In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on Workmen’s Compensation, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 12 (agriculture), 17 (accidents), 18 (occupational diseases) and 19 (equality of treatment) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) on the application of Conventions Nos 12 and 19, received in 2017, and the observations of the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), on the application of Conventions Nos 17 and 19, received in 2017.

Article 1 of Convention No. 12. Application of the Convention in practice. Progressive extension of coverage. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the specific measures adopted to strengthen and extend the coverage of the General Occupational Risks System (SGRL) to agricultural workers. The Committee notes the Government’s reply in its report, in which it indicates that the strengthening and extension of SGRL coverage in the agricultural sector is continuing. The Committee notes that the average number of people insured by the SGRL is approximately 10.1 million, and that in May 2017 there were 372,309 insured persons in the agricultural, livestock, hunting and forestry sector. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that the General Agreement for the Termination of the Conflict and the Construction of a Stable and Lasting Peace of 2016 laid the foundations for the Comprehensive Rural Reform and action to reduce poverty and inequality to secure the welfare of the rural population. The Committee also notes the allegations of the CTC and the CUT that the agricultural sector has the highest accident rate, and that crops such as sugar cane and palm oil have higher accident rates than the sector as a whole. The Committee also notes that the CGT, while emphasizing the importance of the signing of the Pact for Employment Formalization in the Agricultural and Livestock Sector in 2014, indicates that there is a high level of informality in the sector. The Committee trusts that the implementation of the General Agreement of 2016 and the Pact of 2014 will enable the continued pursuit of the extension of effective occupational accident coverage to agricultural workers and requests the Government to indicate any developments in this regard. The Committee also requests the Government to indicate any other measures envisaged or adopted to extend in practice the laws and regulations on occupational accident compensation to all agricultural wage earners and to give full effect to this Article of the Convention. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to provide updated statistical data on the number of agricultural workers registered with the SGRL.

Article 1, in conjunction with Article 11 of Convention No. 17. Obligation of the State to guarantee the payment of benefits to workers whose employers have not taken out occupational accident insurance and payment of the allowance in the event of the insolvency of the insurer or employer. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to clarify whether the victim of an occupational accident who is not registered with the SGRL would be entitled to reimbursement of his/her medical expenses and would receive compensation from occupational risk insurers (ARLs). The Committee also requested the Government to indicate the legal provisions that guarantee to victims of an occupational accident or disease the provision of the necessary medical care in the event of the insolvency of the ARL. Lastly, with regard to the insolvency of the employer, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the measures adopted or envisaged to guarantee the rights established by the Convention in the case of the insolvency of employers who are not insured through the SGRL. With reference to the first point, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the occupational risk insurer to which an occupational accident claim is submitted is wholly liable for the benefits arising out of the accident and its sequelae, irrespective of whether or not the worker is registered with the insurer. Regarding the case of the insolvency of the ARL, the Government indicates that Decree No. 1295 of 1994 provides that the Financial Institutions Guarantee Fund (FOGAFIN) shall guarantee the payment of pensions in the event of loss of assets or the suspension of payments by the occupational risk insurer. Regarding medical care, it is provided by the General Comprehensive Safety and Health System in the case of persons who are not protected for the various reasons described. The Committee also notes the allegations by the CTC and CUT of the lack of protection against the insolvency of the insurer in the event of a loss of capacity for work of less than 50 per cent and in the case of workers whose employers are not insured through the SGRL. In this regard, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the regulations in force provide for mechanisms for the constitution of reserve funds by ARLs. Concerning workers whose employers are not covered by the SGRL, in the event of the insolvency of the employer, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the employer is responsible for registering workers and paying contributions to protect against contingencies in the event of occupational accidents or diseases. The State monitors social security registration, and to this end it has adopted Decision No. 1111 of 2017 on minimum standards of occupational safety and health management (now repealed by the new Decision No. 0312 of 2019). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that compensation is paid to victims of occupational accidents in the case of a loss of capacity for work of less than 50 per cent in the event of the insolvency of the ARL, and of the insolvency of employers not insured by the SGRL.

