health and environment conditions in workplaces have to be amended to enable the incorporation of provisions concerning the ergonomic risks to which workers are exposed. In this respect, the Committee notes that the National Ergonomic Commission, in its 202nd session of 29 November 2000, has approved and published in the Official Gazette of 15 December 2000, the classification of 1,371 occupational activities of which 1,249 have been determined as heavy and 122 have been qualified as not being heavy. Among the 1,249 activities that have been qualified as heavy, a number of them involve the lifting and carrying of loads. The Government indicates that the loads to be transported during that work have a weight of 61 kg and above. In view of these facts, the Committee expresses its firm hope that, while the maximum weight limits proposed of both the Chilean Safety Association and the Superintendent of Social Security would comply with the maximum weight recommended in paragraph 14 of the Maximum Weight Recommendation, 1967 (No. 128), the Government will soon adopt regulations to lower considerably the existing maximum weight limits applied in the country, in order to fully apply this provision of the Convention.

2. Moreover, the Committee recalls that it has raised a certain number of points concerning other provisions of the Convention. The Government however has not provided any information in this regard. Recalling these questions, the Committee expresses its firm hope that the Government will take the necessary action in the very near future, and that the next report of the Government will indicate the progress achieved in this respect.

Article 6. The Committee has noted section 8 of Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985 providing for the use of mechanical devices for the transportation of loads in excess of 55 kg. The Committee again recalls that, while this represents an improvement over the previous weight limit of 80 kg required for the use of such mechanical devices, Article 6 of the Convention calls for the universal use of suitable technical devices whenever possible and irrespective of the weight of the loads to be transported. The Committee hopes that the Government, in the framework of its indicated legal action, will take the necessary measures to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee has noted that Circular No. 30 does not contain a provision to limit the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transportation of loads other than light loads. The Committee accordingly reiterates its hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to this end in the framework of its above-indicated legislative action.

Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee has noted that section 4 of the above Circular No. 30 prescribes in general terms that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without specifying maximum weight limits. The Committee trusts that the Government will take the necessary measures to fix appropriate maximum weight limits for women and young workers, in order to fully apply this Article of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its reports. It asks the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the Ministry of Health, which is the competent authority for such matters, has not sent information regarding consultations held with the representatives of employers and workers in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the manner in which employers’ and workers’ representatives are consulted on the measures to be taken in order to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

2. Article 3, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3(a) and (b), and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Committee notes that, according to section 98 of Decree No. 745 of 23 July 1992 read in conjunction with section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985, for workers exposed to ionizing radiations the maximum annual value currently in force is 5 rem (= 50 mSv) for the whole body and 30 rem (= 300 mSv) for the lens of the eye. The Committee draws the Government’s attention in this connection to the fact that according to Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention, all appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that workers are effectively protected against ionizing radiations. To this end, maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations must be constantly reviewed in the light of "knowledge available at the time" and "current knowledge". The Committee recalls that the maximum permissible doses of radioactive substances were set in Recommendations adopted by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in 1990 and reproduced in 1994 in the international basic standards established under the auspices of the IAEA, the ILO, the WHO and three other international organizations. In its Recommendations, the ICRP advocates a maximum annual dose of 20 mSv for the whole body and of 15 mSv for the lens of the eye. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will shortly be in a position to inform it of the adoption of new dose limits for workers directly assigned to work involving ionizing radiations.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes the provision of section 2 of Act No. 15.737 of 24 October 1964 restricting daily working time to six hours for workers exposed to X-rays in the course of their work and who are involved in radiotherapy (section 1 of the above Act). Furthermore, under section 1 of Act No. 15.778 of 30 October 1964, the abovementioned workers are entitled to leave of 30 working days in summer and 15 working days in winter. The Committee notes that, although these measures mean less exposure to ionizing radiations for the workers concerned, this Article of the Convention aims to restrict exposure to the lowest practicable level. In this connection, the Committee notes that only section 13 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 expressly provides for exposure to ionizing radiations to be reduced to the lowest practicable level for a specific category of workers, in this case women. Consequently, it asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to restrict the exposure of all workers to the lowest practicable level and to avoid all unnecessary exposure.

4. Article 7, paragraph 1(a). The Committee notes that according to section 12 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1985 the annual maximum permissible dose of ionizing radiations where workers are involved directly in work involving ionizing radiations is 50 mSv. The Committee refers the Government to the Recommendations adopted by the ICRP in 1990 which fix an annual limit of 20 mSv for workers aged 18 and over engaged directly in radiation work, and asks it to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to align the annual maximum permissible dose with that recommended by the ICRP in 1990.

5. Article 8. The Committee notes from the information in the Government’s report that there are no specific provisions fixing maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work. In this context, the Government points out that the maximum annual doses set in sections 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Decree No. 3 of 3 January 1995 also apply to this category of workers. The Committee recalls that Article 8 of the Convention requires specific maximum levels to be fixed for workers who are not directly engaged in radiation work but whose duties may expose them to such radiations. In this connection, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 5.4.5 of the ILO’s code of practice and paragraph 14 of its general observation of 1992 on the Convention which fix the maximum annual dose of ionizing radiations, on the basis of the ICRP, at 1 mSv for this category of workers which is the dose set for members of the public. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to set appropriate levels for this category of workers.

