Judging by the report, this term refers to occurrences which could have caused injuries but did not do so. This type of information is more interesting for local work environment management. It does not provide a very sound basis for statistics.

Switzerland. UPS: It is necessary here to refer to the definition used in national legislation.
USS: Yes.

Turkey. Omit the words "or to the public".

United States. USCIB: No. No country, including the United States, tracks "dangerous occurrences". Such a Recommendation would be burdensome and impossible to implement in terms of obtaining consistent records.

# Office commentary

The response to this part of the question reflects the differences in national law and practice between member States, the majority of negative responses coming from those which do not at present require the recording and notification of dangerous occurrences. In practice, of course, some occurrences will come to the notice of competent authorities and be investigated in response to public concern and as an aid to an accident prevention programme. Further to define dangerous occurrences in the proposed Protocol, as proposed by the Government of Sweden, would appear to the Office to be difficult to reconcile with the expressed intention to leave a definition to national laws and regulations. These are better able to reflect the level of development of a member State and the competent authority within it, the probable list of dangerous occurrences being greater in some than others. This may also take account of the concern of several governments to confine the term to potential hazards to persons at work rather than include the public which, as in the collapse of a crane, may be difficult to distinguish in practice. The Office notes the observations as to the distinction between a dangerous occurrence and an incident and returns to this in commenting on the next part of the question. This question appears in the proposed Protocol as Article 1(c).

# Qu. 5(d) For the purposes of the Protocol should:

(d) the term "incident" cover an unsafe occurrence arising out of, or in the course of, work where no personal injury is caused or where personal injury requires only first-aid treatment?

Total number of replies: 62.

Affirmative to (d): 46. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 8. Cuba, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Spain.

Other: 8. Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, Norway, Portugal, Sweden.

Australia. Yes. WorkCover NSW is of the view that the definitions of dangerous occurrence and incident are similar and should be confined into a single data set.

Belgium. CNT: No. See comment in reply to Question 5(c).

Brazil. CNI: Personal injury requiring first-aid treatment is regarded as an occupational accident.

Bulgaria. See comment in reply to Question 5(c). It is advisable that cases of first-aid treatment be considered as occupational accidents.

Chile. The term "incident" should refer to a personal injury which is not such as to oblige the worker to lose one working day.

Cuba. We believe that this definition is also confusing and propose that it be modified as follows: to cover an occurrence (accident, injury, etc.) arising out of, or in the course of, work where no personal injury is caused, or, if it is caused, then the person is capable of continuing to work.

Czech Republic. KZPS and CMKOS: Yes.

Denmark. Replace the word "incident" with the words "near accident".

Egypt. FEI: No.

Finland. "Unsafe occurrence" should not be included in the Protocol but dealt with in a Recommendation, if necessary.


France. CGT-FO: The term "incident" should be excluded from the field of occupational accidents, as it introduces the notion of degree in the seriousness of work accidents. In the absence of injury the "dangerous occurrence" applies. In the case of minor injuries requiring only first-aid treatment, the notification procedure should be simplified, although it should be maintained. The term "incident" may lead to an underestimation of occupational risk situations. It is better to use only the term "occupational accidents".

Gabon. No, the term "incident" should cover all occurrences arising out of, or in the course of, work where no personal injury is caused. The second part relates to occupational accidents as there is an injury even if it is minor.

Germany. This term should not be contained in either the Protocol or the Recommendation. See comments in general observations.

BDA: This should not be taken as a criterion.

Greece. ESEE: No, "incident" is covered by "dangerous occurrence".

Hungary. The inclusion of "unsafe occurrences" should be reconsidered.

Honduras. COHEP: No, the definition is unclear and will result in confusion. All accidents begin with an incident.

Indonesia. Employers' Association of Indonesia (APINDO): No, since it will require great and unnecessary data to be reported, which needs only to be kept in the company.

Israel. The recording of "incidents" should be done by the employer with no obligation to notify the competent authority.

Italy. It would seem that the ILO is referring both to accidents with an aftermath and those without – this stance cannot be shared.

Republic of Korea. Yes, since the Protocol only deals with occupational matters. Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU): No.

Malaysia. No, personal injury that requires first-aid treatment should come under non-fatal occupational injury.

Namibia. Yes, but provided countries have the necessary resources to include "incidents" in their reporting mechanisms.

Netherlands. First-aid treatment is a criterion that differs between countries and within countries depending on the facilities. One could consider a definition in terms of "if the criteria under 5(a)(ii) are not met".

New Zealand. No. See comment on Question 5(c).

Norway. Yes. The term "incident" should be confined to occurrences where no personal injury is caused. Even if personal injury requires "only" first-aid treatment, we believe that such injury should be characterized as an occupational accident. Moreover, a large element of judgement is involved in deciding whether what is needed is merely first-aid treatment or more extensive medical treatment, such that it would be difficult to harmonize the term nationally across trades and industries and across countries.

Qatar. Yes, taking into consideration the difficulties in applying this since notifying such incidents is not an obligation.

Russian Federation. No. It is not clear what this definition means.

Singapore. Singapore National Employers' Federation (SNEF): No, such incidents should not be made reportable to the authorities. Singapore's legislation does not require such incidents to be reported. While employers keep track of an "incident" for the purpose of managing safety and health at the workplace, it would be unproductive for employers and for authorities if "incidents" are made reportable to the authorities.

South Africa. BSA: Yes, in principle, but would caution that many countries might in practice simply not have the necessary resources to include "incidents" in their reporting mechanisms.

Spain. For the same reason as given in the comment on Question 5(a) the definition of "incident" is not acceptable, and in no case should a definition of incident be included in an ILO instrument.

UGT: Yes, including members of the public present in the workplace.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. The term "incident" as defined in the text will include both occurrences causing injury and occurrences not doing so. It is hard to see the logic in this.

Occupational Accidents and Professional Diseases Act.pdf


It is hard to see the logic in this. Either we have an accident (which causes injury) or else a near accident (which does not). This type of information again is above all interesting for the purposes of local work environment management.

Switzerland. UPS: Article 9 of the OLAA (regulation concerning accident insurance) does not use the term "incident"; it mentions accidents and similar personal injury. Is it really necessary to create a category of "incidents"?

USS: Yes.

United Arab Emirates. The definition seems acceptable; our concern regarding incidents arises from the fact that they are indirect evidence of the soundness of adopted occupational safety measures (considering that an incident is an occupational accident which does not cause any personal injury due to appropriate occupational safety measures being taken).

United States. USCIB: No. The test of a successful safety programme is the tracking of the serious incidents and whether they are declining in the workplace.

# Office commentary

Although the substantial majority of responses to this part of the question were in the affirmative the Office recognizes the validity of responses such as those from the Government of Norway which argues that an incident which causes personal injury, albeit an injury which required only first-aid treatment, should be regarded as an occupational accident. The wording of the term as it now appears as Article 1(d) in the proposed Protocol reflects this. This part of the question is concerned with the concept of an incident rather than what may flow from it in terms of recording and notification. It is a concept which was discussed and adopted by the Meeting of Experts in October 1994 which drew up the ILO code of practice on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases which contains the definition used here. Knowledge of such incidents was seen as important at the enterprise level in improving the effectiveness of preventive measures through an analysis of the causes of incidents. Attention is drawn to the fact that the notification of "incidents" is not envisaged.

The Office notes the observations as to the difficulty of distinguishing between incidents and dangerous occurrences but believes this will be apparent with the definition of the latter in national laws and regulations. It has, however, introduced the words "other than a dangerous occurrence" to avoid duplication. The alternative term "near accident", referring as it does to the possible consequences rather than the nature of the event, is thought not to be appropriate.

For the purposes of the Protocol should:

Qu. 5(e)

(e) the term "commuting accident" cover an accident occurring on the direct way between the place of work and:

(i) the worker's principal or secondary residence;
(ii) the place where the worker usually takes his or her meals; or

(iii) the place where the worker usually receives his or her remuneration, which results in death or personal injury involving loss of working time?

Total number of replies: 63.

Affirmative to (e): 44. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Singapore, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 7. Czech Republic, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, United Kingdom.

Other: 12. Barbados, Chile, Croatia, Eritrea, Germany, Republic of Korea, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey.

Australia. In the State of Victoria, injuries suffered while travelling to and from work are not occupational injuries. These "commuting accidents" are dealt with through traffic accident compensation arrangements.


Injuries sustained while travelling to a usual meal place or place of remuneration are fully compensable but not classified as commuting accidents.

