Occupational safety comments on tool checks. Occupational safety: for which the inspection will definitely fine. Intersectoral documents that regulate the rules of labor protection

21.05.2020

1. LACK OF TRAINING, INSTRUCTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES IN THE FIELD OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
1) Employers instruct only employees of production units, while introductory briefing on labor protection applies to all employees.
From the practice of inspections
GIT conducted a scheduled inspection at OAO "S ..." (a fishing enterprise) and found numerous violations of labor protection legislation. For example, the employer allowed sailors, mechanics, senior production masters and even the chief mate to perform work duties on board the vessel without conducting an introductory briefing (violation of the requirements of part two of article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). Specialists servicing ship mechanisms and equipment (winches, signalmen) were not taught the rules of labor protection and did not test their knowledge.
Based on the results of the audit, the employer was issued a mandatory order to eliminate violations. labor law. The company was fined under article 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.
2) There is no introductory briefing registration log.
3) No programs initial briefing on labor protection in the workplace for specific professions or types of work.
From the practice of inspections
GIT checked the limited liability company "A ..." for compliance with the requirements of labor protection legislation. There were many violations. In particular, the organization did not have such mandatory documents, how:
introductory briefing log (violation of clause 7.1.5 of GOST 12.0.004-90 "SSBT. Organization of labor safety training");
introductory briefing program (violation of clause 7.1.4 of GOST 12.0.004-90);
an order (instruction) on the appointment of a person responsible for conducting an introductory briefing (violation of clause 7.1.2 of GOST 12.0.004-90).
Based on the results of the inspection, the inspectors issued an order to the employer to eliminate the identified violations, and the directors of the company were fined.
4) The log of registration of briefings at the workplace is not kept.
From the practice of inspections
In the course of the inspection of LLC A ... it turned out that the organization does not keep a log of briefing at the workplace (violation of clause 7.9 of GOST 12.0.004-90), there is no program for conducting briefing at the workplace (violation of clause 7.2.2 of GOST 12.0. 004-90), as well as a list of workers exempted from primary briefing at the workplace (violation of clause 7.2.1 of GOST 12.0.004-90).
Advice
Make sure that all employees who have been briefed sign their signatures in the appropriate log, otherwise you will not have the opportunity to prove that the instructed employee violated the rules, knowing the consequences.
5) Workers are allowed to work without training and testing of knowledge on labor protection and internships at the workplace.
From the practice of inspections
The GIT checked OOO “Z…” and revealed that the employer did not train employees in safe methods and techniques for performing work, providing first aid to victims at work, did not conduct labor protection briefings, internships and testing theoretical knowledge and practical skills (violation of the requirements of part two article 212 and article 225 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
6) There is no list of workers exempted from primary briefing at the workplace
From the practice of inspections
GIT inspectors found violations of labor protection legislation during the inspection of the Municipal Health Institution (hospital). In particular, the organization did not have a list of employees exempted from primary briefing at the workplace (violation of clause 7.2.1 of GOST 12.0.004-90). The available register of accounting and registration of accidents did not comply with the form established by Appendix No. 1 to the Regulations on the Features of the Investigation of Accidents at Work
7) The employer conducts only targeted briefing of employees if it is necessary to fully train them in the rules of labor protection.
From the practice of inspections
At the beginning of August 2010, a new carpenter was hired by LLC “M…”, and two weeks later he was assigned a one-time job – loading plates weighing more than a ton onto a car. The employer limited the training on labor protection during loading operations to targeted briefing. However, the Intersectoral Labor Protection Rules in such cases require that trained workers who have the appropriate certificate be allowed to load work. A senior employee appointed by order of the employer must be present at the place of such work. The company violated the requirements for warehousing building materials, which did not ensure their stability during storage. As a result, one of the plates, standing on the edge, when the carpenter tried to bend the metal loop, lost stability and fell on the worker.