6. Article 13(a). In the context of medical examinations to be undergone by workers following an accident or emergency, the Government refers to the provisions of Act No. 16.744. The Committee notes in this connection that the relevant provisions (sections 65-71) of the Act provide only for preventive measures to be prescribed in respect of occupational hazards. They do not provide for measures to optimize the protection of workers during accidents or emergency operations, particularly as regards availability of medical examinations in the event of exposure in exceptional circumstances. The Committee asks accordingly the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the workers concerned are entitled to undergo medical examination in emergencies.

7. Article 13(b). The Committee notes that, under section 17 of Act No. 18.302 of 2 May 1984, accidents or any other abnormality in the operation of the facility or in nuclear equipment must be reported to the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission by any person noting the abnormality, within 24 hours at most. The Committee notes that there would appear to be no specific obligation on the employer in this respect, as required by Article 13(b) of the Convention, and asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or contemplated to establish such an obligation for the employer.

8. Part V of the report form. The Committee asks the Government to give a general appreciation of the manner in which the Convention is applied in the country including, for example, extracts from inspection reports and, if available, information on the number of workers covered by the legislation, the number and nature of contraventions reported, the number and cause of accidents recorded and the measures taken to remedy them, the individual protective equipment allocated to workers, such as dosimeters.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide a copy of the "code of practice on physical hazards" published by the Ministry of Health in 1982.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information supplied with the Government’s report as well as the information supplied in response to its comments. It notes with interest the adoption of Decree No. 594 published on 29 April 2000, issued by the Minister of Health, concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, repealing and replacing Decree No. 745 of 1992 on the same issue, the adoption of Decree No. 656 of 13 January 2001, issued by the Minister of Health, prohibiting the use of asbestos in products indicated thereunder as well as resolution No. 1.157 of 13 July 2000, issued by the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications, prohibiting the putting into circulation of vehicles containing asbestos materials in their break system.

The Committee further notes with interest the information provided by the Government on Article 15, paragraph 4, Article 19, paragraph 1, and Article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention giving effect to the provisions of these Articles of the Convention.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee would draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1. Article 2. The Committee notes that article 4 of Decree No. 656 defines the terms "asbestos", "friable asbestos", and "respirable asbestos fibres". It notes that article 3 of the Labour Code defines the terms "employer", "worker" and "independent worker", and that the definition of the term "workers’ representatives" is to be found in Decree No. 649 of 20 April 2000, issued by the Minister of External Relations, promulgating Workers’ Representatives Convention, 1971 (No. 135). The Committee asks the Government to indicate the legal definition of the terms "asbestos dust", "airborne asbestos dust" and "exposure to asbestos".

2. Article 3, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that article 66 of Decree No. 594, concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, establishes permissible exposure level for workers to chemical substances, inter alia, asbestos, measured in terms of time-weighted average concentrations in the environment for a specific reference period, that is exposure expressed as an eight-hour time-weighted average concentration, which is a measure of exposure intensity that has been averaged over an eight-hour work shift. Article 68 of this Decree prescribes that exposure rated "A.1", which includes asbestos, are evidently carcinogenic to human beings, and therefore the furthest protective and personnel hygiene measures have to be taken. In this context, the Committee notes that articles 1 to 3 of Decree No. 656 of 2001, prohibiting the putting into circulation of motorized vehicles containing asbestos material in their break system, provides for the prohibition of certain types of asbestos as well as certain products containing asbestos with regard to their production, import, distribution, sale and use. Moreover, Decree No. 27 of 23 April 1988, issued by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare, has added to the schedule of article 19 of Decree No. 109 of 1968 concerning recognized harmful agents and occupational diseases, two diseases which are caused in particular by work involving exposure to asbestos. The Committee, taking due note of this information, requests the Government to indicate the periodicity in which the legislation on measures to be taken to prevent and control health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos and to protect workers against these hazards is reviewed.

3. Article 4. With regard to consultations to be carried out between the competent authority and the representative organizations of employers and workers concerned on the preventive and protective measures to be taken, the Government indicates that consultations with the most representative organizations of employers and workers concerned are carried out as far as they exist. However, consultations take place to the extent possible taking into account their suitability for the country. Moreover, the joint safety and health committee in the enterprises, having the necessary competence, are heard on the measures to be taken. The Committee requests the Government to explain in detail the above-described procedure between the government authorities and the organizations of employers and workers concerned, as well as its modalities. It also requests the Government to indicate whether this procedure is standardized to ensure that effective consultations with employers’ and workers’ organizations provided for in this Article of the Convention take place.

4. Article 6, paragraph 2. With regard to the cooperation requirement between employers who undertake simultaneously activities at one workplace to comply with prescribed protective measures, the Committee notes that reference is made by the Government to article 66 of Act No. 16.744 on the establishment of social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, which describes the different functions of the joint safety and health committee in enterprises. The Government further refers to article 67 of Act No. 16.744, in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40 of 1969 concerning regulations on occupational risks prevention with regard to Chapter VII of Act No. 16.744, which deal with the worker’s obligation to cooperate with the employer on the implementation of safety and health measures at the enterprise. The Committee therefore recalls that Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls for cooperation among the different employers performing work at the same time at one workplace. The Government is therefore requested to indicate the general procedures of cooperation to be followed in this case.