Austria. The definition of the term "commuting accident" is narrower than that applied in Austria.

Barbados. With reference to commuting accidents, there is some difficulty in establishing a person's principal or secondary residence and this should be more clearly defined.

BEC: (e) Should be limited to situations where the employer is in charge of the transport, or where the worker is sent to a workplace other than his normal workplace.

Benin. Yes, but the route may vary as a result of, for example, sickness of a family member, need for vehicle repairs, etc.

Brazil. The reference to lost working time is unnecessary.

CNI, CNA, CNF: There is need for a better definition of the term "secondary residence".

CNT: "Commuting accident" should refer only to accidents which occur between the principal residence and the workplace.

Bulgaria. Commuting accidents should include those to the location where the worker usually eats during working hours and the location where compensation is received.

Chile. The term should be used only to mean those accidents which occur in the journey to and from home and work, including work for a different employer.

Colombia. (iii) The words "involving loss of working time" should be deleted since the central theme of the instrument must be occupational accidents with the focus on workers' health, not lost working time.

Croatia. (i) Omit secondary residence.

IOM: Include on the way to obtain health care.

National Institute of Public Health (NIPH): Omit (ii) and (iii).

Czech Republic. CMKOS: Yes to (e)(i). Add (iv) the place of medical treatment/examination.

OSPZV: Yes to (e)(ii).

KZPS: Yes to (e)(iii). Add (iv) another place of work.

Denmark. No. Traffic accidents occurring on the way to and from the place of work are not considered to be occupational accidents in Denmark.

Egypt. FEI: National legislation should be observed in defining the term "occupational accident"; recourse can be made to the proposed text in cases where such provision does not exist in domestic law.

Eritrea. In national law and practice "commuting accidents" are left to collective agreements and we would prefer the instruments to be consistent with this.

Ethiopia. Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU): The definition of "commuting accident" should cover only (iii).

Finland. Commuting accidents must cover travel between the workplace and the worker's residence, including "secondary residence", and between the workplace and the place where the worker usually takes his/her meals according to national practice. In Finland, "commuting accident" is a broad concept which covers many work-related incidents, in addition to accidents at the workplace and while actually commuting. In order to avoid overlap in definitions and recording, classifications already harmonized by the EU should be adhered to.

France. CGT-FO: The term "commuting accident" should cover any accident occurring on any route to or from the place of work which results in physical injury.

Germany. The term "commuting accident" should refer to an accident which an insured person suffers on the direct way to or from the place where the insured activity is carried out. There must be an inherent connection between the stretch of itinerary and the insured activity, i.e. that itinerary must serve the insured activity. It already follows from this requirement which accidents should be recorded as commuting accidents.

BDA: In our opinion commuting accidents which occur outside working hours and accidents which occur during a worker's leisure time should be dealt with, with the following reservations:

(i) and (ii) Yes.
(iii) Only in the case of payment of wages in cash.

The time criterion which applies to occupational accidents should apply to all commuting accidents.

Greece. ESEE: No.


Greece. ESEE: No.

Honduras. COHEP: No, only if the employer is providing the transport or is sending the worker to a place of work.

Hungary. (i) and (ii) Yes. (iii) Yes in case of organized work.

Employers: Commuting accidents in Hungary are only considered to be occupational accidents if they happen using a vehicle owned by the employer.

Workers: Yes.

Italy. National legislation excludes such accidents which are traceable to the risk inherent in the choice made, or the calculated risk taken, or if a private means of transport is used, in situations where conduct has been blatantly culpable.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: Same as in (a); the definition of "commuting" accidents should be left to the actual circumstances found in each country.

Kenya. (iii) Will create great difficulty when it comes to deciding where the worker receives his/her remuneration. In some cases this may be paid through a bank of his/her choice, which could be very far from his workstation, perhaps in a different town.

Republic of Korea. Yes to (i) only.

Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU): Yes.

Lebanon. (i) Yes, no matter whether the employer provides the means of transport or not, provided that the trip should be without stop or deviation from the direct way for reasons independent from work.

(ii) What is meant by the expression "usually"? Could the worker not change the place where he or she usually takes meals and go to another place within the time allowed? The expression "commuting accident" should include any accident which might occur between the place of work and the place where the worker takes his or her meals within the time allowed. Accordingly, the occupational relationship between the worker and the employer should continue, even during mealtimes.
(iii) The place where the worker receives his or her remuneration could be inside or outside the enterprise (for instance, in a bank). In both cases, we think that a work accident should include any accident which might occur between the workplace and the place where the worker receives his remuneration.

A new paragraph should be added in relation to a worker who might be entrusted with a task outside his enterprise, no matter whether in the same country or abroad, and to the worker who might receive training outside the enterprise, so that a work accident should include any accident which might occur during or on the occasion of the performance of such work or training. The same case might apply to an emergency, during or on the occasion of which the worker might be involved in rescue operations within the enterprise in which he works.

Malta. (ii) Yes, but only if the place where the worker usually takes his or her meals is on the work premises, unless the nature of the work necessitates travel outside the work premises.

Mexico. In addition, we propose the inclusion of "the place where the workers' children are cared for".

New Zealand. No. There is no clear reason why commuting should be singled out. Also, the definition is very limited, for instance, it does not cover situations where a person was delivering children to school or childcare but on the way to or from work. The distinction that is more useful is whether the injury was the result of work, which may include commuting – for instance if a person was fatigued and that resulted in an accident.

Norway. In Norway, commuting accidents are not considered as work-related accidents and it is not required that these accidents be recorded or notified. Transportation accidents, meaning accidents occurring on the direct way between the place of work and either one of the alternatives under (i), (ii) and (iii) are not covered by Norwegian law. The Working Environment Act only refers to accidents occurring when executing work. This implies that only accidents occurring when the employee is at the disposal of the employer are included in the obligation to record and notify accidents. Accidents occurring when employees are travelling by car or some other means of transport as required by the nature of their work are notifiable.

Greece. ESEE: No.


(iii) This point should take into consideration the fact that nowadays most industrial establishments have adopted the practice of transferring the worker's remuneration to his or her bank account. Therefore, this point should be clarified in order to avoid any ambiguity.

United Kingdom. No. See comment under Question 21.

United States. USCIB: No. In the United States these circumstances are not considered to be work related.

# Office commentary

As with the previous two questions, the responses substantially reflect existing law and practice in member States. Thus negative responses were from those States in which commuting accidents are regarded as traffic accidents and are required neither to be recorded or notified by the employer. Other member States and organizations proposed that a definition of commuting accidents be left to national law and practice permitting wide variations.

Among other responses there was a noticeable variation as to the categories of journeys to be covered by a Protocol, for example whether these should be confined to journeys in the employer's own transport, whatever the purpose of the journey, and whether they should include travel for health care. The Office does not regard the wording of the question as providing an exclusive definition but rather as allowing an extension of the categories, albeit not a limitation, in order to reflect differing social and working conditions in member States.

Several responses refer to the difficulty of deciding what is meant by a worker's secondary residence and, similarly, the place at which remuneration is received when it is paid directly into a bank which may be remote from the place of work. These terms were used in the Employment Injury Benefits Recommendation, 1964 (No. 121), and were adopted 30 years later by the Meeting of Experts which drew up the ILO code of practice on the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases. The question appears as Article 1(e) in the proposed Protocol.

# Systems for recording and notification

# Qu. 6

Should the Protocol provide that the competent authority shall, by laws or regulations or any other method consistent with national conditions and practice, and in consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers, establish and periodically review requirements and procedures for:

(a) the recording of occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences, incidents, commuting accidents and, as appropriate, suspected cases of occupational diseases; and

(b) the notification of:

(i) occupational accidents, occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences; and
(ii) commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases, as appropriate?

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 54. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Gabon, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Other: 14. Barbados, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, India, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, New Zealand, Qatar, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden.

Barbados. The definition of the primary or secondary residence as it relates to a commuting accident needs further clarification. The BEC agrees and also considers that clarification is needed on the meaning of "suspected cases" in subparagraph (a).

Benin. (a) The competent authorities should draw up handbooks of procedure for recording occupational accidents and diseases, dangerous occurrences, incidents and commuting accidents, in accordance with well publicized laws and regulations.


(b) Legislation and regulations will also have to be adopted as part of the effort to harmonize notification procedures in cases of occupational accidents and diseases and dangerous occurrences, on the one hand, and in cases of commuting accidents and suspected occupational diseases, on the other. The Protocol could define the general principles to be taken into account in national legislation.

