The workshop took part on Saturday 15th and Sunday 16th as planned in the Conference Programme.

Twenty delegates took effectively participated in the workshop, coming from different Countries as follows:

Italy: 8

England: 6

Scotland: 2

Holland: 2

Germany: 1

Denmark: 1

From the professional point of view, the distribution was as follows:

Trade Unionists: 6

Health and Safety Experts: 7

Safety Reps: 1

Doctors: 1

Nurses: 1

Sociologists: 1

Others: 4

The discussion followed the guidelines of the preparatory document, trying to answer to the relevant questions raised, about the two main points: Risk Assessment and Role of Safety Reps.

Questions posed by the preparatory document

The workshop agreed first of all that in principle the presence of Prevention Services, and the obligation to make a RA, should depend not merely on the size of the Company, but mainly on hazard and risks which are present in such Company.

The workshops agreed that construction Companies, such as Home Service Companies as well as all cases in which a fixed and unique workplace can’t be found, should be examined in a specific way, a part from size of the Company itself.

In all other cases, when a Company is a "typical SME" the workshop discussed deeply about methods avalaible to make a "good" RA.

Taking in account also the economical cost of a RA made by expert and technicians, the group underlined that in general, but mainly in SMEs, workers’ knowledge about working processes is the most helpful "tool" to make a really "good" risk assessment.

Of course technicians and experts are helpful and in most cases needed, but especially in SMEs this is not sufficient without the real experience or workers.

This also because from the merely technical point of view, only in few cases a risk assessment in SMEs can be made using the same criteria of great industry. Besides this, the cost problem for a single industry is a real problem, a part form real or supposed complaints made by employers.

So, the goal is to make a technically good risk assessment, taking in account the peculiarity of SMEs, and a participate approach seems to be, in such cases the most practicable way.

This is what some delegates called the "democratic way" to make RA.

The workshops also agreed that often single SMEs can find difficulties, not only form the economical point of view, to afford the RA process.

A good practical solution could be the organisation of technical services by SMEs Employer Associations.

Taking in account that in many companies the employer is also a worker, it seems that an associative approach among workers, employers and Trade Unions is the best way to adopt.

Because of this, it isn’t really very important whether the Responsible person for Prevention an Protection Services is the employer himself. Nevertheless, in this case, training become an essential issue to ensure success to the RA process.

The workshop concluded, on this point, that the implementation of a bilateral system to approach SMEs problems regarding health and safety should be encouraged and promoted, also by legislation and collective bargaining.

This method could be a good way to avoid bad solutions preview by some legislation, such as the absence of obligations to set up a written document for RA criteria and results, which in many case may represent an easy way to escape the obligations to make a real RA.

2. Safety Reps

Questions posed by the preparatory document:

Besides the general principle that SMEs workers must have the same rights than big companies, and the will to have in all Countries a full application of EU legislation, the workshop established that all SMEs must have their Safety Reps..

This means that there shouldn’t be a minimum number of workers to have a safety rep: every SME must have at least 1 rep, even if at branch or area level.

It seems not very important, at this level, if Safety Reps. are directly elected by workers, or nominated among TU reps also at branch or area level. The priority on this point is to have, in any case, a safety rep.

There is, of course, a training problem, also because it s difficult to establish the practical role of Safety Reps., between the two extremes represented by technical and negotiation skills.

The workshop agreed on the issue that a minimum training time must be fixed as right, ad that it must be settled during working time.

Training should be ruled particularly on these topics:

-health and safety legislation

-Safety Reps. duties an powers

-industrial processes, particularly for branch and area reps

- basic knowledge of industrial hygiene and occupational medicine

- bargaining

Also topics, such as time, should be established as a right by legislation.

The group concluded that Labour Inspection Bodies and Public Occupational Services should have an important role on this issues, not only in order to control the application of law but also in supporting and participating in training programmes.

It is important to ensure that Safety Reps. have a real role in the RA process.

Despite risk assessment is first of all an employer duty, it is essential that Safety Reps. can participate in its planning, control the process during its development, know its results and evaluate them.

All these steps are necessary to be able to follow and stimulate the realisation of safety measures identified by risk assessment procedures.

It could seem that in SMEs, rather than great industry, workers and Safety Reps. can in principle better play these roles, being more aware of the whole technological process and knowing in principle all workplaces an jobs.

On the contrary, the particular situation of SMEs could affect the effectiveness of Safety Reps. action, being them more directly involved by employers in problems related to real or supposed economical difficulties of the sector or the single enterprise.

The workshop agreed with the statement of the preparatory document, i.e. that e being a safety rep in a SME is harder than in a great industry: in SMEs Safety Reps. "face" directly with the "physical" employer rather than chiefs, officers, executives, lawyers and so on, as happen generally in the great industry.

Also because of that the workshop concluded that both TU and Labour Inspection Bodies should support SMEs Safety Reps. in playing their essential role in risk assessment process, also by means of

a co-ordination or even a network at national/area level among SMEs Safety Reps..

The workshop observed that national networks could play a role in such co-ordination committee.

Workshops were asked to conclude their discussion by sorting some "demands for charter" regarding their specific topics, related to the general theme of the Conference.

Workshop 1.1 concluded its work be underlining two orders of statements:

1. Demand for Charter:

2 - European Health and Safety legislation must be fully effective also for SMEs.

2. Goals for the Network

1. EWHN must survey, at European level, the real implementation and application of EU legislation;
2. EWHN should promote and develop associate boards and approaches to let SMEs apply the law, regarding to:

legislation in SMEs and to exchange practical experiences.