Creating safe workplaces begins with risk assessment and planning preventive measures, which is the employer’s obligation. Nowadays, the responsibility imposed on the employer for violating labor safety norms does not ensure the fulfillment of this obligation, nor is it sufficient to protect the life and health of workers.
Why should I be interested in this topic?
We can easily find at least one person who has worked in construction. Even though it is one of the most dangerous jobs in Georgia associated with fatal cases concerning employees, it is also one of the jobs most in demand due to poverty and unemployment.
Our comment
Most employers in Georgia are indifferent to the fulfillment of labor safety obligations. Insufficiently strict sanctions and lack of planned, unplanned, or repeated inspections contribute to such an attitude.
What is the problem?
According to the results of inspections conducted by the Labor Inspection Service in 2021,
- Employers do not have a risk assessment policy at all or it is insufficient;
- Employers do not adhere to preventive measures.
It is important to note that the Labor Inspection Service does not separately provide a number of repeated inspections. Despite the indication that inspections are in progress until the violations are completely corrected, we cannot assess the behavior of employers in light of the general data:
- How long and how many inspections were needed to eliminate each violation;
- Have they developed a risk assessment policy; and
- What are they doing to prevent violations in the future?
Separate indication and publicity of these data could also be an impetus for employers to correct violations in a timely and thorough manner.
It should be highlighted that the problems of re-inspection and insufficient sanctions are exposed by the examples of the Fair Labor Platform.
For example, the largest construction company “Anagi”, which was inspected 6 times in 2020, and a total of 71 violations were detected,
- was re-inspected only once, but not until the violation was completely eliminated.
- The company was fined only in two cases.
- The fines were close to the minimum limit set by the law.
It should also to note that for the violation of safety rules the company itself, as a legal entity, is not subject to criminal liability.
- High-level managers also manage to avoid responsibility, redirecting the liability to low-level managers.
- It is often considered sufficient to identify only the persons responsible for violating safety norms, who are mostly low-level managers.
- Punishing them does not change the company's work policy and does not contribute to prevent incidents.
What are types of criminal liability for a legal entity?
- liquidation of the company;
- Prohibition to operate;
- fining;
- confiscation of property.
What other obligations do employers avoid?
According to the data of 2021, employers do not provide training to employees on compliance with safety rules and do not provide them with safety equipment. At the same time, individual responsibility for violating safety norms is often put on employees.
How can this problem be solved?
Ensuring implementation of a safe working environment should become composite and consistent because each party involved - employer, employee, labor inspection service, and the state in general - has a separate and crucial responsibility.
It is required to:
- Increase the responsibility of an employer in such a way that will create an incentive to protect safety standards. It could be:
- Setting a sufficiently severe fine or criminal liability for a legal entity, company.
- Increasing the frequency of planned, unplanned, and repeated inspections.
- Ensuring the training of employees providing them with the information on safety rules, adhering to and supervising of such rules.
It should be noted that the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe of Georgia calls for an increase in the number of inspections, especially in the field of construction. This is mentioned in the latest report of 2022.
The article was prepared with the support of Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung. Commercial use of all media published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) is not permitted without the written consent of the FES.