Bulgaria. It will be difficult for the recording of accidents to be implemented in practice, especially in small enterprises.

Canada. To ensure consistency with clause (b)(ii), which provides for the notification of commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases as appropriate, subparagraph (a) should read as follows:

(a) the recording of occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences, incidents and, as appropriate, commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases; and

In Canada the employer's obligation to ensure workers' health and safety is limited to the workplace: only accidents occurring to workers in the workplace during crew transport by the employers and while commuting between job sites are reportable.

Chile. There is no national requirement to register dangerous occurrences, incidents or suspected cases of occupational disease, although the importance of doing so in future is recognized.

China. Supports (b)(i).

Croatia. IOM: Practice shows some difficulties primarily related to commuting accidents (recording of "false" accidents, lack of possibility to apply preventive work safety measures) and suspected cases of occupational diseases (different criteria for term "suspected").

Czech Republic. Yes, except commuting accidents.

OSPZV: No to (b)(ii).

Denmark. In order to make the recording useful for comparable analyses, notifications must follow the same procedure. Common rules for, especially, the notification of occupational accidents and diseases should be introduced.

FTF: All types of injuries, including occupational accidents and diseases which arise in connection with the performance of work or as a result of a poor working environment, should be recorded. The recording should as a minimum contain information about the injured person, including occupational status, work function, age, gender and type of injury/disease.

Estonia. In (a) and (b)(ii) exclude commuting accidents.

Finland. (a) and (b)(i) The Protocol should not deal with the notification of "dangerous occurrences".

From the point of view of development of the working environment, it is important to base recording on binding regulations which at least break down occupational accidents and occupational diseases. Consideration might be given to gender-specific data collection.

Germany. Yes, except for the terms "dangerous occurrence" and "incident", which should not be contained in either the Protocol or the Recommendation (see general remarks).

BDA: Yes, but see comments on 5(c) and (d). It is not clear what is meant by "suspected cases of occupational diseases".

DGB: In (a) the abovementioned addition of "work-related diseases" must be added here also. In (b)(ii) the words "as appropriate" must be deleted.

Honduras. COHEP: The wording is not clear. See the comment on Question 5.

Hungary. Yes, but not the notification of "dangerous occurrences" and "incidents". In Hungary "suspected cases of occupational diseases" are not subject to notification. However, cases of severe exposure must be notified. The definition of these cases is unequivocal, they are easy to diagnose and essential to the prevention of occupational toxicosis.

India. "Suspected cases of occupational diseases" is not a defined term and should be omitted from the Protocol for the time being.

Jamaica. This would help countries, especially developing countries, by providing a stronger leverage to encourage enterprises to participate more fully.

Republic of Korea. Yes, but dangerous occurrences, incidents and commuting accidents should be excluded.

KEF: Yes.

FKTU: Yes.

KCTU: Yes.


KEF: Yes.

FKTU: Yes.

KCTU: Yes.

Kuwait. Yes, except commuting accidents, as they are often traffic accidents, and cannot be considered occupational accidents.

Lebanon. Yes, on the understanding that national legislation determines the nature of the occupational accidents and diseases which must be notified. Casual (simple) accidents might not require notification.

Netherlands. Yes, the establishment and periodic review of systems for recording and notification should be emphasized.

VNO-NCW: Yes, but with the exception of (b)(ii).

New Zealand. Yes, but only in respect of injuries and diseases. See answer to Question 5.

Norway. (a) Yes, the recording should also include work-related disorders (according to Norwegian law any disease that is assumed caused and/or aggravated by the nature of the work or the conditions at the workplace shall be recorded by the employer), but not commuting accidents in general. We are of the opinion that the term "suspected cases of occupational diseases" would need some clarification.

(b)(i) Yes. Again, work-related disorders should be included.

NHO: Opposed to the inclusion of work-related disorders.

Panama. Work processes are dynamic, and new technologies, substances and productive methods are introduced, as well as changes in the epidemiological profile of population groups.

Poland. PKPP: (a) Yes. (b) To refer only to occupational accidents and diseases.

OPZZ: (a) Yes. (b)(ii) Not necessarily in the case of commuting accidents.

Portugal. Confederation of Portuguese Farmers (CAP): Yes, but adding the words "where appropriate". The establishment and periodic review of requirements and procedures for the recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases should not be laid down by international standards.

Qatar. (a) We believe that there should be a distinction between the recording of occupational accidents and occupational diseases since the recording of occupational accidents could apply to all undertakings, whereas the recording of occupational diseases, the way it is described in the text, might be applied in large undertakings and hazardous industries.

Romania. Differences may exist between systems used for the collection of data on occupational accidents and diseases which could have an impact on the actual number of cases recorded. Consequently, the Protocol should set out provisions concerning this point or relating to the fact that the competent authority should be responsible for establishing recording and notification procedures.

Russian Federation. Yes. It provides for national laws and practice such as exists in Russia where there are two principal laws, one concerned with the management of occupational safety and health and the other with social insurance. Under (a) and (b) the various categories should be further separated rather than grouped together. This will make discussion easier and, subsequently, the comparison of statistics.

Slovakia. (b)(i) Dangerous occurrences should be notifiable only if they concern employees, not the public. (b)(ii) No in the case of commuting accidents.

South Africa. Yes, but excluding "dangerous occurrences" and "incidents" where no injury or disease is involved.

BSA: (a) Yes, but clarification is needed on the exact meaning of "suspected cases of occupational diseases". In this regard it would be important to indicate who suspects these cases. (b)(i) Yes; (ii) see the response to Question 5(e).

Spain. No to the recording and notification of dangerous occurrences and incidents. Only in specific cases does it appear appropriate to revise the requirements and procedures for the recording of occupational and commuting accidents, or occupational diseases; this is especially true in relation to specific aspects of such diseases, indirectly related to recording, for example the inclusion of new types of occupational diseases that must be recorded, so as to adapt the list to the progress made in new technological situations (use of new dangerous chemical substances liable to cause occupational diseases).

KEF: Yes.


In general, we consider that the changes in question relating to generic recording requirements or procedures can be made by amending the corresponding standards; this does not imply the need to do so periodically.

UGT: As regards areas subject to notification, these should also include incidents and should allow the incorporation, in the established recording and notification systems, of all other areas which the parties involved consider similarly expedient.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. Incidents and dangerous occurrences should be observed and dealt with at local level, not nationally.

Switzerland. UPS: The reference in (a) to "suspected cases of occupational diseases" is not clear, and should be clarified during discussions at the Conference; second, in Switzerland, commuting accidents are covered by non-occupational accident insurance (AANP).

USS: Yes.

Syrian Arab Republic. FTU: Yes, provided that suspected cases are excluded.

United States. USCIB: Yes, in a Recommendation.

Yugoslavia. Yes, to determine the responsibility of the employer for an accurate and timely registration and notification.

# Office commentary

The responses to this question are unanimous in approving the principles of recording and notification, both for the development of preventive policies and comparable analysis, varying only as to the categories of events to be referred to, and so have been recorded as affirmative. Reflecting the comments in answer to Question 5 in its several parts, responses tend to echo national laws and regulations as to the categories of events which should be recorded and subsequently notified. Thus there is unanimity as to the need to record and notify occupational accidents and diseases, but there are differences as to dangerous occurrences, incidents, commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases.

It may be that the national laws and regulations referred to in the question will include details such as gender-specific data, as referred to by the Government of Finland, but such details are thought by the Office to be inappropriate for a Protocol. The relationship of a的通知 to a work activity is thought to be made clear in the wording of Question 5(b) and the suggested reference to a work-related disease is, therefore, considered tautologous.

The Government of Denmark comments on the need for notification to follow a common procedure, a matter dealt with in more detail in Question 8, while the Government of Benin sees a need for advice on such procedures. The ILO code of practice referred to is helpful in this respect.

The question appears as Article 2 in the proposed Protocol.

Qu. 7 Should the Protocol provide that the requirements and procedures for recording shall include:

(a) the responsibility of employers:

(i) to record occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences, incidents, commuting accidents and, as appropriate, suspected cases of occupational diseases;

(ii) to ensure appropriate maintenance of these records;
(iii) to use these records for the establishment of preventive measures; and
(iv) to provide appropriate information to workers and their representatives concerning the recording system;

(b) the minimum information to be recorded; and
(c) the minimum duration for maintaining these records?

