Health and safety emergency
When a dangerous phenomenon is sudden and unpredictable, it can be called an emergency, a term related to the exceptional nature of the event, but at present, that of work-related deaths cannot be called such.
It is pointless to report data that we are well aware of and that all the mass media submit to us with, shall we say, daily frequency.
But what is it that doesn’t work?
Looking for one scapegoat, one reason out of all that can be the key is as utopian as one can think of.
In fact, there is no single factor that negatively affects but rather a concomitance of behaviors, omissions, laxity, and lack of synergy between the law and its implementation by stakeholders, whether they are controllers or monitors.
The scarcity of inspections will improve with the increase in staffing levels envisaged by the relevant ministry, but we strongly believe that, in order to best carry out the functions required by this very delicate role, suitable training of inspectors is of central importance; they cannot and should not find themselves performing mere inspections, which are often superficial and therefore devoid of any usefulness.
What are the obligations for companies?
Starting with an effective and proper risk assessment is an essential foundation for ensuring a healthy and safe working environment for those who perform their work.
The risk assessment document (DVR) estimates, among other things, the needs and deficiencies that need to be brought to a low risk level with short-, medium-, or long-term interventions. Timelines are assessed according to the severity of the event that may result from persevering to operate under risky conditions.
They then intervene, emergency planning; routine and extraordinary maintenance of equipment; training of workers according to the type of task and risk level of the specific company or sector; use of individual and collective protective equipment (the latter always to be preferred over individual protection); monitoring of accidents and near misses; replacement of equipment with new generation equipment as well as encouraging automation in hazardous processes.
How does the legislation intervene to punish labor crimes?
The Consolidated Law on Occupational Health and Safety, approved by Legislative Decree 81 in 2008, included for the first time two culpable offenses related to company organization and the behavior of those responsible: injury and homicide related to workplace accidents.
The aforementioned offenses, committed in violation of occupational health and safety regulations, are punished with increased penalties compared to the same crimes but committed in ordinary settings.
Over the years, the application of the law has unfortunately not been unambiguous: case law has been divided on the legal nature of the obligation or burden of labor organization.
In too many cases, there has been a move toward considering compliance as a burden and not an obligation, so much so that it has reduced the responsibilities of companies.
To ensure the safety of workers, is it enough to provide them with equipment?
The answer is not trivial; a pure and simple statement is by no means sufficient in such a regulated and therefore complex field.
Certainly providing equipment to those who work is the basis of an employer’s duties/obligations as is adequate and nonoptional maintenance of the same. However, the suitability of machinery rather than tools is considered equally important by the regulations as is the adaptation of equipment to evolving technology.
We report below a pronouncement of the Criminal Cassation , sec. IV , 27/10/2021 , no. 41147
On the subject of accidents at work, the liability of the manufacturer, in the event that the harmful event is caused by the non-observance of accident prevention precautions in the design and manufacture of the machine, does not exclude the liability of the employer, who has the obligation to eliminate sources of danger for employees who must use that machine and to adopt all the most modern tools that technology offers to ensure the safety of workers; an exception may be made to that rule only in the event that the ascertainment of an element of danger is rendered impossible by the special characteristics of the machine or by the design defect, which do not permit its existence to be ascertained with ordinary diligence. (Case in point, relating to a machine known as a ‘flattening and cross-cutting banding line’, purchased ten years before the accident and equipped with the CE mark and a mechanism for segregating the dangerous moving parts, which could be easily opened, but lacked an automatic locking system for the moving parts, in which the Court held that the employer’s liability for the injuries sustained by a worker while he was cleaning it was immune from censure, for not having adapted the safety standards in the light of technological progress and not having installed automatic locking mechanisms).
What measures should be taken to provide a rapid and effective response to this emergency?
Actually, it would be enough to put into practice all the regulatory precepts in force in our country, but this passes through a culture of safety on the part of those who must guarantee it. Employers very often judge the issue as an unnecessary frill and a disproportionate expense compared to the benefits.
In some cases, even workers, feeling confident in the skills they have acquired over time, do not properly comply with the instructions given to them by company safety figures, committing serious mistakes that negatively affect their health and that of their colleagues.
The numerous and continuous training courses do not seem to bear the desired results.
In this context, it is therefore necessary to intervene with internal and external controls, inspections and penalties as well as certain and severe punishments for offenders.
As written at the beginning, synergy between the actors is crucial, everyone is called upon to play his or her part in such a complex context as occupational health and safety.
