" DISCLAIMER: The ILO does not take responsibility for content presented on this web portal that is presented in any language other than English, which is the language used for the initial production and peer-review of original content."

Wednesday, 26 October 2011 21:40

Case Study: Denmark: Worker Participation in Health and Safety

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Excerpted from Vogel 1994

Danish industrial relations provide an example of a country with a number of institutions that play a role in relation to health and safety. The main features are:

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: Negotiation of agreements by which trade unions and employers fix wages, conditions of work, etc. Pertinent highlights are:

Shop stewards who are elected by workers under collective bargaining agreements; enjoy statutory protection against dismissal; serve as channel between workers and management on working conditions.

Collective Agreement on Cooperation and Cooperation Committees provides for information to be given to individuals and groups of workers in advance so they can make their views known before a decision is taken and for the establishment of cooperation committees.

Cooperation committees must be set up in all firms employing more than 35 workers (25 in the public service). Joint committees to promote cooperation in day-to-day operations; they must be consulted on the introduction of new technologies and the organization of production; some co-determination rights on working conditions, training and personal data.

National collective agreement on industrial disputes (of 1910) gives workers a right (rarely exercised) to stop work if considerations of “life, welfare or honour” make this absolutely necessary. Other collective agreements contain provisions on training and trade unions also provide it.

FRAMEWORK LAW: The Working Environment Act creates “the basis on which the undertakings themselves will be able to solve questions relating to safety and health under the guidance of the employers’ and workers’ organizations and under the guidance and supervision of the Labour Inspection Service” (Sec. 1(b)). The Act establishes a complete system from the plant to the national level to permit worker participation:

Safety representatives are elected representatives required in firms employing at least ten workers; they enjoy the same protection against dismissal and retaliation as shop stewards and are entitled to reimbursement of official expenses.

Safety groups: The safety representative and the department supervisor form the safety group. Its functions are to:

  • monitor working conditions
  • inspect equipment, tools, materials
  • report any risk which cannot be avoided immediately
  • halt production where necessary to avert an imminent serious danger
  • ensure that work is performed safely and proper instructions are given
  • investigate industrial accidents and occupational diseases
  • participate in prevention activities
  • cooperate with the occupational health service
  • act as link between workers and the safety committee.

 

Members of the safety group are entitled to training and to necessary information.

Safety Committees are required in firms employing at least 20 workers. In firms with more than two safety groups, the safety committees consist of workers elected from among safety representatives, two supervisor members and an employer’s representative.

The functions are:

  • planning, directing and coordinating health and safety activities
  • being consulted on these matters
  • cooperating with other companies engaged in work at the same workplace
  • cooperating with the company’s occupational health service
  • supervising the activity of safety groups
  • making recommendations on prevention of accidents and diseases.

 

WORKING ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL involves employers’ and workers’ organizations in the definition and application of preventive policy at the national level. Composition: 11 representatives of employee organizations representing manual and non-manual workers, one for supervisors, ten of employers’ organizations, plus an occupational medical practitioner, a technical expert and non-voting governmental representatives. Functions:

  • is consulted on drafting legislation and regulations
  • may on its own initiative take up a health and safety matter
  • submits annual recommendations on working environment policy
  • coordinates the activities of Trade Safety Councils
  • supervises the activity of the Working Environment Fund.

 

WORKING ENVIRONMENT FUND is managed by a tripartite board. The Fund has mainly information and training duties, but also finances research programmes.

TRADE SAFETY COUNCILS: Twelve Trade Safety Councils examine the problems of their trade or industry and advise undertakings. They are also consulted on draft legislation. Equal representation of employers’ and supervisors’ organizations on the one hand and workers’ organizations on the other hand.

GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES: In addition, the Ministry of Labour, the Labour Inspection Service and within it, the Danish Institute of the Working Environment, provide various types of services and advice in the field of occupational safety and health. Collective industrial disputes are heard by the Labour Courts.


Read 2047 times Last modified on Wednesday, 02 November 2011 16:23

Contents

Preface
Part I. The Body
Part II. Health Care
Part III. Management & Policy
Development, Technology, and Trade
Disability and Work
Education and Training
Ethical Issues
Labour Relations and Human Resource Management
Resources
Resources: Information and OSH
Resources, Institutional, Structural and Legal
Topics In Workers Compensation Systems
Work and Workers
Worker's Compensation Systems
Part IV. Tools and Approaches
Part V. Psychosocial and Organizational Factors
Part VI. General Hazards
Part VII. The Environment
Part VIII. Accidents and Safety Management
Part IX. Chemicals
Part X. Industries Based on Biological Resources
Part XI. Industries Based on Natural Resources
Part XII. Chemical Industries
Part XIII. Manufacturing Industries
Part XIV. Textile and Apparel Industries
Part XV. Transport Industries
Part XVI. Construction
Part XVII. Services and Trade
Part XVIII. Guides

Labour Relations and Human Resources Management Additional Resources

Click the Button below to view additional resources for this topic.

button

Labour Relations and Human Resources Management References

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI). 1915. Year Book of the American Iron and Steel Institute for 1914. New York: AISI.