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 55. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Other: 13. China, Cuba, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, New Zealand, Norway, Slovakia, Spain.


Austria. Under no circumstances should (a)(iv) be excluded as it ensures that employers are responsible for providing appropriate information to workers and their representatives concerning the recording system.

Belgium. CNT: The workers' organizations agree with the establishment of recording and notification procedures as proposed, since these can only improve prevention. The employers' organizations point out that it is the employer's responsibility to notify and record incidents, dangerous occurrences and suspected cases of occupational diseases, especially as they consider these concepts to be very imprecise. They reiterate that they consider the employer's responsibility in this context as being limited to occupational accidents, commuting accidents and occupational diseases (not dangerous occurrences and incidents) for reasons of administrative simplification. The Council draws attention to the fact that information to be provided under clause (a)(iv) is for the sole purpose of assisting workers and their representatives in their task of dealing with occupational accidents and diseases. The recording procedure should be viewed as a technique for compiling occupational accidents and diseases; therefore it cannot include data covered by medical confidentiality.

Brazil. CNI, CNF, CNT: Yes, except for the words "suspected cases of occupational diseases" in (a)(i).

Bulgaria. (a) The responsibilities of employers should include the investigation of accidents.

Chile. It is important to mention the need for employers to consult workers in advance about the kind of information that should be recorded and about the purpose of such a procedure.

China. Supports (a).

Cuba. We believe that it should be compulsory for all enterprises to record occupational accidents, occupational diseases, commuting accidents and fatal accidents. However, recording occurrences and incidents should be at the enterprise's discretion, depending on the type of enterprise, as there are enterprises that lack the structure and organization for this and that find it quite difficult to maintain a reliable record of these events.

Cyprus. (a)(i) Yes, except for commuting accidents.

Denmark. (a) FTF: The recording of occupational accidents, occupational diseases and suspected cases of occupational diseases should take place at the central level and the employers are not and should not be involved as actors in this connection. The employers' duty in connection with the necessary recording should be limited to the notification and the requirements laid down about the information to be provided.

(b) Yes, minimum information and maybe also a proposal for more extensive information which could be useful, especially when prevention is the target for analyses.

Egypt. FEI: (a) We agree only to the first part which provides that the employer should be responsible for recording the occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences and incidents only and nothing beyond that.

(b) No, it should be left to national legislation.
(c) Yes, the duration should be between three to five years.

Estonia. (a)(i) Exclude commuting accidents.

Finland. (a)(i) and (b) The Protocol should not deal with the recording of "dangerous occurrences".

France. CGT-FO: (c) This proposal is especially relevant.

Gabon. (c) The minimum duration for registering and for maintaining records should be given.

Germany. (b) and (c) Yes, provided it is guaranteed that the addressees of these obligations are the competent authorities under domestic law or in domestic practice.

DGB: The following sentence must be added between clauses (ii) and (iii): "to ensure that risk factors are properly assessed";

(c) The minimum duration for maintaining these records should be 30 years, and 60 years in the case of exposure to carcinogenic substances.

Subparagraph (d) should read as follows:

The circumstances of the accident (e.g.


The circumstances of the accident (e.g. the time, the commencement of working hours, the machines or appliances involved), the witnesses to the accident or, in the case of a suspected occupational disease, information on exposure to the health hazards, as documented in the assessment of risk factors.

Hungary. Yes, "dangerous occurrences" and "incidents" should be left out of clause (i). With respect to "suspected cases of occupational diseases" we refer to Question 6.

Employers: The records should be kept for at least five years.

Workers: Yes.

India. Yes, apart from "commuting accidents" and "suspected occupational diseases". Some occupational diseases may not appear until after 15 or more years' cessation of employment.

Indonesia. APINDO: (a) Yes. (b) No. (c) The minimum duration for maintaining these records should be at least ten years.

Italy. See general observations.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: The phrase "commuting accidents and, as appropriate, suspected cases of occupational diseases" should be deleted. It would be difficult comprehensively to discuss circumstances of varying natures and with different recognition methods, such as occupational accidents, occupational diseases, and commuting accidents. In the case of Japan, commuting accidents do not fall within the responsibility of the employer; neither are they considered occupational accidents. Only in cases in which there is a close connection with work, is compensation provided from the workmen's accident compensation insurance.

Republic of Korea. Yes, but exclude dangerous occurrences, incidents and commuting accidents.

KEF: Yes.

FKTU: Yes to (a) and (c).

KCTU: Yes.

Kuwait. There is no reason for holding employers responsible for commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases.

Lebanon. (c) Stresses the necessity for privacy as to the personal data used in these records.

Namibia. NEF: Yes, but under (a)(i) careful consideration should be given to the strong possibility that the reporting of "incidents" could be too onerous for many employers, particularly in small businesses.

Netherlands. Care should be taken to ensure the privacy of the victim.

VNO-NCW: (a)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) Yes, with the exception of "commuting accidents" and "suspected cases of occupational diseases".

(b) and (c) We agree with the principle but the details have to be elaborated by the member States.

New Zealand. Yes – within the limitations given in answer to the previous question and, in relation to (c), a minimum period may not be necessary if the information is passed on to the appropriate national organization(s) and held there, rather than the employer having to maintain records for a minimum period if that is not required for the employer's preventative measures.

Norway. Yes, but not commuting accidents in general.

NHO: (a) No. (b) Yes.

Pakistan. Yes, but a certain benchmark, depending on the financial status and size of the establishment, should be prescribed.

Panama. (c) The minimum duration for maintaining these records should be ten years.

Philippines. The minimum information recorded should be the names, dates and places of the happening, nature of the happening and absences.

Portugal. (iv) The privacy of individual workers must be preserved.

CAP: Yes, adding the words "where appropriate".

CIP: Yes, employers' responsibilities should conform to domestic legislation.

Russian Federation. Yes. (a)(i) Categories under (a)(i) should be separated as discussed under Question 6. In the Russian Federation these are dealt with by separate competent authorities.
(b) What is meant by "minimum"? This should be specified, perhaps in the Recommendation.
(c) The minimum period or periods should be specified – perhaps in the Recommendation.

Slovakia. (a)(i) No to commuting accidents. (c) No, leave to national legislation.

South Africa. BSA: Yes, but in (a)(i) careful consideration should be given to the strong possibility that the reporting of "incidents" could be too onerous for many employers, particularly in small businesses.


Spain. (a) This is acceptable for occupational and commuting accidents, occupational diseases and incidents, apart from anything which refers to dangerous occurrences and incidents, given that these "occurrences" should not be included in the instrument eventually adopted.

(b) and (c) Just as in the previous case, this is acceptable in relation to occupational and commuting accidents, occupational diseases and accidents without casualties, but not in any other case. Spanish legislation does not go into detail so as to determine the minimum period for which these records are maintained, although we do consider that this has limited value, since the information of interest for preventive purposes is reflected in the publications on labour statistics produced annually.

UGT: The Protocol should guarantee the protection of workers' rights in relation to their personal integrity, dignity and health as regards the use of information provided.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Switzerland. UPS: As the Recommendation should be flexible, point (a) on the responsibility of employers should be limited in a pragmatic way to recording occupational accidents and diseases. The addition of other elements should be at the discretion of the country concerned. This comment applies to points (b) and (c).

USS: Yes.

United Arab Emirates. (b) The minimum period for keeping such records should be fixed, taking into account that certain occupational diseases may occur many years after ceasing work, such as cancer and exposure to asbestos (it may occur in the case of exposure to asbestos after 25-40 years). Physicians may be compelled in most cases to refer back to records in order to prove diagnoses and determine the suspected cases of occupational diseases.

United States. USCIB: (a)(i) No, because the list is too inclusive as discussed in the answers to Question 5 above. The employer should be responsible for collecting data on precise and agreed definitions of occupational accidents and diseases.

(ii) The definition of appropriate maintenance of records should take into account differences in industry, size of company and other relevant differences in employer circumstances and ability to collect such data.
(iii) No. This data collection should not include data on preventative measures.
(iv) This should be done in accordance with national law and practice as such practices vary widely among countries and within the United States itself.
(b) The minimum information to be recorded needs to be clearly defined and take into account the varying circumstances of employers.
(c) The minimum duration for maintenance of records needs to be clearly defined, not be unduly burdensome, and take into account the varying circumstances of employers.

Yugoslavia. (c) The minimum period should be five years after the closing down of the work position.