The accident was investigated by the regional commission, which found that the cause of the injury was the negligent attitude of the company's management to the requirements of labor protection from outside. The employer did not establish methods for loading and moving cargo, did not determine insurance measures and protective fences at the borders of dangerous zones, did not exercise control over labor protection during loading. The commission sent the materials of the investigation of the accident at work to the prosecutor's office to initiate a criminal case against the head of LLC "M ..." (under part 1 of article 143 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation "Violation of labor protection rules").
8) The employer misses the deadlines for re-briefing.
From the practice of inspections
GIT checked the individual entrepreneur "T ..." and found that he did not re-brief the drivers, did not include working time drivers during the medical examination before leaving for the flight and did not organize the certification of workplaces in terms of working conditions. The entrepreneur was ordered to correct the violations.
9) There are no orders regulating activities for training and testing labor protection.
10) There are no instructions for labor protection.
From the practice of inspections
An audit of the State Inspectorate at A… LLC showed that the employer did not issue an order (instruction) to assign the functions of a labor protection specialist in the organization (violation of Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation), and also did not develop and approve labor protection instructions for employees.
11) Managers and specialists do not pass the test of knowledge on labor protection.
From the practice of inspections
During the inspection, LLC “A…” revealed that the head and specialists of the company had not been trained in labor protection and tested their knowledge of labor protection requirements (violation of Article 225 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
12) There are no special commissions to test the knowledge of labor protection.
From the practice of inspections
An audit by the Municipal Unitary Enterprise (hospital), in particular, showed that the head of the enterprise did not undergo labor protection training and a knowledge test regarding labor protection requirements (violation of Article 225 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). The head also did not provide the employees with an internship at the workplace, did not check whether they knew the requirements of labor protection, as well as safe methods and techniques for performing work (violation of the requirements of Article 225, part two of Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). It turned out that the hospital does not have a list of jobs and professions for which Additional requirements on labor safety (violation of clause 4.2 of GOST 12.0.004-90).
According to Art. 225 and 76 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation:
All employees, including heads of organizations, as well as employers - individual entrepreneurs are required to undergo training and testing of knowledge of labor protection requirements.
For all persons entering work, as well as for employees transferred to another job, the employer (or a person authorized by him) is obliged to instruct on labor protection, organize training in safe methods and techniques for performing work and providing first aid to victims.
The employer is obliged to remove from work (not to allow to work) an employee who has not undergone training and testing of knowledge and skills in the field of labor protection in the prescribed manner.
If during the inspection it turns out that the employee has not been trained and tested in the field of labor protection, and was allowed by the employer to fulfill his official duties, then:
 The employee is suspended from work already at the request (order) of the state labor inspector;
 The issue of bringing the employer to administrative responsibility is being resolved;
 If the employee was allowed to work with the knowledge of the employer, he is fined for an administrative offense under Art. 5.27 “Violation of legislation on labor and labor protection” of the Code Russian Federation about administrative offenses;
 Disqualification of the employer in case of repeated violation.
If, as a result of the inspection, the inspector indicated in the order that the employee did not receive training in the field of labor protection, then:
1. The managers and specialists indicated in it must be trained and tested on labor protection
2. Report to the state labor inspector who conducted the inspection on the fulfillment of the order, that is, send certified copies of the relevant certificates to the GIT
Then such an order will be considered fulfilled.
2. LACK OF INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE PROTECTION (PPE)
The employer is obliged not only to issue PPE, but also to teach how to use it, as well as control it in order to:
The purchased PPE had certificates of compliance with labor protection requirements;
Proper accounting and control of the issuance of PPE to employees was organized;
The established order of their storage was observed;
Employees were instructed on the rules of use and the simplest ways to check the serviceability of PPE;
Timely replacement of PPE was carried out in cases of damage before the end of the wear period for reasons beyond the control of the employee, their washing, cleaning and repair.
Example