5. Article 6, paragraph 3. With regard to the preparation of procedures for dealing with emergency situations, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the procedures to be prepared for dealing with emergency situations.

6. Article 8. As concerns the cooperation between employers and workers or their representatives in the undertaking in the application of preventive and protective measures, the Government refers to article 67 of Act No. 16.744 in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40. The Committee states that these provisions concern the worker’s obligation to comply with the internal safety and health regulations established at the enterprise as well as external safety and health regulations. The Committee notes however that article 66 of Act No. 16.744 provides for a joint safety and health committee to be established in enterprises with more than 25 workers for cooperation purposes on safety and health issues. Composed of workers and employers, such committees take decisions for which authority is conferred on employers and workers by the abovementioned Act. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in enterprises with fewer than 25 workers, workers and employers cooperate on the implementation of the measures prescribed by the health and security legislation, particularly in respect of hazards due to asbestos.

7. Article 10(a) and (b). The Committee notes that article 1 of Decree No. 656 prohibiting the use of asbestos in the products indicated thereunder, provides for the prohibition to produce, to import, to distribute, to sell and to use crocidolite (blue asbestos) in the country. Its article 2 prohibits the production, import, distribution and sale of construction material containing any type of asbestos, and article 3 likewise prohibits the import, distribution, sale and use of certain types of asbestos or mixtures of asbestos, which do not constitute construction material. However, article 3 provides for the possibility of granting derogations to the prohibitions spelled out, in accordance with the requirements established under article 5. By virtue of article 5, the health authority may authorize the use of asbestos in the production of products or ingredients, which are not construction materials, under the condition that the interested person can prove that it is neither technically nor economically feasible to replace asbestos by another material. The Committee recalls that, while lacking technical practicability constitutes a valid reason for non-replacement of asbestos by another material, this Article of the Convention does not recognize economic grounds for granting derogations to the prohibition of asbestos. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure full compliance with this Article of the Convention.

8. Article 17, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. The Committee notes that article 9 of Decree No. 656 deals with the demolition of buildings and installations containing friable asbestos insulation materials in which asbestos is liable to become airborne. In order to carry out such work, the enterprise assigned needs to obtain the express authorization of the competent health service. In the framework of this authorization procedure, measures are established that are designed to protect the health of workers and the population in the neighbourhood. The established procedures are to be pursued during the entire demolition work. In the event that a building or installation contains asbestos, which is only found at a later stage, that is after the demolition work has started, the enterprise carrying out this work is nevertheless obliged to ask at that stage for authorization at the health service in order to continue the demolition work. The Committee infers that working plans specifying the measures to be taken have to be drawn up by the employer before starting demolition work in order to obtain the authorization from the health service to carry out demolition work. With regard to the work plans, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the workers or their representatives are consulted on these work plans established in relation to safety measures to be taken when carrying out demolition work, in conformity with paragraph 3 of this Article.

9. Article 18, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. The Committee notes with interest the provision of article 27 of Decree No. 594 providing for changing rooms to be put at the workers’ disposal if the activities performed require a change of clothing. Article 27 further describes the manner in which such changing rooms should be equipped. In the case that the worker is exposed to toxic or infectious substances at the workplace, two individual and separated deposit boxes for clothing should be put at the worker’s disposal, one for the working clothing and another for the worker’s usual clothing. The employer is responsible for the cleaning of the work clothing and is obliged to adopt measures to impede the worker to take away work clothing from the workplace. The Committee infers that, although article 27 of Decree No. 594 is not explicit in this respect, the employer must provide appropriate work clothing to the workers, which shall not be worn outside the workplace, as provided for in Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Committee would request the Government to confirm that the employer is obligated to provide appropriate work clothing to the workers in the event that workers’ personal clothing may become contaminated with asbestos dust.

10. Article 21, paragraph 1. With regard to the provision of medical examinations to workers, the Government refers to the provisions of articles 9, 12(b) and (c), 71 and 76 of Act No. 16.744. The Committee notes that article 9 deals with the duties of the Institute of Social Security and article 12(b) and (c) concerns medical examination of workers, however, with a view to administrative issues. Article 71 provides for medical examinations of workers already affected by an occupational disease in relation to their transfer to other work, and article 76 imposes the obligation on the employer to notify immediately to the respective administrative authority the occurrence of any accident or disease which could cause the worker’s incapacity to continue his work or could lead to his death. The Committee states that, in particular, articles 71 and 76 of Act No. 16.744 anticipate the existence of medical examinations of workers. In this regard, it points out that the main purpose of medical examinations of workers is, however, primary prevention of work-related injuries and diseases to ensure that their state of health is compatible with their job assignment and that occupational exposure does not have any detrimental effects on their health. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the provisions of the law that prescribe preventive medical examinations for workers, specifying the nature of these examinations.

11. Article 21, paragraph 2. With regard to medical examination free of charge for workers, the Committee notes that reference is made by the Government to article 29 of Act No. 16.744, which provides for curative treatments, as enumerated, free of charge for workers who are victims of occupational accidents. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether preventive medical examinations for workers are also free of charge, and to indicate the legal basis.