# Office commentary

Most replies support the proposed principles and requirements for recording. The comments from the member States and organizations not recorded as affirmative are wholly in terms of what should be recorded, and how this should be done, rather than expressing dissent from the principle of recording.

Proposals relating to subparagraphs (b) and (c) seek to define what, in both cases, is meant by the word "minimum". The differences in the suggested duration of records, which is from five to 60 years, show how wide a variation in opinion there may be, a difference likely to reflect differing social and industrial development. The Office considers that both the information to be recorded and the duration for maintaining these records are appropriate for national laws and regulations which can properly take these matters into account. The Office now believes that the requirements determined by the member States are meant to be minimum without stating it. Thus the word "minimum" is considered redundant. The question as amended is contained in the proposed Protocol as Article 3.

Should the Protocol provide that the requirements and procedures for notification shall include:


Qu. 8

(a) the responsibility of employers:
(i) to notify to the competent authority or other designated bodies occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences and, as appropriate, commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases; and
(ii) to provide appropriate information to workers and their representatives concerning the notified cases;
(b) where appropriate, arrangements for notification of occupational accidents and occupational diseases by insurance institutions, occupational health services and others directly concerned;
(c) the types of occupational accidents, occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences to be notified; and
(d) time limits for notification?

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 53. Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 2. Kuwait, Slovakia.

Other: 13. Australia, Burkina Faso, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, India, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden.

Australia. (a)(i) Only as provided for in current legislation/regulation.
(a)(ii) Yes, with appropriate safeguards for privacy and confidentiality.
(b) No.

Austria. (a)(ii) Ensures that employers are responsible for providing appropriate information to workers and their representatives concerning the notified cases.

Belgium. CNT: With regard to fixing notification deadlines, it would be more appropriate to refer to national practices which take account of occupational diseases with long latency periods. It fears that setting a specific deadline would prevent compensation for such diseases, with compensation currently guaranteed under existing practices in Belgium.

Brazil. CNI, CNF, CNT: Yes, except for the words "suspected cases of occupational diseases" in (a)(i).

Bulgaria. (a) Before providing notification of an occupational disease it should be determined as such by a competent medical body, which might notify the competent authority directly.

Burkina Faso. (c) No, all should be declared.

Chile. The proposed Protocol should include the objective of notification and, to some extent, the minimum action the competent authority should take in the light of such data, for instance to draw up public policies and national programmes for worker and employer training.

Cyprus. (a)(i) Yes, for all cases except for commuting accidents.

(d) The competent authorities should specify the time limits.

Denmark. (b) The employers should be responsible for the notification of occupational accidents, but other institutions may be accepted to notify on a voluntary basis. Responsibility for the notification of occupational diseases must be placed with the physicians who are most qualified to give a diagnosis. Other institutions may notify on a voluntary basis.

(c) The types of occupational accidents must be connected to the time lost, for instance one day's sick leave or three days' sick leave. The occupational diseases must be those accepted on the list, but also diseases that physicians recognize as caused by the performance of work.
(d) The time limit for the notification of accidents must be no later than two weeks after the accident has occurred. The competent authority must be notified immediately of very serious accidents and dangerous occurrences with a view to further investigation. The notification of occupational diseases must take place as soon as the physicians recognize the first symptoms of the disease.

Qu. 8


Egypt. FEI: (a)(i) We agree with the first part only, which limits the employers' responsibility to notifying the competent authority or any other designated body of occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences and incidents, but only those occurring within their enterprises, and nothing beyond that.

Estonia. (a)(i) Exclude commuting accidents.

Finland. It should be the employer's responsibility to notify the competent or agreed authority of any accidents without delay in accordance with national practice. If the notification includes an individual's name, attention must also be paid to protecting privacy.
(a)(i) and (c) The Protocol should not deal with the notification of dangerous occurrences.
(d) In Finland, medical doctors are also required to report occupational diseases. In the case of occupational diseases, they could perhaps be considered a more appropriate party to be bound by a notification obligation than employers.

France. CGT-FO: (c) There should be no distinction between types of accident, dangerous occurrences and occupational diseases. They should all be notified. The procedure may pos

sibly vary later, but only in exceptional cases in order to guarantee the transparency of the procedures.

Germany. Yes, but subparagraph (a), clause (ii), should be amended. According to German law, every notification of an accident or occupational disease made by the employer has to be signed by the works council or staff committee. There is no obligation to inform all of the workers (data protection). The word "and" should therefore be replaced with the word "or".

BDA: (a)(ii) No. At most, information should be provided to the workers' representatives, but not to all workers.

(b) No, should concern only the employer.

Hungary. Yes. In Hungary the employer is only obliged to provide notification of fatal and mass diseases, in other cases it is the task of medical personnel. The employer receives information concerning these cases as the investigation proceeds. Therefore, clause (i) should refer to "fatal and mass diseases" instead of "dangerous occurrences". In subparagraph (b), we suggest completing the list as follows, "occupational health services, examining doctors and others directly concerned". In subparagraph (c), we suggest leaving out "dangerous occurrences". Concerning "suspected cases of occupational diseases" we refer to Question 6. The recording of medical diagnoses should be in compliance with regulations concerning the protection of personal data.

Employers: Yes, at least ten workdays.

Workers: Yes.

India. Yes, except for "commuting accidents" and "suspected occupational diseases".

Indonesia. APINDO: Occupational accidents should be notified not longer than 48 hours after they occur, and occupational diseases not longer than 48 hours after diagnosis.

Kenya. (d) The time limit should be given to ensure early reporting and preventive measures.

Republic of Korea. Yes, with the exclusion of dangerous occurrences and commuting accidents.

KEF: Yes.

FKTU: Yes to (a).

KCTU: Yes.

Kuwait. We see no reason for the Protocol to make provisions concerning the responsibility of employers and arrangements for the notification of occupational accidents and diseases; this should be left to national laws and practice in each member State.

Lebanon. (b) The Arabic text suggests that employers should notify the competent authority through the insurance institutions. Notification should be direct.

Mauritius. (b) It will enable health services to provide the necessary treatment and formulate appropriate preventive measures.

(d) The notification of occupational accidents should be in the quickest practicable way. The notification of occupational diseases should be carried out as soon as the employer is so informed by a medical practitioner.

Mexico. (d) The time limit for notification by an employer of any hazards is within 72 hours of an accident occurring or of a case of disease being detected.

Namibia. NEF: (a) Yes.


Namibia. NEF: (a) Yes.

(b) Some clarification on the need for this kind of notification is required. It seems as if the purpose of such a requirement would be to cross-reference information already supplied by the employer. Since the employer would, however, provide information on occupational accidents

and diseases that would not necessarily be referred to insurance institutions or health services, the former would be more comprehensive and this begs the question why this kind of notification should be included. Furthermore, in instances where an employer manages his own occupational health service, he would be required to notify twice on the same issue – a principle that is not acceptable.

(c) Yes, provided it would not entail a separate report.
(d) Yes.

Netherlands. VNO-NCW: (a)(i) and (ii) and (b) Yes, with the exception of "commuting accidents" and "suspected cases of occupational diseases".
(c) and (d) We agree with the principle, but the details have to be elaborated by the member States.

New Zealand. Yes. There might also be some requirements for the national organization(s) that receive the information to maintain the records provided to them for a minimum period, if they are to become the archive and key custodian for injury prevention information nationally and internationally.

Norway. (a)(i) Yes, but only occupational accidents. In Norway, the employer is not obliged to notify occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences to the labour inspection authorities. Occupational diseases should be notified by the medical practitioners.

NHO: (a)(i) and (ii) No. (b), (c) and (d) Yes.

Pakistan. (a)(i) Yes. However, there should be a two-pronged approach. One should be for the notification of occupational accidents, diseases and dangerous occurrences and should be binding on the employer. The other should be voluntary and cover commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases because in these cases it is likely that the employer does not receive information.

(c) Yes, but there should be three categories. One should be occupational diseases or accidents and dangerous occurrences that are or can be linked with the workplace or working conditions. The second should be those which are not directly linked with the workplace or working conditions but are suspected to be linked to the work environment. The third should be those which have absolutely no linkage with the workplace or working conditions but involve injuries, etc., to workers.
(d) Yes. Existing legislation in Pakistan provides for a maximum of 24 hours for the notification/reporting of the occurrence of an accident/disease.

Philippines. In national law, the entry in the contingency logbook by the employer is required to be made within five days of knowledge of the occurrence, and within five days after entry the employer is required to report those contingencies he deems to be work-connected.