AT summer period an employee of Topol LLC decided to wash her work clothes herself, and at the same time work at the machine in her blouse. As a result, the worker's hand was pulled into the machine, the woman received a torn wound in the armpit. In this case, the employee arbitrarily decided to wash overalls, despite the fixed article. 221 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation of the employer to provide storage, washing, drying, repair and replacement of overalls at his own expense.
In turn, the employer did not control the use of overalls by the employee. Violations of labor protection requirements on both sides led to serious consequences.
3. LACK OF WORKPLACE CERTIFICATION OR VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF ITS CARRYING OUT
Most often, employers ignore the requirements for attestation of workplaces established by Art. 209–212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Violations relating to the issue of attestation of workplaces can generally be divided into two groups.
1. AWP was not carried out. As a result, there are no identified, for example, existing harmful factors
2. The automated workplace was carried out, but its results were not brought to the attention of employees and were not taken into account by employers when implementing measures to improve working conditions and labor protection and resolving issues of providing employees with guarantees and compensations for working conditions established by law.
Example
Based on the results of an audit conducted on 21.11.2011 at Most LLC, the GIT found that the company did not carry out certification of workplaces in terms of working conditions; the design of the introductory briefing registration log did not meet the requirements of GOST 12.0.004-90; The contingent of persons subject to mandatory preliminary and periodic medical examinations does not include office employees working with PCs. An order was issued to eliminate the committed violations of labor legislation; guilty official brought to administrative responsibility, under Part. 1 Article. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine.
4. VIOLATION IN THE ORDER OF INVESTIGATION AND RECORDING OF ACCIDENTS AT PRODUCTION
Such violations include:
Failure to notify or not timely inform about an accident government agencies(may be considered as concealment by the employer insured event, which, in turn, is an administrative offense, the responsibility for which is established by Art. 15.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation);
Non-compliance by employers with the established deadlines for investigating accidents at work (Article 229.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).
Failure to create commissions to investigate the circumstances and causes of an accident at work with an easy outcome;
Failure to comply with the established procedure for sending notifications of group accidents, severe accidents, fatal accidents to the authorities and organizations specified in Art. 228.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.
Incomplete execution of established forms for the investigation of accidents at work with a mild outcome (protocols of interviewing the victim, officials; protocols of inspection of places of accidents; documents confirming the training and instruction of employees on labor protection and safe methods of performing work by profession or type of work; documents confirming the issuance of PPE to the employee);
The absence in the acts in the form H-1 of a record of familiarization with them by employees and handing copies in hand.
Often, such violations are revealed only when it comes to initiating a criminal case on the death of an employee. The amount of the fine also differs from that usually applied under Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
Example
An audit at RSU Primorsky District LLC established the fact of a fatal accident at work that occurred in February 2011 with a citizen of the Republic of Ukraine. The accident was not investigated by the employer. Based on the results of the check, the assistant to the prosecutor's office sent materials to the Primorsky District Court on the suspension of the Company's activities. The GIT issued an order to the employer obliging him to conduct an investigation in the prescribed manner. RSU Primorsky District OJSC was found guilty of committing an administrative offense and fined 50,000 rubles. In addition, it was found that there labor relations with a foreign worker who did not have a proper work permit. The materials were sent to the Federal Migration Service for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region to bring the employer to administrative responsibility also for this violation.
How can the GIT reveal work-related accidents hidden by employers? To do this, officials of state labor inspectorates use different methods and forms of work:
Conducting thematic audits of organizations on compliance with the established procedure for investigating and recording industrial accidents;
Carrying out targeted inspections at the request of citizens who suffered as a result of accidents at work, and (or) relatives of the victims;
Credential verification medical organizations(including in the bodies of forensic medical examination) in order to identify information about injured (dead) employees;
Reconciliation of operational data on victims of accidents at work with regional offices the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation;
Reconciliation of data on accidents at work with law enforcement, including prosecution authorities;
Media monitoring.

