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

Guarding of Machinery Convention, 1963 (No. 119) - Finland (Ratification: 1969)

The Committee notes with interest the Government’s report indicating the adoption of the Occupational Health Care Act 1383/2001 (effective 1 January 2002), the Decree on the approval of inspectorates related to occupational safety and health, 18/2000 (effective 1 February 2000), and the coming into effect on 1 December 1998 of the Government Decision on the procurement, safe use and inspection of workplace machinery and other equipment (856/1998), which was based on European Union Directives 89/655/ECC and 95/63/EC, and repealed Government Decision 1403/1993 on the safe use of machinery.

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s report in response to its previous comments relating to the observations made earlier by the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK) concerning the number of accidents during the use of machinery, and the need to intensify the supervision of labour protection. It notes from the report that serious occupational accidents, including accidents involving machinery, continue to be a key challenge for work safety, and their prevention in particularly dangerous sectors was a leading area of focus for the occupational safety and health district administration. Other aims included reinforcing the ability and desire of workplaces to ensure their own work safety independently. It notes the information that the Government had approved a national occupational accident prevention programme in 2001, which had gotten under way in 2002. The occupational safety and health administration was able to influence machinery-related accidents by inspecting new products and controlling products in use at workplaces. The administration made every effort to promote better supervision of machinery and equipment in use by ensuring that the occupational safety districts had the requisite skills and information. This expertise was used primarily in the market control of machinery and equipment aimed at preventing the penetration of the Finnish market by dangerous machinery, in cooperation with other European and Nordic market control authorities. The Government indicated that 28,367 inspection visits were made by the occupational safety and health inspectors in 2001 (29,412 in 1997; 29,191 in 1998; 29,361 in 1999; 28,715 in 2000), of which 405 were inspections of machinery and equipment, taking up altogether 755 working hours and involving 15 inspectors. The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s strategies, which extend to 2010, focused on the promotion of health and functional capacity and were also expected to affect accident trends. As stated in the 1998 occupational safety and health strategy, the Government indicated that official supervision was targeted in accordance with the desired effects, aimed at good working conditions for the largest possible number of workers. Diversification of control methods was also supported, and tools and methods for accident prevention were being developed for the occupational safety and health administration.

The Committee notes from the Government’s report the observations made by the SAK reiterating earlier remarks that, from its point of view, the number of accidents during the use of machinery was still too high. The SAK referred to its remarks under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), that the financial and personnel resources of the occupational safety and health districts were inadequate to provide proper supervision of occupational safety and employment conditions at enterprises. It stated that the number of inspectors relative to the number of workplaces that were to be inspected was not satisfactory, and efficient inspection visits to check machinery and guarding devices could not be guaranteed. It also pointed out that serious deficiencies had been observed in the market control of machinery, equipment and indeed all products used at the workplace both in Finland and throughout the EU. The resulting problems were aggravated, in its view, by the allocation of insufficient resources for official occupational safety inspections at workplaces. It stated that an alarming amount of machinery that flouted EU law and had no EC labelling got onto the market and into use. It also referred to the statement made by its member organization, the Construction Union, which had noted that machine safety was particularly problematic in the building industry because the instructions on safe use were incomplete and/or were not available to the worker using the machinery. It appeared to it that, in actual fact, guidance in the use of machinery was usually deficient or non-existent at the work site.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to follow the evolution of the situation in light of the implementation of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health’s main strategic focus on the promotion of health and functional capacity. It would be grateful if the Government would continue to keep the Office informed on the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the number of injuries occurring in the use of machinery, as well as on inspection visits made, violations reported and penalties imposed.