Poland. PKPP: Yes, but (a)(i) to refer only to occupational accidents and diseases.

OPZZ: Yes, but not necessarily (c).

Portugal. (d) However, there are risks associated with stating or laying down time limits for the notification of occupational diseases because they have different incubation periods. That is, for each occupational disease, with a few exceptions, the list specifies the period following termination of exposure to the risk during the course of which the disease must be diagnosed. With a time limit, if exposure to the risk is interrupted, and in the absence of diagnostic elements proving the causal link between the disease and exposure to the risk, it might prove difficult for the physician to determine whether or not the disease is of an occupational nature.

CIP: Such consideration must conform with national legislation and not be dealt with by international standards.

General Confederation of Portuguese Workers (CGTP-IN): Yes.

Slovakia. (a)(i) No to commuting accidents and dangerous occurrences.

(d) No, leave to national legislation.

South Africa. Yes, but excluding "dangerous occurrences".

BSA: (a) Yes.

Namibia. NEF: (a) Yes.


BSA: (a) Yes.

(b) Some clarification on the need for this kind of notification is required. It seems as if the purpose of such a requirement would be to cross-reference information already supplied by the employer. Since the employer would, however, provide information on occupational accidents and diseases that would not necessarily be referred to insurance institutions or health services, the former would be more comprehensive and this begs the question why this kind of notification should be included. Furthermore, in instances where an employer manages his own occupational health service, he would be required to notify twice on the same issue – a principle that is not acceptable.
(c) Yes, provided that it would not entail an additional separate report.
(d) Yes, provided the competent authority, as suggested in Question 10, does in fact publish up-to-date statistics on a regular basis.

Spain. (a)-(d) This is acceptable for occupational and commuting accidents, and occupational diseases. It is not acceptable in relation to suspected cases of occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences for the reasons indicated above. The obligation to notify should be entrusted to enterprises and the social security bodies covering contingencies, in the terms established by national legislation; this should exclude the "occupational health services and others directly concerned". Increasing the number of bodies with an obligation to notify may distort the system and render it inefficient.

UGT: Yes.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: (a) Yes, but with clarification. The notification of occupational accidents, occupational diseases, dangerous occurrences, etc., to the competent authority or other designated bodies is squarely placed on the employers. The patients suspected of having contracted occupational diseases and the victims of occupational accidents, etc., are first seen and examined by a medical practitioner or hospital medical expert. They are the first to know about and discover the disease and the first obligation is on them to report such diseases and accidents to the relevant authorities as provided for by law and practice. There appears to be some discrepancy.

Sweden. Yes, but "dangerous occurrences" should not be included in the requirements for notification. See comments on Question 5.

Switzerland. UPS: (a)(i) We repeat the comment made previously concerning the responsibility of employers. The Recommendation should be limited to the essential elements of the system (work accidents and occupational diseases), and avoid too much detail. Clause (a)(ii) introduces a bureaucratic procedure of doubtful utility.

(b), (c) and (d) These points should take account of national provisions.

USS: Yes.

Syrian Arab Republic. Federation of Trade Unions: Yes to (d), provided that the time limit for notification does not exceed one week.

United States. USCIB: (a)-(d) No. These questions presume a notification requirement to government authorities as incidents occur. The breadth of categories involved is too broad and inclusive. Notification should be limited to fatal accidents. The Recommendation should provide that reporting only occur annually to the competent authority based on agreed definitions of occupational diseases and injuries and that other disclosures occur in accordance with national law and practice.

# Office commentary

This question expands upon Question 6 in placing the primary duty of notification upon the employer, with secondary duties upon named types of institutions and services. There was virtually no dissent to this in principle, although several responses support a specific reference to medical practitioners, who will frequently be the first to diagnose an occupational disease, and the Office has, accordingly, introduced such a reference in subparagraph (b). Because of a perceived need to reflect national law and practice and social conditions in this respect, it has not followed the proposal of the Government of Spain to delete the reference to occupational health services.

BSA: (a) Yes.


As in the responses to the previous questions in Part II, those member States and organizations which did not give a direct affirmative had regard to their national law and practice by which some, or all, of the categories of events other than accidents and diseases are not required to be notified to the competent authority. The Office again believes that the use of the qualifying words "as appropriate" sufficiently acknowledges national variations.

Several member States and organizations seek a mention of specific time limits for notification, as was sought for recording, but while 72 hours, as proposed by the Government of Mexico, is frequently used in practice, the response of the Government of the Philippines shows it is by no means universal, and the wording of the question has been left unchanged in the corresponding Article.

There are proposals to refer to the object of recording and notification, which is indisputably to develop preventive methods and policies and to provide comparable national statistics, but to describe such methods and policies in detail, e.g. training, would go beyond the scope of the proposed Protocol.

The Government of Denmark pointed out the need for the types of occupational accidents to be connected to the time lost, i.e. sick leave taken, when specifying the accidents to be notified. To reflect this point, the Office proposes the use of the word "criteria" for notification, which would flexibly cover the types and specifications. Since the notification of commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases is also the responsibility of employers as appropriate, the Office added the requirement for "criteria" for commuting accidents and suspected cases of occupational diseases.

In view of the substantial majority of responses which are in the simple affirmative, and the nature of the qualified responses, listed as "Other", the question appears as amended as Article 4 in the proposed Protocol.

Qu. 9 Should the Protocol provide that the information to be included in the notification shall include, at least, information on:

(a) the enterprise, establishment and employer;
(b) the injured person;
(c) the injury or disease; and
(d) the circumstances of the accident or, in the case of an occupational disease, any exposure to health hazards?

# Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 66. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

# Other: 2. Kuwait, Netherlands.

Australia. A base level of information to be provided in relation to accidents/incidents needs to be established. This system should ensure the information remains confidential to protect businesses and workers.

Barbados. A subparagraph should be added requiring information on the time absent from work.

Belgium. CNT: It is necessary to include this data in the notification of occupational accidents and diseases. However, since it is intended solely for collective usage, it should respect the principle of anonymity. The workers' organizations stress the importance of including in the notification, data concerning the correct functioning or the malfunctioning of the machines used by staff, which is also a source of occupational accidents. The employers' organizations argue for the simplification of the procedures and are therefore unable to support a proposal that does not appear to be relevant in terms of statistics.


Bulgaria. The information required should accord with that contained in the European Union's European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) - Methodology (2001 edition).

Chile. The minimum data required should be more clearly specified, point by point, e.g. about the enterprise and the worker.

Colombia. The minimum amount of information to be provided should be broadened to include areas such as the gender and age of the injured person.

Croatia. IOM: It would also be useful to obtain information about the branch of industry or economic activity, more details about an injury or disease, including the classification according to the International Classification of Diseases, and related health problems.

NIPH: For occupational diseases also include the length of the period of exposure.

Czech Republic. CMKOS: Add (e) measurements adopted to prevent repetition of accidents, and (f) signatures of persons involved in the investigation of the occupational accident.

Egypt. Add (e) the place where the accident occurred in the enterprise, and (f) the injured part of the body.

France. CGT-FO: The Protocol should distinguish between the administrative notification and the medical report, especially for occupational diseases. The medical report should be confidential and made available only to the medical profession. Subparagraph (c) should be strictly defined.

Gabon. Add (e) where the accident happened.

Jamaica. This is necessary to create statistical analyses which will show trends evolving, so that the competent authority can put preventive programmes in place.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: Yes.

Kenya. It is necessary to know the part of the body injured.

Kuwait. (d) There is no need for their inclusion.

Lebanon. (d) Yes. We suggest the addition of the following clauses in this context:

(e) the measures taken for the prevention of work accidents and occupational diseases;
(f) the responsibility of the worker for the injury.

A new clause should be added as well, concerning the responsibility of the worker for the immediate notification of the work accident and for communicating his deteriorating health conditions arising from what is thought to be an occupational disease.

Namibia. NEF: In addition the type of disease/accident and its cause should also be included.

Netherlands. Concerning the information to be included in the notification, we have some doubts as to effectiveness: it seems to us that in the case of occupational diseases, making the notification more anonymous would diminish the amount of under-reporting. In fact, in the Netherlands such a system of notification has been effective since November 1999. A characteristic of this system is the anonymity of both employee and employer. Data is collected on year of birth, gender, occupation, exposure characteristics and the economic activity of the employer (but not on the social security number and name and address of the employer). This ensures that the results are only useful at a higher level of aggregation.

