Workers will get crumbs for injuries and illnesses

The new Draft Law on Occupational Safety and Health brings cosmetic changes, not essential ones, the Association for Occupational Safety told "Vijesti", adding that it is particularly problematic that the provision that the minimum collective insurance against injuries at work is one percent of the minimum wage has disappeared from the final version.

They point out that maintaining the existing provision, which does not include a provision on the amount of the minimum insurance premium, will mean that current practices will continue, where compensation for serious injuries at work is only a few hundred euros, while in the event of death it can amount to one thousand to one and a half thousand euros.

The report from the public hearing, which lasted in July and August last year, stated that several suggestions were accepted that the premium be determined depending on the level of risk of occupational injury and occupational disease and, for jobs with increased risk, that it cannot be lower than one percent of the minimum wage.

It was then accepted that insurance companies would pay 10 percent of the premium collected into a special bank account of the state administration responsible for occupational safety and health, to be used for projects and programs for the prevention of occupational injuries and occupational diseases.

At that time, the Employers' Union requested that the provision on the minimum premium be deleted from the Law, which the drafter refused. However, in the final version sent to the deputies, there is no provision on the minimum premium, but only the existing general form of the employer insuring employees at his own expense remains.

The Occupational Safety and Health Association told "Vijesti" that the preparation of the new Law on Occupational Safety and Health has been underway for almost two years, with the expectation that the new normative framework will substantially improve the situation in this area.

"However, the proposed solutions largely represent a continuation of the existing situation, with predominantly formal and terminological changes, without introducing key systemic improvements that would have a real effect in practice. It is particularly problematic that the new law did not seize the opportunity to improve one of the key areas - collective insurance of employees against occupational injuries, occupational diseases and work-related illnesses. Although this obligation existed in the current law, practice has shown that it did not produce the expected results, primarily due to the lack of minimum standards and control," the Association stated.

They indicate that in the process of drafting the law, they proposed more precise regulation of this area, primarily through the introduction of a minimum insurance premium, in order to prevent the long-standing practice of concluding policies for symbolic amounts.

"Such a practice in reality leads to inadequate compensation - in some cases only a few hundred euros for serious injuries, or around 1.000-1.500 euros in the event of death. The proposed solutions also included the establishment of a mechanism by which part of the premium funds would be directed to prevention, education and improvement of the occupational health and safety system, modeled after developed European models, thus transforming the insurance system from a passive mechanism for compensation of damage into an active instrument of prevention. However, as these solutions were not included in the draft law, there remains a risk of maintaining the existing model in which the insurance obligation is formally prescribed, but without any real effect in practice. This means that employees may still remain insufficiently protected, while the occupational health and safety system remains without a stable and sustainable financial mechanism for the development of preventive measures," the Association stated.

They say that from everything they have stated, it can be clearly concluded that "the proposed law, despite the length of its preparation, does not bring about a fundamental reform of this area, but rather represents a normative reorganization of the existing system, without significantly improving the level of protection of employees in practice."

Without essential control and accountability mechanisms

The Association states that the most significant innovations relate to the expansion of definitions, primarily the term "employer", which is significantly expanded in the draft law and now includes state bodies, local government bodies, regulatory bodies, as well as natural persons in the capacity of investors.

"Although this amendment aims to align with modern forms of work organization, it essentially represents a formal expansion of the scope of the law and at the same time opens up a number of practical and legal dilemmas regarding its application. When it comes to specific innovations, practically the only amendment that has a certain operational significance relates to the field of construction, namely the specification of the investor's obligation regarding the appointment of a coordinator for occupational health and safety. The new solution extends this obligation to situations when the investor hires a contractor who further hires subcontractors, which partially closes the existing legal gap. However, despite this, it is a limited improvement that does not change the essential model of occupational health and safety management, nor does it introduce new control and accountability mechanisms. Overall, the basic concept of occupational health and safety, including key obligations and the method of risk management, remains unchanged," the Association stated.