On the occasion of the project submitted to us for the Ordinance on minimizing the requirements for the microclimate of workplaces, we express our principled support for the project.
In addition, we would like to express our disagreement regarding the increase in the number of measurements described in Article 14, paragraph 1 of the draft Ordinance, which states "Measurements of temperature, humidity and air movement speed at workplaces are carried out most little on two consecutive days - respectively during the warm and during the cold period of the year".
The requirement of Art. 14 obliges the employer to carry out measurements every year twice, which will lead to a review of the risk assessment in case of detected non-conformities (changes), according to the requirement of Art. 11 of Ordinance No. 5 of 11.05.1999 on the order, method and periodicity of risk assessment. We believe that the periodicity of the measurements, respectively the revision of the risk assessment, is currently clearly regulated and should be carried out according to Art. 11 of the current Ordinance No. 5 of 11.05.1999 Supplementing the requirements, and that in another ordinance, may create confusion as to which of the two ordinances should be applied with priority.
In Art. 21, para. 1 to delete the following part of the text: "which pose a threat to the life and health of workers and to the safe performance of work". In its current version, the text does not give a definite indication whether outdoor work is suspended in the presence of "orange" or "red" codes. If the authors of the regulation had in mind that the work must be suspended, except in the cases described in para. 2, then the specified text is redundant; it only introduces uncertainty when interpreting the content of para. 1 of Art. 21.
If the authors' idea is that in the presence of "orange" or "red" codes, outdoor work could still continue, if it does not "create a threat to the life and health of workers and to the safe performance of work", then the procedure for assessing when such a threat exists or does not exist should be regulated.
One possible option for introducing such a regulation is the addition of the text: "The work could continue only under conditions defined in an opinion of the Office of Occupational Medicine serving the enterprise. The opinion indicates which work activities could be performed and under presence of declared "orange" or "red" codes, and under what additional safety measures these activities should continue. The opinion must also take into account the health status of the specific employees of the enterprise, so that exposure to risk of persons suffering from diseases in which work at extreme low or high temperatures or other extreme conditions is exemplified". In our opinion, it is desirable to provide for the possibility to work in the presence of codes "orange" or "red", or at least in case of code "orange". Otherwise, for a significant part of the summer period, one should simply not work outdoors. Practice shows that with appropriate organization of the work process and taking additional safety measures, it would be possible to work even during the hottest summer days, except for certain hours of the day. The main possible safety measures are also listed in Art. 20, para. 2, and in para. 3 indicates the possibility of introducing a physiological regime of work and rest, which is also a way to prevent the impact of dangerously low or high temperatures.
It is recommended, in items 7, 8 and 9 of paragraph 1 of the Additional Regulations, to indicate more specifically the way to define the category of work. There is hardly any employer who knows how energy consumption is determined when performing a certain job. In this case, the participation of the Office of Occupational Medicine could also be regulated, for example through the following text: "The category of work is determined with the assistance of the Office of Occupational Medicine serving the enterprise".
We also propose to add a new paragraph in section III of the draft regulation. 2 in Art. 18 with the following sample text:
"(2) When, on the basis of a contract between one person (the Contractor) and another person (the Contracting Authority), workers and employees of the Contractor carry out work on the territory of the Contracting Authority, the latter is obliged to carry out the measurements under this regulation at its own expense in all its premises, respectively throughout its territory, and to provide the results of such measurements to the contractor for information and use."
Our proposal is related to the fact that it is very common for public procurement authorities to consider that such obligations are for the contractors, although they themselves are the owners or tenants of the relevant buildings, premises and/or territories. The same applies to control bodies. The basis for the proposed change is also Art. 19, Para. 3 of the Law on Health and Safety at Work, which states: "...(3) The information under Para. 1 is provided to employees of other enterprises that perform work on the territory of the relevant enterprise. …”
http://www.turbulence.tech