Health and safety emergency
When a dangerous phenomenon is sudden and unpredictable, we can talk of emergency, a term linked to the exceptional nature of the event, but, as things stand, deaths at work cannot be defined as such.
It is pointless to report data that we are all familiar with and that all the mass media bring to our attention with, shall we say, daily frequency.
So…what is not working?
The most utopian thing we can do is looking for a scapegoat, for one reason above all that could be the key.
In fact, there is no single factor that negatively impact, but rather a concomitance of behaviour, omissions, laxity and lack of synergy between the law and its implementation on the part of those involved, be they controllers or monitors.
The scarcity of inspections will improve with the increase in the number of staff envisaged by the competent ministry, but we strongly believe that, in order to best perform the functions required by this very delicate role, it is of central importance to provide suitable training for inspectors, who cannot and must not find themselves carrying out mere inspections, which are often superficial and therefore lacking in any usefulness.
What are the obligations for companies?
Starting with an effective and correct risk assessment is an essential basis for ensuring a healthy and safe working environment for those who carry out their work.
The risk assessment document (Italian acronym DVR) estimates, among other things, the needs and shortcomings that must be brought down to a low risk level with short, medium or long term measures. Timing is assessed according to the severity of the event that may result from continuing to operate under risky conditions.
Furthermore, it is necessary: emergency planning; ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of equipment; training of workers according to the type of task and the risk level of the company or specific sector; use of individual and collective protection devices (the latter should always be preferred to individual protection); monitoring of accidents and near misses; replacement of equipment with new generation equipment; and encouraging automation in hazardous processes.
How does the Italian legislation punish offences at work?
The Consolidation Act on the Protection of Health and Safety in the Workplace, approved by Legislative Decree 81 in 2008, included for the first time two culpable offences linked to company organisation and the behaviour of those responsible: injury and homicide related to accidents at work.
The above-mentioned crimes, committed in violation of health and safety regulations, are punished with increased penalties compared to the same crimes but committed in ordinary contexts. Over the years, the application of the law has unfortunately not been unequivocal: jurisprudence has been divided on the legal nature of the obligation or burden of work organisation. In too many cases, there has been a tendency to consider compliance as a burden and not as an obligation, reducing companies’ liability.
Is it enough to provide equipment for workers in order to ensure their safety?
The answer is not trivial, a pure and simple statement is not sufficient in such a regulated and therefore complex field.
Certainly, providing equipment to workers is at the heart of an employer’s duties/obligations, as is adequate and non-optional maintenance of equipment. However, the suitability of machinery and tools is considered just as important by the regulations as is the adaptation of equipment to the evolution of technology.
Riportiamo di seguito un pronunciamento della Cassazione penale , sez. IV , 27/10/2021 , n. 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?
It would be enough to put into practice all the regulatory precepts in force in our country, but this requires 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 correctly adapt to the instructions given to them by company safety figures, committing serious errors that negatively affect their health and 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 sanctions, as well as certain and severe penalties 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.