Since 1997, we have been helping our clients in the field of labor protection and personnel office work. We provide services throughout Russia. Remotely, in a short time, our specialists will help to solve any issue.

As a rule, than larger enterprise the less often it is possible to meet violations of labor laws. However, regardless of the number of employees, the field of labor protection is “limping” almost everywhere. Despite the clear requirements of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, numerous explanations of theorists and practitioners, employers continually make mistakes in the field of labor protection. Moreover, as practice shows, it is important not to make some mistakes at all, since the consequences can be extremely negative for both employees and employers. Consider typical mistakes, which organizations allow from time to time.

The legislature secured the right of the worker to safe conditions labor, and imposed on the employer the obligation to comply with the requirements of labor protection, established by Ch. 34 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts. However, the human factor is present everywhere, and in most cases it is he who causes the employer's erroneous actions in the field of labor protection organization.

Mistakes in the organization of labor protection at the enterprise are a serious topic for conversation. Let's define the top 7 mistakes and, using examples from judicial practice, establish:

what may threaten certain violations in the field of labor protection;
how the human factor and the erroneous actions of individual workers can lead to extremely negative consequences;
what measures the employer has the right to apply to violators of labor protection so that the court, in the event of a dispute, considers them lawful;
how the court evaluates cases of application of extreme measures of influence on violators - dismissal under subp. "e" p. 6 h. 1 art. 81 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, etc.

1. Failure to conduct a safety briefing

This also includes such violations as the lack of internships at the workplace and testing of knowledge of labor protection requirements, as well as the admission to work of persons who have not undergone training and instruction in labor protection in the prescribed manner, internships and testing knowledge of labor protection requirements (Article 212 TC RF).

These violations threaten:

unconscious violation by the employee of labor protection requirements, failure to comply with safety requirements;
accident at work;
order of the state labor inspector to eliminate the violation;
administrative responsibility under Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violation of labor and labor protection legislation;
litigation with an injured and/or punished employee for violation of labor protection.

Most often, these violations are found in industrial enterprises.

Example 1

Collapse Show

The aircraft that carried out aerial chemical treatment of agricultural fields production cooperative, crashed, the pilot died. This prompted an audit, during which state labor inspectors found that the employer did not conduct safety briefings at workplaces, attest workplaces for working conditions, and did not provide workers with overalls and personal protective equipment. Due to the fact that these violations of labor legislation posed a real threat to the life and health of employees, the labor inspectorate decided to temporarily ban the operation of the airline's technical base. Materials about the administrative offense were transferred to the judicial authorities. In order to prevent occupational injuries, the labor inspectorate also prohibited the use of 62 sets of personal protective equipment that did not have certificates of conformity. Five employees of the organization, who were not briefed, were suspended from work.

Example 2

Collapse Show

A ninth-grader who had been hired as a freight forwarder died at the work of an individual entrepreneur. The investigation showed that the student lost his balance while unloading the goods and fell off the body of the ZIL car, having received a head injury incompatible with life. According to the investigation, the employer did not conduct introductory briefings on labor protection and did not fill out special registers for their registration. A minor was hired without undergoing a preliminary medical examination, the employer did not provide him with overalls and footwear. The prosecutor initiated an administrative offense case against the entrepreneur under Part 1 of Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for violation of labor legislation and labor protection.

Example 3

Collapse Show

Nurse clinic, which carried out visiting the patient at home, was hit by a car while crossing the road in an unspecified place and died in the hospital. This case was recognized as an industrial accident. One of the reasons for the accident was the failure to conduct a briefing on labor protection and safety.

2. Violation of the regime of work and rest of employees

Recall that the employer is obliged to ensure the regime of work and rest in accordance with labor legislation and other regulatory legal acts containing norms labor law(Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Violation threatens:

an accident at work due to the onset of physical fatigue of the employee, dulling of attention;
administrative liability for the employer for violation of labor laws;
litigation with victims of an accident at work.

Most of the time, these violations are transport companies, as well as any organizations in relation to drivers driving cars.

Arbitrage practice

Collapse Show

The mother of the deceased son, who worked as a driver in an open joint-stock company, turned to her son's former employer with a claim for compensation for moral damage. According to medical report the cause of her son's death was acute coronary insufficiency, which, according to the plaintiff, was the result of the employer's failure to comply with the requirements of the legislation on labor protection and rest time. By sending the driver on a business trip to deliver children to a health camp, the employer violated the work and rest regime of the driver of the vehicle. Before the business trip, the son spent more than a day at the workplace, was sent on a flight to transport children at night without a co-driver and escort by the traffic police.

The court considered the circumstances of the death of the employee and concluded that there was no connection between the violation by the employer of the regime of work and rest of the deceased and the cause of his death. The court case ended with a decision in favor of the employer (decision of the Zimovnikovsky District Court of the Rostov Region dated October 17, 2012, appeal ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated January 31, 2013 in case No. 33-1155/2013).

