Brussels, 09/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - Parliament's vote on Wednesday on the proposal for a directive on protecting workers against exposure to optical radiation (see EUROPE 9022) caused, as predicted, an emotional reaction in the camp of those who are fighting for greater protection of the health and safety of workers in the workplace, as is the case of the European trade unions as well as the PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL Groups. On the other hand, the vote was well-received by the management of small and medium-sized enterprises (including UEAPME, the employers' organisation representing the interests of crafts, trades and SMEs in the EU), as well as by Liberal ALDE and EPP-ED Group members. The matter in hand concerns the removal, from the proposed directive, of worker exposure to solar radiation and the fact that it is left up to Member States alone to take the initiative to compel employers to assess the health and safety risks of workers exposed to solar (or natural) radiation.
Greatly disappointed, the Greens/EFA consider that the Christian Democrats and the Liberals have dealt a harsh blow to worker protection. “Skin cancer remains the same whether it is caused by artificial or natural radiation. By removing natural radiation from the directive, the Conservatives and Liberals have shown they want to lower health and safety standards”, Alain Lipitez of France commented, recalling that his group is “in favour of a European-wide regulation that would allow all the dangers resulting from exposure to natural sources of radiation to be assessed for workers”. His compatriot, Jean-Luc Bennahmias, expressed concern that “Europe has failed in its duty to protect its workers. With this legislation, all European citizens should be able to benefit from minimum protection against dangers at work”. He said he “hoped the conciliation process would allow all the disastrous decisions taken by the EP today to be removed”. He went on to conclude: “Today's vote is not in line with the precautionary principle that ecologists are so keen on”. The Greens point out in a press release that workers working outside are the most likely to have health problems due to ultraviolet radiation. Each year, they are exposed to UV radiation in doses that are six to eight times stronger than those received by office workers.
John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), said that, by entrusting Member States alone to define the obligations that should be imposed on employers when it comes to worker protection, the Parliament enters into contradiction with Community policy which, since the Single Act, consists in harmonising the rules on health in the workplace. The ETUC, which is fighting for greater worker protection against solar radiation (EUROPE 8988), recalls that it is opposed to amendments 5 and 7 of the text (Ed.: No 7 was rejected in plenary), which leaves Member States responsible for the initiative to compel employers to assess the health risks for workers from natural radiation exposure, and that it has always been in favour of European regulations on the matter. Since adoption of the framework directive 89/391 entitled “Health and Safety at Work: exposure of workers to optical radiation”, it has been important that minimum standards should be set for the protection of workers' health and safety, ETUC concludes.
Speaking on behalf of the EPP-ED Group, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, on the other hand, welcomed the fact that the EP had approved the Group's compromise solution that gives Member States competence to regulate over-exposure to solar radiation. “This directive is a classic example of over-regulation by the Council . It is foolish to make European laws on the protection of workers against over-exposure to sunshine. The situation in Greece is totally different from that in Finland, for example. It is for this reason that we changed this aspect of the directive. It is up to Member States to take any necessary measures”.
“Today's vote is a victory for common sense. Imposing EU-level obligations to regulate exposure to sunlight would be unrealistic, unnecessary and would further damage the credibility of EU legislation,” UEAPME General Secretary Hans-Werner Müller said, thanking the EP for having adopted a “sensible approach” to the directive (see EUROPE 9019). UEAPME welcomes the fact that the EP leaves Member States the initiative to decide whether or not it is necessary to regulate workers' exposure to sunshine and calls on the Council to accept the amendments adopted by the EP. It is also a great relief for the EBC (European Builders' Confederation), which has constantly drawn the attention of MEPs to the “absurdity of such a proposed directive” (see EUROPE 9020). The success is real, although the suspense is not yet over, the EBC said, adding that the “ball is in the Council's court: if the Council does not unanimously agree to the Parliament's amendments, then conciliation procedure between the EP and Council is inevitable”.