Funded by the European Union


Trade union initiatives to support improved safety and health in micro and small firms: Trade Union Prevention Agents (TUPAs) in four EU Member States

 October 2018



1 Introduction
1.1 The study rationale
1.2 Trade unions and the safety and health of workers in micro and small firms
1.3 Structure of the report
2 Methods
2.1 The focus of the study
2.2 The research team
2.3 The work packages
2.3.1 Work Package 1 — A literature review and identification of current and previous trade union initiatives supporting OSH in MSEs
2.3.2 Work Package 2 — Fieldwork studies in five countries
2.3.3 Work Package 3 — National analysis
2.3.4 Work Package 4 — Comparative analysis
3 Trade unions and occupational safety and health in micro and small enterprises: a review of the literature
3.1 Micro and small firms in the EU and the challenge for workers’ OSH
3.2 Evidence of OSH performance in MSEs
3.3 Determinants of OSH in MSEs?
3.3.1 Internal determinants
3.3.2 External determinants
3.3.3 Reflection on ‘determinants’ from the standpoint of workers
3.4 Trade unions and support for workers’ safety and health in MSEs
3.5 Conclusions
4 Italy
4.1 Introduction
4.2 MSEs in Italy
4.2.1 The presence of MSEs in the Italian economy and their wider contexts
4.2.2 Injuries, fatalities and work-related ill-health in MSEs in Italy
4.2.3 Industrial relations systems and representation on OSH in MSEs
4.3.4 Arrangements and procedures for representing workers on OSH
4.3 Previous research on the impact of the Italian system for representation on OSH in MSEs
4.4 Some recent examples of experiences of RLST and RLSSP
4.4.1 The success of co-ordinated actions
4.4.2 Legitimising the role
4.4.3 The importance of training
4.4.4 Different ways of organising RLST actions
4.4.5 But co-operation is not always the way
4.5 Discussion and conclusions
5 Spain: Varying agreements on TUPA programs
5.1 Introduction – the TUPAs methodology and structure of the chapter
5.2 The background: the economy, labour market and industrial relations
5.2.1 A precarious economy for both workers and MSEs
5.2.2 A weak welfare system and regional governance with social dialogue
5.2.3 Collective agreements, unions and worker representation
5.3 The OSH system, safety representation and initiatives to reduce risks in MSEs
5.3.1 The occupational health and safety system of regulations and actors
5.3.2 Safety representatives are specialised general worker representatives
5.3.3 OSH policies with a focus on MSEs' poor OSH management
5.4 Differing TUPAs schemes through regional and sectoral cooperation
5.4.1 Development and formal basis
5.4.2 TUPAs programs in about half of the regions and for around half of the workforce
5.4.3 Summary of five TUPAs programs
5.5 Case VI: OSH sector delegates for construction sites in Asturias
5.5.1 From joint to individual workplace visits on OSH and employment issues
5.5.2 Workplace interaction with managers and workers
5.5.3 Noted problems and assessed effects
5.6 Case VII: Visits to regional government ordered forestry work in Castilla y León
5.6.1 Union struggle secured support from both employers and the regional authority
5.6.2 Union TUPAs have achieved radical improvements
5.7 Conclusions: Major differences in TUPAs' prerequisites and outcomes
6 Sweden: Comprehensive but contested system of regional safety representatives
6.1 Introduction – main points, methods and overview of the chapter
6.2 Changes in the economy, labour market and industrial relations
6.2.1 A labour market in an open, deregulated and fairly healthy service economy
6.2.2 Weaker labour relations and unions but collective agreements still rule
6.3 The work environment system of cooperation, voluntarism and safety representatives
6.3.1 Much voluntarism to implement work environment regulation
6.3.2 Regulation and supervision of systematic work management
6.3.3 Fewer and less active safety representatives
6.3.4 Strategy and funding for an informed work environment dialogue
6.4 RSRs as the main support to MSEs with high risks and poor prevention
6.4.1 Small firms – more work risks and weaker preventive actors
6.4.2 Regional safety representatives as the main support to MSEs and their workers
6.4.3 What RSRs do – standard procedures, legal roles and broad issues dealt with
6.4.4 Contrasting RSR cases: construction workers and theatre employees
6.4.5 No effectiveness evaluation but many indicators of RSRs' positive role
6.5 RSRs’ challenges, employers' critique and ineffective conflict resolution
6.5.1 RSRs operate in a fractured labour market with more and smaller firms
6.5.2 Increased RSRs' rights of entry proposed in response to economic changes
6.5.3 Employers want to abolish the RSR system instead of extending it
6.5.4 Employers find that RSRs are mostly helpful but also often misbehave
6.5.5 Much unfounded criticism of the RSRs but poor dialogue in disputes
7 The United Kingdom
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Micro and small firms in the UK
7.2.1 Injuries, fatalities and work-related ill-health in MSEs in the UK
7.2.2 Industrial relations systems and representation on OSH in MSEs in the UK
7.3 Arrangements and procedures for representing workers on OSH in the UK
7.4 Examples of recent and current experiences of efforts to represent workers on OSH in MSEs in the UK
7.5 Discussion and conclusions
8 Discussion: Comparative findings on the determinants of success for TUPAs in five countries
8.1 Introduction
8.2 What works?
8.2.1 Institutional support for TUPAs
8.2.2 What works — TUPAs’ modes of action in MSEs
8.3 The role of TUPAs in prevention strategies for OSH in MSEs
8.3.1 TUPAs and national strategies to support OSH in MSEs
8.3.2 The impact of change and the responses to it
8.4 Summary and conclusions
9 Conclusions
9.1 The problem of OSH in MSEs
9.2 Strategies for prevention and the significance of TUPAs
9.3 What TUPAs achieve and what supports their achievement — evidence from the findings
9.4 Implications for policy and strategy





Fonte: istas.net