12. Article 22, paragraph 2. The Committee notes article 67 of Act No. 16.744 in conjunction with article 14 of Decree No. 40 prescribing that enterprises or entities are obliged to maintain up to date their internal regulations on safety and health at work. The worker, for his part, is obliged to apply the requirements imposed on him by the regulations. Furthermore, the enterprise or entity must supply a free copy of these regulations to the worker. The Committee wishes to point out that Article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention calls for the establishment of written policies and procedures on measures for the education and periodic training of workers on asbestos hazards and methods of prevention and control, which goes beyond the mere dissemination of information on existing safety and health regulations. It accordingly asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in this respect.

13. Article 22, paragraph 3. The Committee notes that article 21 of Decree No. 40 provides for the employer’s obligation to inform the workers duly on the risks inherent in their work, on the preventive measures to be taken, as well as on the correct working methods. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the specific measures taken or envisaged with a view to asbestos.

14. Furthermore, the Committee draws once again the Government’s attention to the need to adopt measures on the following: identification of asbestos or products containing asbestos by appropriate labelling (Article 14); appropriate measures to prevent or control release of asbestos dust into the air to ensure compliance with specified exposure limits (Article 15, paragraph 3); practical measures for the prevention and control of the exposure of workers to asbestos and for their protection against hazards due to asbestos (Article 16); measures taken by the competent authority and the employer to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace (Article 19, paragraph 2); prescription of a period during which the records of the monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers must be kept (Article 20, paragraph 2); workers’ access to such records (Article 20, paragraph 3); the right of workers to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring (Article 20, paragraph 4); and information of the workers on the results of their medical examinations and individual advice concerning their health in relation to their work (Article 21, paragraph 3).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee refers to its earlier observation in which it noted the comments made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the documentation sent by the National Trade Union Confederation of Chilean Construction, Wood, Construction Materials and Allied Workers. The WFTU’s comments concern the use of asbestos by a number of enterprises and its harmful effects both on the workers exposed to it and on the population in the vicinity.

The Committee notes the Government’s comments indicating that the exposure of workers had occurred many years earlier, even before the Convention was adopted, and when the dangers of exposure to asbestos were not realized. The Government indicates that at the time the Convention was ratified, the Supreme Decree No. 745/92 concerning the Regulation on basic health and environmental conditions in workplaces was already in force. According to the Government, this instrument contains an obligation for the employer to maintain in workplaces the necessary conditions to protect the life and health of the workers. The Government however indicates that the time when asbestos is dangerous is when it is being handled during manufacture of products. It indicates, furthermore, that as from July 2000 the Ministry of Housing and Urbanism has prohibited the use of products or elements containing asbestos cement in construction work. It also indicates that by mistake asbestos cement and free asbestos have been assimilated and classed as having similar levels of toxic hazard. The Government recalls that in 1991 the Ministry of Health indicated, through the Department of Occupational Health, that "the risk of cancer is probably undetectable or extremely low and has not been really quantified". The Government indicates that the firm mentioned in the WFTU’s comments, the Sociedad Industrial Pizarreño, S.A., did manufacture fibre cement products for construction, using asbestos as a raw material. Nevertheless, the Government indicates that this firm has not manufactured products with asbestos since 1999. Since that year, according to the Government,  asbestos-free processes have been used by firms of very different sizes, embracing over 80 per cent of national fibre cement production which has consequently involved a reduction in imports of asbestos in the same proportion. Finally, the Government indicates that the affected persons concerned have legal advice and access to the courts.

Noting the Government’s comments, the Committee wishes to recall that, as indicated inter alia in the preparatory work on Convention No. 162, "The health consequences of asbestos exposure were recognized rather late ... The main reason for these delays has been the long latency - up to several decades - between the start of work with asbestos and the development of clinical signs of the diseases. The illness can also appear many years after cessation of work in persons who had left jobs where they had been exposed to asbestos without any evident health impairment" (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, pages 3 and 4). Consequently, the protection measures to be adopted must take into account the fact that workers who were exposed to the harmful effects of asbestos even before the Convention was adopted or ratified by a specific state. Proof is furnished by the fact that, as the Government indicates, provisions had been adopted in Chile before ratification of the Convention. Moreover, the fact that a number of firms have stopped using asbestos in their manufacturing processes does not mean that the harmful effects of the material on workers’ health have disappeared, all the more so since the Committee understands from the Government’s statement that the number of firms may be very large. Consequently, it is now that the harmful effects of exposure to asbestos are being felt and it is now that workers who were exposed should be provided, inter alia, with such medical examinations as are necessary to supervise their health in relation to the occupational hazard they incurred, as provided in Article 21, paragraph 1, of the Convention. Furthermore, the same Report of the Conference also states that "Although there is no evidence of adverse effects of commercial use of asbestos on the health of the general population, the question of possible long-term health effects arises because of the uncertainty about safe limits of exposure to carcinogens" (ILO: Report VI(1), International Labour Conference, 71st Session, Geneva, 1985, page 5). The Committee accordingly considers that appropriate measures should be taken to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace, as provided in Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and that action should be taken to screen those persons of the population who have been subject to exposure to asbestos, in order to adopt appropriate measures in favour of them.

The Committee therefore requests the Government to adopt all necessary measures to give effect to national legislation covering activities related to exposure to asbestos, thus guaranteeing application of the relevant provisions of the Convention.

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

The Committee takes note of the information sent by the Government in its reports. It wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the following points.

1.  Article 2 of the Convention.  The Committee notes the information sent by the Government to the effect that the terms set out in subparagraphs (a)-(g) of this Article of the Convention have no counterpart in the national legislation. It asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that the abovementioned terms are defined in national law and practice.