Please note: in the considered case, the court supported the employer, however, the meeting could not have taken place if it were not for the constant violations of labor protection requirements by the employer.

Example 4

Collapse Show

In one of the healthcare institutions in the city of Dzerzhinsk, the GIT, during an inspection, revealed the fact of non-compliance with the regime of work and rest among drivers Vehicle. The total weekly working time accounting exceeded 40 hours, the data from the time sheet did not correspond to the actual working time. The employer was fined.

Example 5

Collapse Show

During a police raid on Tomsk region four protocols were drawn up in respect of drivers of passenger buses who violated the regime of work and rest. Employees can be fined from 1,000 to 3,000 rubles.

Arbitrage practice

Collapse Show

Individual entrepreneur in the field transportation did not organize control over compliance with the regime of work and rest of drivers, did not develop schedules for their work. Thus, the requirements of Art. 20 of the Federal Law of 10.12.1995 No. 196-FZ "On Security traffic"(hereinafter - Law No. 196-FZ) and clause 15 of the Regulations on the peculiarities of the regime of working hours and rest time for car drivers, approved by order of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation dated 08.20.2004 No. 15. The Department of State Road Supervision drew up a protocol on an administrative offense against him .

The court, considering the case and the evidence presented, came to the conclusion that the IP had committed an administrative offense under Part 3 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (implementation entrepreneurial activity in violation of the conditions provided for by a special permit (license)). So, from paragraph 1 of Art. 20 of Law No. 196-FZ, it follows that legal entities and individual entrepreneurs carrying out activities on the territory of the Russian Federation related to the operation of vehicles are required to organize the work of drivers in accordance with the requirements that ensure road safety, comply with the regime of work and rest of drivers established by the legislation of the Russian Federation . Since the individual entrepreneur did not comply with all these requirements, the court decided to bring him to administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Art. 14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in the form of a fine in the amount of 3,000 rubles (decision Arbitration Court Irkutsk region dated May 15, 2013 in case No. А19-3382/2013).

3. Failure to provide workers with overalls and protective equipment

The performance of many labor functions requires the use of special clothing which is designed to prevent the impact on the worker harmful factors. It is the employer who has the obligation to acquire at the expense of own funds and provide employees with personal protective equipment, flushing and neutralizing agents that have passed mandatory certification or declaration of conformity in accordance with the procedure established by the legislation of the Russian Federation on technical regulation, in accordance with established standards. This requirement is defined in relation to employees engaged in work with harmful and (or) hazardous conditions work, as well as in work performed in special temperature conditions or associated with pollution.

The employer, at his own expense, is obliged, in accordance with established standards, to ensure the timely issuance of special clothing, special footwear and other personal protective equipment, as well as their storage, washing, drying, repair and replacement (Articles 212 and 221 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Such a violation threatens:

injuries of workers (accident at work);
administrative liability for violation of labor legislation;
litigation with employees.

Such incidents most often occur in industrial enterprises, when working in boiler rooms, production workshops of organizations and in the open air.

Example 6

Collapse Show

When inspecting health care facilities, the GIT found that the polyclinic, oncology dispensary, maternity hospital and other health care institutions did not properly record the issuance of overalls and personal protective equipment. This posed a real threat to the life and health of workers. Thus, an electrician of one of the institutions did not use personal protective equipment when dismantling an electrical device and was fatally struck electric shock. The accident was recognized as work-related.

Obviously, the worker example did not use personal protective equipment due to their absence.

Example 7

Collapse Show

For the committed violations of labor legislation in the form of failure to provide employees with overalls, flushing and neutralizing agents, the head of the enterprise was brought to administrative responsibility in the form of a fine of 5,000 rubles.

4. Allowing employees to work without a mandatory medical examination

The obligation of the employer not to allow employees to perform their labor duties without passing mandatory medical examinations(examinations), mandatory psychiatric examinations, as well as in the case of medical contraindications, is fixed, like the previous requirements, in the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (Articles 212 and 213).

Violations in such situations threaten:

injuries to employees or even death (accident at work) resulting from a sudden deterioration in the health of an employee during the performance of work duties;
administrative liability for violation of labor laws.

It will not be possible to single out the most persistent violators here, since employers, regardless of their areas of activity, often forget about such a requirement of the law.

