|
APPENDIX 1
Introduction Questionnaire
At SLIC plenary in Bilbao on the 7th of May 2010, a working group was established to evaluate SLIC’s recent joint initiatives. The objectives of the 'project team' are: • to review the process followed to deliver 3 recent SLIC campaigns (Asbestos in 2006, Manual Handling of loads in 2007-2008 and Dangerous Substances in 2010 ); • to examine the outputs and outcomes from these campaigns; • to propose how SLIC can make optimal use of data arising from such campaigns (e.g. within labour inspection services, duty holders, other bodies); • to propose how SLIC can react/ respond to the findings from campaigns; • to make suggestions for improvement to the selection, development and delivery of joint initiatives by the Committee (new campaigns). The working group elaborated a number of ideas to fulfill this task. To get an impression of the opinion of SLIC members and EFTA countries a questionnaire has been developed. You are kindly requested to fill in the questionnaire using the internet link, before the 1st of September 2011.
|
| |
|
|
|
c1. For which country do you fill in the data? |
| |
|
|
|
|
| c2. What is the name of your department, directorate or inspectorate? | | |
|
|
|
|
| c3. What is your email address to contact? | | |
|
|
|
|
m.0 Introduction MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS
In 2007 and 2008 the communication and inspection campaign “MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS” took place. In 2007 the focus was on transport and healthcare, and in 2008 on construction and retail.
Associated reports and documents include: • Evaluation report: SLIC European inspection and communication campaign. Manual handling of loads 2007 • Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors, Doc.0183_2008, May 2009http://www.handlingloads.eu/en/site/1/11 • Senior Labour Inspectors Committee. European communication and inspection campaign. Manual handling of loads 2008/2009, Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors, September 2009 • E-learning module on the Manual Handling of Loadshttp://osha.europa.eu/en/topics/msds/slic/index_html/mmc • Other documents can be found on CIRCA.
|
| |
|
|
|
m.1 Did your country participate in the communication campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
m.2a Did your country participate in the inspection campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
m.2b Did your country participate in the inspection campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
m.3 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS match or influence the national priorities?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.4 Did your country have used?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.5 Did your country evaluate the impact of the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.6 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS induce health and safety measures in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.7 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS contribute to the OSH management and prevention culture in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.8 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS contribute to inform employers and workers?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.9 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS induce an increase in adequate risk assessments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.10 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS improve the national infrastructure, external protective and preventive services, consultants, suppliers of services and products, or social dialogue?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.11 Did the EU-campaign MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS stimulate the enforcement in SME’s and high risk sectors?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.12 Did the exchange of information related to MANUAL HANDLING OF LOADS with authorities from other Member States (bench marking) stimulate national developments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.13 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign MANUEL HANDLING OF LOADS for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.14 Did your country, related to the campaign MANUEL HANDLING OF LOADS, develop additional material for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.15 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign MANUEL HANDLING OF LOADS for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.16 Did your country, related to the campaign MANUEL HANDLING OF LOADS, develop additional material for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
m.17 Did your country have a national follow-up to the campaign MANUEL HANDLING OF LOADS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
a.0 Introduction ASBESTOS
In 2006 the communication and inspection campaign ”ASBESTOS: Asbestos is Deadly Serious! Prevent Exposure!” took place.
Associated reports and documents include: • Asbestos is Deadly Serious! Prevent Exposure! Doc.1342_2009, Committee of Senior Labour Inspectors, Prague 29 May 2009http://osha.europa.eu/en/campaigns/asbestos/camp_report.pdf • Senior Labour Inspectors Committee (2006) A practical guide on best practice to prevent or minimise asbestos risks in work that involves (or may involve) asbestos: for the employer, the workers and the labour inspector. • Other documents can be found on CIRCA.