2.  Article 3, paragraph 2.  The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the maximum permitted concentrations of asbestos have been reduced by section 60 of Decree No. 745 concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, and that under section 20 of Decree No. 109 concerning regulations on the rating and evaluation of industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, the superintendent of social security must review every three years the list of occupational diseases and pathogenic agents (sections 18 and 19 of the Decree). The Committee asks the Government to state whether the legislation on measures to be taken to prevent and control health hazards due to occupational exposure to asbestos and to protect workers against these hazards is also reviewed periodically in the light of technical progress and advances in scientific knowledge, particularly the exposure limits established in section 60 of Decree No. 745 and the schedules of pathogenic agents and occupational diseases in sections 18 and 19 of Decree No. 109.

3.  Article 4.  The Committee notes that, according to the information in the Government’s report, the health authorities have no knowledge of any consultations with the most representative employers’ and workers’ organizations on the measures to be taken to give effect to the provisions of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether such consultations are provided for in the legislation and, if not, what measures have been adopted or are envisaged to ensure that the consultations provided for in this Article of the Convention take place.

4.  Article 8.  The Committee notes section 66 of Act No. 16.744 on the establishment of social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, which provides for a joint safety and health committee to be established in enterprises with fewer than 25 workers. Composed of workers and employers, such committees take decisions for which authority is conferred on employers and workers by the abovementioned Act. The Committee therefore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in enterprises with fewer than 25 workers, workers and employers cooperate on the implementation of the measures prescribed by the health and security legislation, particularly in respect of hazards due to asbestos.

5.  Article 10(a) and (b).  The Committee notes the Government’s statement that only white asbestos (crisolik) is used in the country, that crocidolite, which poses a major health hazard for workers, has not been used for 12 years and that amosite is not used at present in Chile. It asks the Government to indicate the provisions of the law which prohibit the use of certain types of asbestos or certain products containing asbestos for certain work processes.

6.  Article 11, paragraph 1.  The Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the Government, only white asbestos (crisolite) is used in the country and that blue asbestos (crocidolite) has not been used for 12 years. The Committee notes, however, that section 60 of Decree No. 745 concerning basic health requirements and the working environment, 1992, establishes limits for the concentration of certain substances at workplaces, including crocidolite. The Committee recalls in this connection that paragraph 1 of Article 11 requires the prohibition of the use of crocidolite and products containing this fibre. It asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to that end.

7.  Article 12, paragraph 1.  The Committee recalls that, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 12, the spraying of all forms of asbestos must be prohibited. It notes the Government’s statement that the health authorities know of no derogations from the prohibition on asbestos spraying, which might suggest that asbestos spraying is officially banned in the country. It asks the Government to indicate the provisions of laws or regulations which prohibit the spraying of asbestos.

8.  Article 15, paragraph 4.  The Committee notes that, under section 68 of Act No. 16.744 on the establishment of social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, the employer must make the necessary protective equipment available to workers. Section 48 of Decree No. 745 concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, 1992, provides that protective equipment commensurate with the occupational risks must be made available to workers. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether this protective equipment includes protective respiratory equipment and special protective clothing.

9.  Article 19, paragraph 1.  The Committee notes that section 19 of Decree No. 745 issuing regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment, 1992, provides that before engaging in its activities, the enterprise must submit to the health authority a declaration indicating the quantity and quality of the hazardous industrial waste, including waste containing asbestos, that it will produce. The Committee wishes to recall that this provision of the Convention concerns the disposal of waste containing asbestos, which must be disposed of in such a manner as not to pose a health risk to the workers or to the population in the vicinity of the enterprise. The Government is asked to indicate how such waste is disposed of.

10.  Article 20, paragraph 1.  The Committee notes that the limits for the concentration of asbestos at workplaces are established by section 60 of Decree No. 745 concerning regulations on basic health requirements and the working environment. Section 62 of the Decree prescribes that exposure to substances rated "Ca.2", which include asbestos, must be as low as possible. The Committee notes that the health authorities have not indicated the circumstances in which the employer must measure the concentration of asbestos dust or the measures for monitoring the exposure of workers. It asks the Government to indicate the circumstances in which the employer must measure the concentration of asbestos at workplaces and monitor the exposure of workers, and to state the intervals and methods of such measurement.

11.  Article 21, paragraph 1.  The Committee notes that section 12(b) and (c) of Act No. 16.744 on the establishment of social insurance against industrial accidents and occupational diseases, 1968, provides for the establishment of an in-house medical service in enterprises employing more than 20,000 workers, and stipulates that this medical service must carry out activities for the prevention of occupational accidents and diseases. The existence of a medical service allows the Committee to infer that workers’ health is monitored. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the provisions of the law that prescribe medical examinations for workers, specifying the nature of these examinations.

12.  Article 21, paragraph 2.  The Committee notes that, according to the information supplied by the Government in its report, medical examinations for workers are free of charge. It asks the Government to indicate the legal provisions establishing that medical examinations for workers shall be free of charge.