Example 8

Collapse Show

The commission of the regional labor inspectorate accused the employer of the death of the driver, who allowed him to work without undergoing a mandatory medical examination. Despite the fact that the death certificate of the employee indicated that the death was due to a general illness, the commission considered this an accident at work. The employer was brought to administrative responsibility.

5. Failure to carry out certification of workplaces

Certification is carried out in order to assess working conditions in the workplace and identify harmful and (or) dangerous production factors. Based on the results of certification, the sanitary and medical provision of employees can be changed, labor restrictions are reasonably established for certain categories employees, harmful factors of workplaces are identified and, accordingly, employees engaged in heavy work, work with harmful and (or) dangerous and other special working conditions, are provided with benefits provided for by the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (reduced working hours, annual additional paid leave, increased wages, etc.). In addition, by the results of attestation of workplaces, the employer will be able to confirm the compliance of the organization of work on labor protection with state regulatory requirements for labor protection.

All workplaces of the employer are subject to certification, with the exception of workplaces where employees are employed exclusively on personal computers and / or operate desktop-type copiers for the needs of the organization itself, other office organizational equipment, as well as household appliances, not used in the technological process of production (Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 2011 No. 342n “On Approval of the Procedure for Certification of Workplaces for Working Conditions”).

Violations of employers threaten:

order of the supervisory authority;
administrative responsibility when establishing a violation by the state labor inspector or the prosecutor's office;
a lawsuit initiated by the supervisory authority.

Example 9

Collapse Show

The prosecutor's office checks not only industrial production, but also, for example, ships. Thus, the Magadan Transport Prosecutor conducted an audit of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on labor protection at a maritime transport enterprise. During the audit, it was found that the employer did not carry out certification of jobs on the fishing vessel. In order to eliminate violations of the rights of workers, the prosecutor's office filed a lawsuit with a demand to oblige the employer to conduct attestation of workplaces on the ship. The requirements of the public prosecutor were satisfied by the enterprise on a voluntary basis.

Note

Collapse Show

According to the press service Federal Service on Labor and Employment, on September 1, 2013, the first five-year stage of certification of workplaces in terms of working conditions was completed. Most of the companies did not pass it. So, for 3.5 years (from September 2008 to January 2012) only 0.7% of organizations were certified.

The results of the attestation carried out at the enterprises showed that the quality of jobs is very low: 61.1% of jobs can be classified as harmful or dangerous. And in some regions, the indicators are much worse than the national average. For example, in the Republic of Mari El, 79.3% of certified jobs fall into this category, in the Ivanovo region - 80%, in the Ulyanovsk region - 83.9%.

6. Failure to comply with the requirements for the investigation of accidents

In most cases, the employer commits this violation due to banal ignorance of the procedure that he must take in the event of an accident at work. Quite often, the mistake lies in the violation of the deadlines for notifying the bodies specified in Art. 228.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation (state labor inspectorate, prosecutor's office, etc.). The term is only a day from the moment of the accident.

It is often a mistake to notify not all the bodies that the employer is obliged to notify, or not to include a representative of one or more of the bodies listed in Art. 229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Meanwhile, the state labor inspectorate may regard such a violation of the requirement to report an accident and investigate it as a concealment of an accident by the employer.

Recall that the relevant provisions are established by Art. 212, 228-229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation. Violation of these requirements threatens the administrative responsibility of the employer and the criminal liability of direct violators.

Example 10

Collapse Show

In the course of the audit conducted by the State Labor Inspectorate, it was established that on 06/07/2013, a group accident at work with repairmen occurred at the LLC. In violation of Art. 228, 228.1 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, clause 5 of the Regulations on the peculiarities of the investigation of accidents at work in certain industries and organizations, approved by the Decree of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated October 24, 2002 No. 73, the legal entity did not inform labor inspection about a group accident at work during the day. The management of the enterprise did not save the situation as it was at the time of the accident until the beginning of the investigation of the accident, did not record the current situation, did not draw up diagrams, did not take photographs or videotapes. In addition, in violation of Art. 229 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation to investigate the accident, the employer did not issue an order to establish a commission to investigate the accident. The employer was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 1 of Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the fine amounted to 40,000 rubles.