Article 5 of Convention No. 17. Compensation in the form of a lump sum. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would introduce appropriate procedures to strengthen the protection of victims of occupational accidents and diseases against the misuse of lump sum compensation, as provided for in Article 5 of the Convention. The Committee notes the observations of the CTC and the CUT alleging once again that, in the event of an occupational accident or disease resulting in a loss of capacity for work of between 20 and 50 per cent, workers are no longer granted pensions, but receive compensation in the form of a lump sum. The Committee notes the confirmation by the Government that the law establishes the provision of periodical payments only in the case of invalidity and survivors’ pensions for general or occupational injury granted for an incapacity for work of more than 50 per cent, and that the Office’s advice would be welcome to examine the possibility of providing compensation for permanent partial incapacity in the form of periodical payments, without prejudice to the right currently held by workers to the indexed lump sum. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the competent authorities ensure the proper utilization of indexed lump sums. The Committee recalls that the Government may avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office to strengthen the measures to ensure the proper utilization of the indexed lump sum, or to examine the possibility of once again establishing periodical payments for workers victims of occupational accidents with a permanent partial incapacity exceeding a certain level. The Committee requests the Government to indicate any developments in this regard.

Article 2 of Convention No. 18. Recognition of occupational diseases. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to respond to the observations of the trade union confederations and to provide information on the manner in which a disease is treated during the first 540 days that precede its classification as an occupational disease, and to indicate the average time for its recognition as such. The Committee also requested the Government to carry out a detailed analysis of the manner in which the national list of occupational diseases complies with the Schedule annexed to the Convention. Regarding the first point, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 1072 of 2015 provides that, where 30 days have elapsed from the end of the comprehensive rehabilitation process and the disease has still not been recognized on first application, in no event may the recognition exceed 540 days following the date of the accident or the diagnosis of the disease, in which case the worker shall have the right to appeal directly to the invalidity recognition board. The Government also indicates that during this period the cash benefits for temporary incapacity and permanent partial incapacity are set by Act No. 776 of 2002. Regarding the second point, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that Decree No. 1477 of 2014 is based on the legal presumption of the occupational nature of the diseases listed in its Schedule in accordance with section 202 of the Substantive Labour Code, and that the list of activities and industries contained in the Schedule of occupational diseases is not exhaustive. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication regarding a draft decree to regulate the process for the recognition of occupational diseases on first application that must be followed by health promotion bodies, ARLs, insurance companies and pension funds. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress achieved in strengthening the legal framework for the recognition of occupational diseases on first application by health promotion agencies, ARLs and other relevant bodies, and on any measures that simplify the recognition of the occupational origin of the occupational diseases listed in the Convention, thereby giving it full effect.

Article 1(1) of Convention No. 19, and the application of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that any foreign national who enters the labour market with a contract is entitled to the social benefits provided by the SGRL. The Committee notes the allegations of the CTC and the CUT that the Government has not provided data on the application of the Convention in practice, and their indication that, although under the law there is no difference of treatment of foreign workers for the purpose of the compensation of occupational accidents, in practice many unskilled migrant workers are recruited informally, so that they are not guaranteed registration with the SGRL. The CGT indicates that among foreign workers, irregular workers without a work permit are exposed to the absence of protection, and refers in particular to the situation of Venezuelan migrant workers in Colombia. The Committee requests the Government to provide information, if existing statistics so allow, on the approximate number of foreign workers in the country and on their occupation and nationality. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number and nature of occupational accidents recorded among foreign workers, and on the compensation for occupational accidents provided to workers who are nationals of other member States that have ratified the Convention, and to their dependants.

Lastly, the Committee has been informed that, based on the recommendations of the Standards Review Mechanism Tripartite Working Group (SRM tripartite working group), the Governing Body has decided that member States for which Conventions Nos 17 and 18 are in force should be encouraged to ratify the more recent Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964 [Schedule I amended in 1980] (No. 121), or the Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102), and accept Part VI (see GB.328/LILS/2/1). The Committee therefore encourages the Government to follow up the Governing Body’s decision at its 328th Session (October–November 2016) approving the recommendations of the SRM tripartite working group and to consider ratifying Convention No. 121 or Convention No. 102 (accepting Part VI), as the most up-to-date instruments in this area.