13.  Furthermore, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to adopt measures on the following: cooperation between employers undertaking activities simultaneously at one workplace (Article 6, paragraph 2); preparation by employers of procedures to be followed in dealing with emergency situations (Article 6, paragraph 3); the prescription of technical measures for prevention and adequate working methods, as well as special rules and procedures, including authorization, for the use of asbestos or certain types of asbestos or certain products containing asbestos, or for certain work processes (Article 9(a) and (b)); the requirement for the employer to notify to the competent authority the types of work involving exposure to asbestos (Article 13); identification of asbestos or products containing asbestos by appropriate labelling (Article 14); periodic review and updating of exposure limits (Article 15, paragraph 2); compliance with the specified exposure limits (Article 15, paragraph 3); the provision of respiratory equipment and special protective clothing (Article 15, paragraph 4); practical measures for the prevention and control of the exposure of workers to asbestos and for their protection against hazards due to asbestos (Article 16); demolition of plants or structures containing asbestos insulation materials and removal of asbestos from buildings or structures in which asbestos is liable to become airborne, only by contractors recognized as qualified by the competent authority (Article 17, paragraph 1); the preparation of a workplan before demolition work (Article 17, paragraph 2); consultation with workers or their representatives regarding the demolition workplan (Article 17, paragraph 3); provision of work clothing when the personal clothing of workers may become contaminated with asbestos (Article 18, paragraph 1); cleaning of used work clothing (Article 18, paragraph 2); prohibition on the taking home of work clothing (Article 18, paragraph 3); responsibility of the employer for the cleaning of work clothing (Article 18, paragraph 4); measures for the disposal of waste containing asbestos (Article 19, paragraph 1); measures taken by the competent authority and the employer to prevent pollution of the general environment by asbestos dust released from the workplace (Article 19, paragraph 2); prescription of a period during which the records of the monitoring of the working environment and of the exposure of workers must be kept (Article 20, paragraph 2); workers’ access to such records (Article 20, paragraph 3); the right of workers to request the monitoring of the working environment and to appeal to the competent authority concerning the results of the monitoring (Article 20, paragraph 4); information of workers on the results of their medical examinations and individual advice concerning their health in relation to their work (Article 21, paragraph 3); provision of other means of maintaining their income for workers for whom assignment to work implying exposure to asbestos is inadvisable for medical reasons (Article 21, paragraph 4); establishment by the employer of written procedures on measures for the education and periodic training of workers on asbestos hazards and methods of prevention and control (Article 22, paragraph 2); and the requirement for the employer to ensure that all workers exposed are informed about the health hazards related to their work, instructed in preventive measures and correct work practices and receive continuing training in these fields (Article 22, paragraph 3).

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report contains no reply to previous comments. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which reads as follows:

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and also the information provided in response to the Committee’s previous comments.

1.  Article 3 of the Convention.  The Government states that the Committee’s comments have been submitted to a special committee which is examining the general regulations of the Labour Code Bill. It also states that the social security directorate, through its medical department, proposes to fix the maximum load at 50 kg, whereas the Chilean Security Association, which is one of the employers’ insurance companies providing social assistance in the event of industrial accidents or sickness, has proposed that this load is fixed at 55 kg. The occupational health department of the Ministry of Health, which the Government had consulted, considers that the legal provisions which are in force are insufficient to ensure the application of the measures provided for by this Article of the Convention. Consequently, the Ministry of Health will discuss this question when it examines the draft regulation drawn up by the Ministry of Health to amend Supreme Decree No. 745 of 1993 respecting the essential occupational health and safety conditions, which should enable the insertion of the provisions concerning the ergonomic risks to which workers are exposed.

The Committee trusts that these measures will shortly be adopted to clarify this situation in law and that the Government will provide full information in respect of the measures adopted in this regard.

2.  In addition, the Committee notes that the report does not contain new information in response to the questions raised and recalls that its previous comments referred to the following points.

  Article 6.  The Committee had noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 provides that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the previous weight limit of 80 kg required for the use of such devices, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, and not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to give full effect to this provision of the Convention.

  Article 7, paragraph 1.  The Committee had noted that Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee had expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

  Article 7, paragraph 2.  The Committee had noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without however specifying maximum limits. It had requested the Government to indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or envisaged in this regard.

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

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

1.  The Committee notes the comments made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) and the documentation sent by the National Trade Union Confederation of Chilean Construction, Wood, Construction Materials and Allied Workers showing the measures taken to alert workers to the risks of occupational exposure to asbestos. These comments were sent to the Government on 26 October 2000; the Government has not yet replied to them.

2.  The WFTU’s comments concern the use of asbestos by a number of enterprises and its harmful effects both on the workers exposed to it and on the population in the vicinity. The WFTU alleges in particular that although the dangers of using asbestos have been known for a very long time, the requisite preventive measures have not been taken. Because there are no statistical data, it is not known how many workers in the 26 enterprises or so that use asbestos have contracted diseases or died due to exposure to asbestos. According to the WFTU, however, at least 83 people have died of diseases caused by using asbestos in the enterprise Pizzareño, S.A. at Villa Pizzareño de Maipú, amongst others.

According to the WFTU, the responsibility lies with the enterprises which have failed to take the requisite preventive measures, especially preventive medical examinations, and to use new technologies or ethical standards (of conduct). In particular, the WFTU cites Pizzareño, S.A., which manufactures products using asbestos. It also considers that the public authorities, successive governments and sickness funds share in the responsibility because they have neglected to inform workers of the dangers inherent in asbestos. The WFTU adds that a number of asbestos workers have brought legal proceedings on grounds of inadequate protection against the risks inherent in their work.