|
| |
|
|
|
a.1 Did your country participate in the communication campaign ASBESTOS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
a.2a Did your country participate in the inspection campaign ASBESTOS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
a.2b Did your country participate in the inspection campaign ASBESTOS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
a.3 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS match or influence the national priorities?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.4 Did your country have used?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.5 Did your country evaluate the impact of the EU-campaign ASBESTOS?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.6 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS induce health and safety measures in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.7 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS contribute to the OSH management and prevention culture in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.8 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS contribute to inform employers and workers?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.9 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS induce an increase in adequate risk assessments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.10 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS improve the national infrastructure, external protective and preventive services, consultants, suppliers of services and products, or social dialogue?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.11 Did the EU-campaign ASBESTOS stimulate the enforcement in SME’s and high risk sectors?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.12 Did the exchange of information related to ASBESTOS with authorities from other Member States (bench marking) stimulate national developments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.13 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign ASBESTOS for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.14 Did your country, related to the campaign ASBESTOS, develop additional material for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.15 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign ASBESTOS for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.16 Did your country, related to the campaign ASBESTOS, develop additional material for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
a.17 Did your country have a national follow-up to the campaign ASBESTOS? |
| |
|
|
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
s.0 Introduction DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
In 2010 a communication and inspection campaign on “DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES” took place. Participating countries could select one or more of following sectors: bakeries, woodworking, cleaning and motor vehicle repair.
Associated reports and documents include: • Repair, http://www.chemicalscampaign.eu/ • Other documents can be found on CIRCA.
|
| |
|
|
|
s.1 Did your country participate in the communication campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES? |
| |
|
|
|
|
s.2a Did your country participate in the inspection campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES? |
| |
|
|
|
|
s.2b Did your country participate in the inspection campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES? |
| |
|
|
|
|
s.3 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES match or influence the national priorities?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.4 Did your country have used?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.5 Did your country evaluate the impact of the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.6 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES induce health and safety measures in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.7 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES contribute to the OSH management and prevention culture in enterprises?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.8 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES contribute to inform employers and workers?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.9 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES induce an increase in adequate risk assessments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.10 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES improve the national infrastructure, external protective and preventive services, consultants, suppliers of services and products, or social dialogue?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.11 Did the EU-campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES stimulate the enforcement in SME’s and high risk sectors?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.12 Did the exchange of information related to DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES with authorities from other Member States (bench marking) stimulate national developments?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.13 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.14 Did your country, related to the campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES, develop additional material for external communication?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.15 Did your country use the SLIC material of the campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.16 Did your country, related to the campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES, develop additional material for internal training?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
s.17 Did your country have a national follow-up to the campaign DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES? |
| |
|
|
|
|
f.0 NEW CAMPAIGNS
The last part of the questionnaire is about new campaigns after 2012.
In 2010/11, the SLIC WG looked at the previous Campaigns and evidence from other data sources across EU to identify those activities and locations presenting high risks to workers and others. The votes you cast will help influence the selection of themes for future SLIC campaigns.
|
| |
|
|
|
f.1 Please rank (1-5) the following risks in order of the priority of your country (1 represents the highest, priority 5 the lowest priority) |
| |
Physical risk: Noise |
| | Physical risk: Skin diseases |
| | Psychosocial risk: Aggression & violence |
| | Safety risk: Falls on the same level, slips and trips |
| | Transport safety on work places: land and work vehicles |
| |
|
|
|
|
f.2 Please rank (1-4) the following workplaces in order of priority for your country (1 represents the highest priority, 4 the lowest priority) |
| |
Interaction with public |
| | Office work |
| | Work with machines |
| | Land and work vehicles |
| |
|
|
|
|
f.3 Please rank (1-5) the following sectors/branches in order of priority for your country (1 represents the highest, priority 5 the lowest priority) |
| |
Agriculture, forestry, hunting |
| | Construction |
| | Manufacturing |
| | Nursing and healthcare |
| | Retail, wholesale |
| |
|
|
|
|
f.4 Please rank (1-7) the following aspects of OSH policy in enterprises in order of priority for your country (1 represents the highest, priority 7 the lowest priority) |
| |
Awareness employees, information, training and instruction about risks |
| | Supervision on workers behaviour and workplace |
| | General OSH policy on management level (i.e. plan, do, check, act cycle) |
| | Risk assessment and evaluation of the risks (e.g. promotion of OiRA) |
| | Risk assessment and evaluation for temporary employees and subcontractors |
| | Plans for health & safety improvement |
| | Protective and preventive services |
| |
|
|
|
|
| f.5 Does your country have other suggestions in general for future 'SLIC campaigns'? If so, please provide supporting evidence (e.g. country incident data, or other data/evidence). | | |
|
|
|
|
f.6 Does your country prefer every year a SLIC campaign or once in the two year? |
| |
|
|
|
|
| f.7 Does your country have suggestions for improvements of the concept 'Manual for SLIC campaigns' (Appendix 2)? | | |
|
|
|