New Zealand. Yes, these are minimum requirements. However, they are not sufficient. Other sub-classifications that should be included are:

(e) the enterprise, establishment and employer (industry and size of establishment/employer);
(f) the injured person (occupation, gender, age, identity);
(g) the injury or disease (diagnosis, severity);
(h) the circumstance of the accident or, in the case of an occupational disease, any exposure to health hazards (mechanism, activity, location, date); and
(i) outcome (death, incapacity, impairment, time off work, remained in job/left job).

Norway. (a) Yes, the enterprise, establishment and employer where the accident occurred or the disease was contracted. The notification from medical practitioners to the Directorate of Labour Inspection must include information on the occupation and the employer at the time of the injury/harmful exposure.

South Africa. BSA: Yes. The type of disease/accident and its cause should also be included.


Spain. UGT: The Protocol should also include information on the agent(s) responsible for the accident or disease, a description thereof, a standardized model of the injury, requisite medical treatment, existing prevention arrangements, and so on.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: (a) Yes, but safeguarding the disclosure of the identity of the employer, as otherwise it would frustrate the purpose of the Protocol. The employer's name and identity can be left out, as can the name of the injured person or the victim of the accident. The reasons for this precautionary measure should be obvious.

Switzerland. UPS: Yes.

USS: Yes.

United States. USCIB: (a)-(d) No. The question presumes notification with each incident. At most the Recommendation should provide that the annual reporting include employer information, injured person, injury or disease, and severity of the injury or disease.

# Office commentary

The Office accepts the value of the types of information suggested by the Government of New Zealand, particularly for the purposes of comparable statistical analysis when the accident or disease is not investigated. However, it believes that further definition is appropriate to a Recommendation rather than a Protocol and it draws attention to Question 15 which refers to the 1996 code of practice in which such detail is fully discussed.

It has not acted on the proposal to refer to the length of time absent from work as the notification will often, indeed usually, precede a return to work.

As the notification is required for dangerous occurrences as well, the corresponding words were included in Article 5(c) of the proposed text. With this addition of a reference to dangerous occurrences, a modification to add the words "if applicable" has been made in (b) to reflect the fact that a dangerous occurrence does not result in a person being injured.

The question, as amended, now appears in the proposed Protocol as Article 5.

# National statistics

Should the Protocol provide that the competent authority shall, based on the notifications and other available information, annually publish national statistics and analyses of occupational accidents, occupational diseases and, as appropriate, dangerous occurrences and commuting accidents?

Qu. 10

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 67. Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Other: 1. Malta.

Austria. The inclusion of this point would be welcomed as a means of developing prevention.

Chile. It should be compulsory for the competent authority to send the published information to all members of the system that have reported such cases.

Colombia. In countries where there are no proper mechanisms for gathering and systematically organizing statistics, the ILO must provide technical assistance so that such mechanisms can be developed and set in motion.

Denmark. Danish Employers' Confederation (DA): It is a central element that the national and international data be processed at the national level on the basis of internationally recognized methods.

FTF: A Protocol should prescribe that the competent authority should publish national statistics and analyses of occupational accidents and occupational diseases based on the notifications of occupational accidents, occupational diseases and suspected cases of occupational diseases.

Estonia. Exclude commuting accidents.


Estonia. Exclude commuting accidents.

Finland. Yes, with the exception that the Protocol should not deal with the recording and notification of dangerous occurrences.

In addition to the competent authority, another designated authority should perhaps be appointed to publish annual national statistics on occupational accidents and occupational diseases.

France. CGT-FO: The harmonization of statistical methods is desirable and addresses current problems arising in the transfer and comparison of data between States.

Greece. ESEE: Yes.

Hungary. Yes, except for the analysis of traffic accidents.

Employers: Yes, in accordance with the European directives.

Workers: Yes.

India. Yes, except for commuting accidents and suspected occupational diseases.

Republic of Korea. Yes, but dangerous occurrences and commuting accidents should be excluded.

KEF: Yes.

FKTU: Yes.

KCTU: Yes.

Kuwait. Yes, except commuting accidents.

Lebanon. It should be left to the competent authority to determine how the statistics and analyses of the occupational accidents and diseases should be published and the periodicity of such a publication, with an indication that this information might include the existing occupational diseases published by the Government and any other new diseases not listed.

Malaysia. Yes. However, the competent authority should be free as to whether or not to publish the annual statistics. The compilation of results will give an overview as well as an indication of the OSH status. Hence it will serve as a guide in respect of prevention strategies and action plans.

Malta. The publication of national statistics and the analysis of these should be left to the discretion of member States.

Mauritius. The responsibility of the competent authority should be clearly defined inasmuch as different bodies may deal with accidents and occurrences on the one hand and diseases on the other.

Mexico. Such statistics should be given to organizations of workers and employers and other interested bodies.

Namibia. NEF: Yes. NEF considers this to be the underlying purpose for collecting statistics. It is strongly recommended that it should be stipulated that the published information is up to date, say not older than 12 months.

New Zealand. Yes – with the reservations noted above in relation to commuting accidents. This would provide the basis for international comparative information.

Poland. PKPP: Yes, omitting the reference to "and, as appropriate, dangerous occurrences and commuting accidents".

OPZZ: Yes.

Portugal. The Protocol should require member States to identify the body responsible for producing statistical information.

Russian Federation. Yes. The question might refer to relevant Conventions.

Slovakia. Yes, with the exception of commuting accidents.

South Africa. Yes, but excluding "dangerous occurrences".

Spain. Yes, but excluding "dangerous occurrences".

UGT: In addition, consideration should also be given to the expediency of including statistics on incidents and of using mechanisms which, in accordance with the opportunities provided by modern technology, allow more immediate access to information. Statistical information should be supplied on a more frequent basis to complement the annual publication and analysis mentioned. Finally, the social partners should be granted access to and knowledge of the system and the information contained therein (as a logical guarantee of the protection of workers' personal information), subject to the same conditions and possibilities as the competent authority.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Sweden. Yes, but see remarks under Questions 5 and 8.

Switzerland. UPS: Points 10 and 11 should be expressed in the conditional form, as they assume the existence of a mechanism for collecting statistics which is not necessarily very common at the international level.

USS: Yes.

United Arab Emirates. Yes. Data should be comprehensive in coverage and reflect reality.

Estonia. Exclude commuting accidents.


If partial, its adoption and dissemination may lead to erroneous impressions, and either incorrect overstatement or illogical underestimation of the subject.

United States. USCIB: Yes. There should be annual publication of the agreed accident and disease statistics but not in respect of commuting accidents.

# Office commentary

Various responses from member States and organizations, while approving the annual publication of statistics as proposed in the question, maintain a consistent approach based on their national law and practice, by again asking for the omission of either dangerous occurrences or commuting accidents, or both. Unlike occupational accidents and diseases, these are categories of events to which the proposed article applies only as appropriate, and, as in its comments on previous questions, the Office considers that this qualification meets the expressed objections.

Several responses suggest that in some member States the publication of statistics is the responsibility of an agency other than the competent authority which receives notification of accidents and diseases. However, it is probable that the latter would arrange for the publication and supply the information, and accordingly an amendment of wording is not thought necessary by the Office.

Considering the constraints of federal States, and with a view to making the provisions consistent with those of the Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160), the Office proposes the use of the words "statistics that are compiled in such a way as to be representative of the country as a whole" in place of "national statistics".

Reflecting the affirmative responses to this question, it appears as Article 6 in the proposed Protocol.

Qu. 11 Should the Protocol provide that these statistics and analyses shall be established using classification schemes that are compatible with the latest relevant international schemes established under the auspices of the International Labour Organization or other competent international organizations?

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 65. Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 2. Germany, Slovakia.

Other: 1. Austria.

Austria. Although the use of a compatible classification system is desirable, it would be difficult to implement, particularly since national systems are currently too diverse. It would not be possible to ratify the Protocol. If need be, this provision could be included in the Recommendation.

Belgium. CNT: The CNT accepts the ILO's initiative to improve data classification procedures. It affirms the need to maintain compatibility with statistical work carried out periodically by Eurostat and asserts the need to retain a certain coherence between the various methodologies used.

It also emphasizes that data gathering and compilation systems organized at these levels should not encroach upon each other and should not duplicate each other's work.

Bulgaria. Classification schemes should harmonize with the European Union's European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) - Methodology (2001 edition).