Ben-Israel, R. 1988. International Labour Standards: The Case of Freedom to Strike. Deventer: Kluwer.

Bousiges, A. 1991. Le droit des salariés de se retirer d’une situation dangereuse pour leur integrité physique. Droit Soc (4) (April):279-291.

Brody, D. 1960. Steelworkers in America: The Nonunion Era. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Corn, J. 1978. Historical aspects of industrial hygiene: Changing attitudes toward occupational health. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 39:695-699.

Creighton, WB. 1994. The ILO and protection of freedom of association in the United Kingdom. In Human Rights and Labour Law, edited by KD Ewing, CA Gearty, and BA Hepple. London: Mansell.

Derickson, A. 1988. Workers’ Health, Workers’ Democracy: The Western Miners’ Struggle, 1891-1925. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

Ferris, GR, SD Rosen, and DT Barnum. 1995. Handbook of Human Resources. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Fisher, R and W Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Foner, PS. 1977. The Factory Girls. Urbana, Ill.: Univ. of Illinois Press.

Fox, MB. 1990. United We Stand. Washington, DC: United Mine Workers of America.

Health and Safety Commission. The Health and Safety System in Great Britain. London: HMSO.

Hecker, S. 1993. Occupational health and safety policy in the European community. New Solutions III-4,IV-1:59-69,57-67.

Hodges-Aeberhard, J and A Odero de Dios. 1987. Principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association concerning strikes. Int Labour Rev 126:543.

Inohara, H. 1990. Human Resource Development in Japanese Companies. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.

International Labour Organization (ILO). 1983. Conciliation Services: Structures, Functions and Techniques. Labour-Management Relations Series, No.62. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1994a. Employers’ organizations. In World Labour Report. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1994b. Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining: General Survey by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1995a. Freedom of Association: Digest of Decisions and Principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO. Geneva: ILO.

—. 1995b: Governing Body Document GB.264/ STM/4, Appendix, para. l.

—. 1995c. Protection Against Unjustified Dismissal. Geneva: ILO.

Joint Industrial Safety Council of Sweden. 1988. Working Environment Agreement. Stockholm: Joint Industrial Safety Council of Sweden.

Kaufman, BE and MM Kleiner (eds.). 1993. Employee Represenation: Alternatives and Future Directions. Madison, Wisc.: Industrial Relations Research Association.

Lehman, P. 1977. Cancer and the Worker. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

Locke, R, TA Kochan, and M Piore. 1995. Employment Relations in a Changing World Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Loewenson, R. 1992. Trade union accident programmes in Zimbabwe. Afr Newslett on Occup Health and Safety (Helsinki) 2(2):36-38.

McCabe, D. 1994. Non-union grievance procedures: A strategic analysis of organizational due process in “Employee rights and industrial justice”. B Comp Labour Relat 28:101-113.

Oechslin, JJ. 1995. Employers’ organizations. In European Labour Law, edited by R Blanpain and C Engels. Deventer: Kluwer Law and Taxation.

Ozaki, M. 1996. Labour relations and work organization in industrialized countries. Int Labour Rev 135(1):37-58.

Reber, R, J Wallin, and D Duhon. 1993. Preventing occupational injuries through performance management. Publ Pers Manage 22(2):301-311.

Regalia, I and C Gill (eds.). 1995. The Position of the Social Partners in Europe on Direct Participation. Country Studies: Vol. I. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

—. 1996. The Position of the Social Partners in Europe on Direct Participation. Country Studies: Vol. II. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

Reilly, B, P Paci, and P Holl. 1995. Unions, safety committees and workplace injuries. Brit J Ind Relat 33(2):275.

Renaud, M and C St.-Jacques. 1986. Le droit de refus, cinq ans après: l’évolution d’un nouveau mode d’expression des risques. Sociol Société Montréal 18(2):99-112.

Rice, A. 1995. International Labor Federation. Occup Environ Health 1 (2):215-222.

Schregle, J. 1994. Occupational safety and health and the working environment: The role of workers’ participation. B Labour Res 4:18.

Teleky, L. 1948. The History of Factory and Mine Hygiene. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

US Department of Labor and Mexican Secretariat of Labor and Social Welfare. 1992. A Comparison of Occupational Safety and Health Programs in the United States and Mexico: An Overview. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

van Ruysseveldt, J, R Huiskamp, and J van Hoof. (eds.). 1995. Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations. London: Sage.

van Waarden. 1995. In Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations, edited by J van Ruysseveldt, R Huiskamp, and J van Hoof. London: Sage.

Visser, J. 1995. Interest organizations and industrial relations in a changing Europe. In Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations, edited by J van Ruysseveldt, R Huiskamp and J van Hoof. London: Sage.

Vogel, L. 1994. Prevention at the Workplace. Brussels: European Trade Union Technical Bureau for Health and Safety.

Webb, S and B Webb. 1920. The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longman Green.

Weiss, M. 1992. Germany. In European Employment and Industrial Relations Glossary: London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Zinn, S. 1995. Labor solidarity in the New World Order. Labor Res Rev 23:35-43.