The Committee notes that the WFTU refers to the establishment of an anti-asbestos coalition in Chile whose members include, in addition to the Chilean trade unions, the CUT Department of Occupational Safety and Health, the Institute of Political Ecology, the League of Conscientious Consumers, the Consumers and Users Coordination Group and the College of Physicians. This coalition has launched a campaign whose objectives include promulgating legislation to ban the use of asbestos and materials containing asbestos; the framing of occupational health standards which respect the working conditions that apply to the handling of asbestos and the maximum allowable concentration of airborne asbestos fibres, as well as other directives to protect the health of workers exposed to asbestos; regulations to govern the importation and marketing of asbestos; mandatory labelling of products containing asbestos; the preparation of an informative and educational digest on asbestos and its inherent risks, including health hazards; the establishment of a register of asbestos substitute products and a "grey list" of products containing asbestos which must be designated as dangerous for the health.

Lastly, the WFTU observes that, although Chile has legislation covering activities which involve exposure to asbestos, its provisions are not complied with.

The Committee hopes that the Government will send comments on the WFTU’s observations and supply full information on how the Convention is applied in law and in practice.

3.  The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning certain matters.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and also the information provided in response to the Committee's previous comments.

1. Article 3 of the Convention. The Government states that the Committee's comments have been submitted to a special committee which is examining the general regulations of the Labour Code Bill. It also states that the social security directorate, through its medical department, proposes to fix the maximum load at 50 kg, whereas the Chilean Security Association, which is one of the employers' insurance companies providing social assistance in the event of industrial accidents or sickness, has proposed that this load is fixed at 55 kg. The occupational health department of the Ministry of Health, which the Government had consulted, considers that the legal provisions which are in force are insufficient to ensure the application of the measures provided for by this Article of the Convention. Consequently, the Ministry of Health will discuss this question when it examines the draft regulation drawn up by the Ministry of Health to amend Supreme Decree No. 745 of 1993 respecting the essential occupational health and safety conditions, which should enable the insertion of the provisions concerning the ergonomic risks to which workers are exposed.

The Committee trusts that these measures will shortly be adopted to clarify this situation in law and that the Government will provide full information in respect of the measures adopted in this regard.

2. In addition, the Committee notes that the report does not contain new information in response to the questions raised and recalls that its previous comments referred to the following points:

Article 6. The Committee had noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 provides that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the previous weight limit of 80 kg required for the use of such devices, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, and not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. The Committee had requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to give full effect to this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee had noted that Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee had expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee had noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without however specifying maximum limits. It had requested the Government to indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or envisaged in this regard.

The Committee reiterates its hope that the Government will make every effort to adopt the necessary measures in the near future.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its its previous observation, which read as follows:

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, from the Director of Labour to the regional directors of labour and the provincial and communal labour inspectors, lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be transported manually by workers. This Circular gives effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention by reducing the maximum weight of a load permitted to be transported manually to 55 kg, which is the weight recommended in Recommendation No. 128, and by specifying that the maximum weight that women and young workers are authorized to transport shall be substantially less than that permitted for men. The Committee requested the Government to indicate: -- whether sections 57 and 252 of Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941, issuing general regulations on occupational safety and health, which fix a maximum weight of 80 to 86 kg, have been repealed and, if so, by virtue of which provisions; and -- whether the Circular has been published and distributed to employers, workers, the courts and all other persons concerned. Article 6. The Committee noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the formal weight limit of 80 kg for the use of such devices to be required, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, and not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to apply fully this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee also noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without specifying maximum limits. It requested the Government to indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or are envisaged in this regard. The Committee noted the Government's statement that its observations have been transmitted to a special commission which is examining the draft general regulations to be issued under the Labour Code. It notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report to the effect that these draft regulations have not yet been adopted. Through its medical department, the social security administration has proposed that the maximum weight should be set at 50 kg, while the Chilean Safety Association, which is one of the mutual benefit societies of employers that administers social assistance in the field of employment injury, has proposed 55 kg. The Government considers that it would be appropriate to consult the Ministry of Health in this respect. The Committee notes the Government does not provide other explanations concerning the provisions which are currently applicable. The Committee trusts that measures will be taken in the very near future to clarify the situation in law and that the Government will provide full information on the measures which have been adopted in relation to the points raised in its previous comments, to which the Committee refers above in relation to the application of Articles 3, 6 and 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

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

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

The Committee notes with regret that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observations on the following matters:

The Committee has taken note of the information provided by the Government to the effect that a copy of its observations has been transmitted to the special committee that is studying the draft General Regulations of the Labour Code. Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted that Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, from the Director of Labour to the Regional Directors of Labour and the Provincial and Communal Labour Inspectors, lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be manually transported by workers. This Circular gives effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention by reducing the maximum weight of a load permitted to be manually transported to 55 kg, which is the weight recommended in Recommendation No. 128, and by specifying that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers. The Committee asked the Government to indicate: -- whether sections 57 and 252 of Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941 laying down the general regulations on occupational safety and health, which fix a maximum weight of 80 to 86 kg have been repealed and, if so, by virtue of which provisions; and -- whether the Circular has been published and distributed to employers, workers, courts and all other persons concerned. Article 6. The Committee noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the former weight limit of 80 kg for the use of such devices to be required, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. Please indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to apply fully this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee noted that Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers, without specifying maximum limits. Please indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or are envisaged in this regard.