China. Ideally yes, but due to the large variations in the pattern of occupational diseases in the member States it will be very difficult to harmonize statistics. A certain flexibility should be allowed based on the national conditions of each country.

Denmark. Yes. For Europe it should be the Eurostat methodology that forms the basis for recording and statistics.


Finland. In the main, existing classification schemes should be applied and classification should be based on established practices. The Protocol should not contain any provisions on the implementation of new international classification schemes.

Germany. No. In view of the specific characteristics of the national systems the use of classification systems must remain within the field of competence of the individual States. This does not preclude the possibility of using international classification systems where they can be converted. As far as possible, national classifications should be conducted in a form that is compatible with the respective international classifications. A regulation of this nature is thus not suitable for a Protocol to the Convention; at most it is suitable for a Recommendation.

Greece. ESEE: Yes.

Hungary. Employers: Yes, in accordance with relevant European directives and European practice.

Workers: Yes.

Italy. Italy uses the European Union's European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) - Methodology (2001 edition) which allows a comparative analysis to be made for insurance purposes.

Lebanon. Yes, on the understanding that the ILO coordinates the standardization of the classification schemes with the other international specialized organizations in this field.

Namibia. NEF: In principle, working towards internationally compatible and comparable statistics is a laudable goal. Clarification is, however, required on the meaning of "classification schemes".

New Zealand. Yes; however, care must be taken to ensure that the schemes used are widely applicable and adaptable.

Portugal. There is a great disparity between ILO member States in respect of recording and notification and, hence, in statistical information. It would be useful if the Protocol were to specify the nature of the statistics and analyses to be compiled, so that individual States can then gather and process their statistics in a manner that is compatible with other States, thereby promoting the harmonization of occupational disease statistics.

Slovakia. No, include as a Recommendation.

South Africa. BSA: Yes, but clarification is required on the meaning of "classification schemes".

Spain. The use of an international classification scheme, allowing the statistics of the States signatories to the Protocol to be harmonized, is of great interest in being able to compare statistical data. However, it is a not insubstantial source of difficulties, given the different concepts of occupational accidents and diseases existing in the legislation of various States which, generally speaking, are unwilling to accept it.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Switzerland. UPS: See comment on Question 10.

USS: Yes.

United States. USCIB: No. The form of this question is too vague. Moreover, the question requires reliance on the terms of unknown and undesignated international classification schemes. The classification scheme should be a part of the Recommendation.

# Office commentary

The governments and the employers' organizations whose responses are recorded as negative believe that the compatibility of statistics and analyses dealt with in the previous question is a subject which is appropriate for a Recommendation rather than a Protocol. This is because of the specific characteristics of national classification schemes which will make compatibility difficult to achieve in practice. The great majority of answers are in the simple affirmative and those which add a comment do not convey the impression that this is likely to be a major concern.

Other responses contain a number of useful suggestions as to the international organizations whose classification schemes should be taken into account, such as the European Union's European Statistics on Accidents at Work - Methodology (2001 edition). The question, without amendment as to wording, appears as Article 7 in the proposed Protocol.

# III. Content of a Recommendation


155 of 1981) if, as proposed in the ILO report, such instruments would involve placing further obligations and responsibilities on employers to: (a) maintain a register or log of occupational diseases and suspected occupational diseases; (b) log "incidents" where no personal injury was incurred.

With regard to (a) above, it should be noted that, unlike the recording of accidents – introduced in Italy late in 1958 and updated through Legislative Decree No. 626/1994 and subsequent amendments – there are difficulties with the idea that employers should gather and log detailed data on occupational diseases and even more so with regard to those suspected of originating in occupational activities.

Objectively, given the enormous range of technology-related ill health and the long periods of latency or incubation, the multifaceted origins and sources, the varying impact of work as a direct and effective existing cause or merely as an exacerbating factor, it would be problematical to undertake such a task.

As for (b) above, in Italy, if such a specific stipulation were introduced whereby the employer were duty-bound to record systematically any "incidents" that involved no special personal injury aftermath, it would mean wasted efforts as far as the installation of new machinery/ plant is concerned, since these already have to meet statutory requirements: pointless duplication of effort because particularly serious accidents or emergencies already have to be reported; and an unjustifiable burden on enterprise activity with regard to accidents of marginal importance.

Japan. NIKKEIREN: The phrase "the need to strengthen" should be changed to "the need to promote". As far as compensation is concerned, Convention No. 121 already exists. This Recommendation, therefore, should only provide for the notification and recording of occupational accidents and diseases.

Kenya. It will form a comprehensive approach for management.

Republic of Korea. KEF: No.

FKTU: Yes.

KCTU: Yes.

Singapore. NTUC: Yes.

Sri Lanka. LJEWU: Yes.

Switzerland. UPS: This point should be limited to the essential objectives of identifying causes and establishing preventive measures. The last two points (harmonizing recording systems and compensation) should not be included in the preamble as they could be an impediment to application for many countries. They could be the subject of separate Paragraphs.

USS: Yes.

United Kingdom. It is not appropriate to concentrate on the aim of promoting the harmonization of recording and notification – practices vary widely in individual countries. This is particularly relevant in respect of occupational diseases, where, in practice, individual countries' definitions reflect administrative arrangements rather than being based on strictly scientific criteria.

It would not be appropriate to include "commuting accidents" within the scope of a Recommendation – not all countries collect such data. For example, we have no plans to extend our legislation to cover such incidents.

The United Kingdom Government would not countenance being bound by any international agreement on compensation for industrial accidents and diseases that would:

(i) override or require change to current national legislation;

(ii) impose definitions of accidents and diseases which were different from those used in the United Kingdom benefits system (or which could affect the national system of recording accidents and diseases);

(iii) remove from national jurisdiction and the advice of a national body of experts what diseases were prescribed and eligible for industrial compensation.

United States. USCIB: No. The question is too broad for the reasons discussed in the answers to Parts I and II.

# Office commentary

The question relates only to occupational accidents and diseases and it is not thought necessary to amend the wording, as suggested, to take account of commuting accidents and incidents.


The adverse comments by the Governments of Barbados, Greece and the United Kingdom and the Swiss employers' organization on the stated link between recording and notification procedures and compensation processes is noted. However, such a link exists in many member States and such compensation is the subject of the Employment Injury Benefits Convention and Recommendation, 1964 (No. 121), in which the first ILO list of occupational diseases appeared as Schedule I of the Convention. There is specific mention of these instruments in Questions 12, 14 and 17.

Several responses can be read as acknowledging the need to strengthen procedures and so the proposals of the Government of Austria and the Japanese employers' organization to alter this part of the wording have not been followed. There is understandable concern that the strengthening of procedures should not be read simply in terms of administration.

For these various reasons, and having regard to the very substantial majority of affirmative responses, the wording of the corresponding part of the proposed preamble remains unaltered and appears as such in the proposed Recommendation.

Should the preamble have regard to the need to review and update the list of occupational diseases in Schedule I of the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964?

Qu. 14

Total number of replies: 68.

Affirmative: 65. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Yugoslavia.

Negative: 2. Czech Republic, Denmark.

Other: 1. Italy.

Australia. Yes. Developing an ILO list for data comparison across international jurisdictions would be useful. If the ILO list is to be linked to compensation for injury then it is important to note that in some Australian states accident compensation legislation takes a broader approach to the definition of occupational illnesses and diseases. For example, in the State of Victoria legislation recognizes that all diseases/conditions have the potential to arise through and in the course of employment and are, therefore, potentially compensatory and not limited to a list.

Brazil. CNA, CUT, FS, CGT, SDS, CONTAG: Yes.

CNI, CNF, CNT: No, since a Protocol alone was opted for, and since the list of occupational diseases must be the responsibility of each country.

Chile. Such reviews should consider the expertise available in other international organizations such as the World Health Organization.

Croatia. IOM: Yes. Progress in technology and industry results in new hazards at work and new occupational and work-related diseases.

Czech Republic. No, unnecessary.

KZPS and the workers' organizations reply in the affirmative.

Denmark. No, the need to review and update the list of occupational diseases should not be included in the preamble, but could be mentioned elsewhere.

Finland. Yes. However, the list of occupational diseases carrying entitlement to compensation can be updated regardless of the Recommendation.

Ghana. GEA: Yes.

Greece. See comments on Question 17.

ESEE: Yes.

Italy. This list of occupational diseases does not indicate the specific tasks or processes that cause the disease. Such a lacuna could mean that workers would be obliged to prove the aetiological link between the illness and the work, which places them at a great disadvantage.