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

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

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

Article 3 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, from the Director of Labour to the regional directors of labour and the provincial and communal labour inspectors, lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be transported manually by workers. This Circular gives effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention by reducing the maximum weight of a load permitted to be transported manually to 55 kg, which is the weight recommended in Recommendation No. 128, and by specifying that the maximum weight that women and young workers are authorized to transport shall be substantially less than that permitted for men.

The Committee requested the Government to indicate:

- whether sections 57 and 252 of Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941, issuing general regulations on occupational safety and health, which fix a maximum weight of 80 to 86 kg, have been repealed and, if so, by virtue of which provisions; and

- whether the Circular has been published and distributed to employers, workers, the courts and all other persons concerned.

Article 6. The Committee noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the formal weight limit of 80 kg for the use of such devices to be required, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, and not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. The Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to apply fully this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to the manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee also noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for men, without specifying maximum limits. It requested the Government to indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or are envisaged in this regard.

The Committee noted the Government's statement that its observations have been transmitted to a special commission which is examining the draft general regulations to be issued under the Labour Code. It notes the information supplied by the Government in its latest report to the effect that these draft regulations have not yet been adopted. Through its medical department, the social security administration has proposed that the maximum weight should be set at 50 kg, while the Chilean Safety Association, which is one of the mutual benefit societies of employers that administers social assistance in the field of employment injury, has proposed 55 kg. The Government considers that it would be appropriate to consult the Ministry of Health in this respect.

The Committee notes the Government does not provide other explanations concerning the provisions which are currently applicable.

The Committee trusts that measures will be taken in the very near future to clarify the situation in law and that the Government will provide full information on the measures which have been adopted in relation to the points raised in its previous comments, to which the Committee refers above in relation to the application of Articles 3, 6 and 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

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

The Committee notes that no report has been received from the Government. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following matters:

The Committee has taken note of the information provided by the Government to the effect that a copy of its observations has been transmitted to the special committee that is studying the draft General Regulations of the Labour Code. Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted that Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, from the Director of Labour to the Regional Directors of Labour and the Provincial and Communal Labour Inspectors, lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be manually transported by workers. This Circular gives effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention by reducing the maximum weight of a load permitted to be manually transported to 55 kg, which is the weight recommended in Recommendation No. 128, and by specifying that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers. The Committee noted the above Circular with interest and asked the Government to indicate: - whether sections 57 and 252 of Presidential Decree No. 655 of 7 March 1941 laying down the general regulations on occupational safety and health, which fix a maximum weight of 80 to 86 kg have been repealed and, if so, by virtue of which provisions; and - whether the Circular has been published and distributed to employers, workers, courts and all other persons concerned. Article 6. The Committee noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the former weight limit of 80 kg for the use of such devices to be required, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. Please indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to apply fully this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee noted that Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention. Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee noted that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers, without specifying maximum limits. Please indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or are envisaged in this regard.

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

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

The Committee notes from the Government's report that there has been no change in the legislation giving effect to the Convention. It notes, however, that the Government has not supplied any statistics concerning lead poisoning among working painters for a number of years, as requested in the report form under Article 7 of the Convention. The Government is, therefore, requested to provide statistics on morbidity and mortality due to lead poisoning in its next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the information provided by the Government to the effect that a copy of its observations has been transmitted to the special committee that is studying the draft General Regulations of the Labour Code.

The Committee notes that the Government's report contains no information on the questions raised in its previous observation. It asks the Government in its next report to supply information on the following matters.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee noted that Circular No. 30 of 4 December 1985, from the Director of Labour to the Regional Directors of Labour and the Provincial and Communal Labour Inspectors, lays down instructions on the maximum weight that may be manually transported by workers. This Circular gives effect to Articles 3, 4 and 7, paragraph 2, of the Convention by reducing the maximum weight of a load permitted to be manually transported to 55 kg, which is the weight recommended in Recommendation No. 128, and by specifying that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers.

The Committee noted the above Circular with interest and asked the Government to indicate:

- whether sections 57 and 252 of Presidential Decree No. 665 of 7 March 1941 laying down the general regulations on occupational safety and health, which fix a maximum weight of 80 to 86 kg have been repealed and, if so, by virtue of which provisions; and

- whether the Circular has been published and distributed to employers, workers, courts and all other persons concerned.

Article 6. The Committee noted that section 8 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that mechanical devices shall be used for the transport of loads weighing over 55 kg. While this represents an improvement over the former weight limit of 80 kg for the use of such devices to be required, the Committee points out that Article 6 of the Convention requires suitable technical devices to be used as much as possible, not only for loads over the 55 kg weight limit. Please indicate the measures taken or envisaged in order to apply fully this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 1. The Committee notes that Circular No. 30 does not provide that the assignment of women and young workers to manual transport of loads other than light loads shall be limited. The Committee again expresses the hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with this provision of the Convention.

Article 7, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that section 4 of Circular No. 30 prescribes that the maximum weight of loads for women and young workers shall be substantially less than that permitted for adult male workers, without specifying maximum limits. Please indicate whether weight limits have been prescribed or are envisaged in this regard.