7. Lack of labor protection service, regulatory framework and training in labor protection

The obligation to create a labor protection service or introduce the position of a specialist is assigned only to the employer, the number of employees of which exceeds 50 people. All employees, including heads of organizations, as well as employers - individual entrepreneurs are required to undergo labor protection training and testing knowledge of labor protection requirements (Articles 212, 217, 225 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Such violations threaten the employer with administrative liability. The perpetrators are mostly small businesses.

Example 11

Collapse Show

Near GIT checks municipal institutions Healthcare revealed that the majority of chief physicians and heads of major departments do not receive training in labor protection. In violation of Art. 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, employers in the Ministry of Health did not have instructions on labor protection for employees. In violation of Art. 217 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in a specialized children's home there was no labor protection specialist. During the period of inspections, the heads of all 16 inspected healthcare institutions were brought to administrative responsibility, on which fines were imposed for total amount 38,000 rubles.

Summing up, we note that errors in the field of organizing labor protection are numerous and diverse, and the sanctions for violating the requirements of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in the field of labor protection are quite severe.

Violations of labor protection requirements are detected by regulatory authorities both during unscheduled inspections (when such an inspection comes as a surprise to the employer) and during scheduled inspections (when the employer has the opportunity to “prepare”).

Violations of labor protection requirements entail not only the administrative responsibility of the employer and special attention of the supervisory authority, but, most importantly, the risk of injury and even death of employees. The share of accidents at work due to violations in the field of labor protection is a large part of the total number of such cases.

As the practice of inspections shows, cases of single violations in the field of labor protection among employers are rare. As a rule, during the inspection, the controlling body reveals a whole “bouquet” of such violations.

Example 12

Collapse Show

Scheduled check The prosecutor's office of the administration of Makhachkala revealed a number of violations of labor and labor protection legislation.

Option 1: employer hazardous work did not drive, but found guilty of violating labor protection requirements

Example: another building is under construction next to the employer's building. A worker, passing by a construction site during working hours, was injured. The cause of the accident was a violation of the safety requirements of officials construction organization. However, the employer was also found guilty of violating labor protection requirements.

What was the breach: the employer was found guilty of violating labor protection requirements, as he did not instruct and inform workers in a timely manner about the risk of health damage when driving near the construction site of a third-party organization.

The employer has a risk of paying compensations established by Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as compensation for moral damage to an employee. In addition, the employer may be held administratively liable under Art. 5.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Rationale for qualification: Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation imposes obligations on the employer to ensure labor protection at the enterprise, including ensuring:

safety of employees during the operation of buildings, structures, equipment, implementation technological processes, as well as tools, raw materials and materials used in the production;
training in safe methods and techniques for performing work and providing first aid to victims at work, conducting labor protection briefings, on-the-job training and testing knowledge of labor protection requirements;
informing employees about the conditions and labor protection at the workplace, about the risk of damage to health, guarantees provided to them, compensation due to them and personal protective equipment.

In the situation described in the example, we are talking about an accident at work. It is subject to investigation, since the employee was injured “during working hours on the territory of the employer or in another place of work, including during established breaks, as well as during the time necessary to put in order the tools of production and clothing, perform other actions provided for by the internal labor regulations before the start and after the end of work. (Article 227 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

In accordance with Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation in case of damage to health or in the event of death of an employee due to an accident at work or occupational disease the employee (his family) shall be reimbursed for his lost earnings (income), as well as additional expenses related to health damage for medical, social and professional rehabilitation or corresponding expenses in connection with the death of the employee. The amount and procedure for payments related to damage to health are regulated federal law dated July 24, 1998 No. 125-FZ “On Compulsory Social Insurance against Industrial Accidents and Occupational Diseases”. In addition, the employer may have an obligation to compensate the employee for non-pecuniary damage.

According to the provisions of Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as damage caused to property legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm. The same norm provides that by law the obligation to compensate for harm may be assigned to a person who is not the tortfeasor. The same article stipulates that the person who caused harm is exempted from compensation for harm if he proves that the harm was caused through no fault of his. However, the law may provide for compensation for harm even in the absence of fault of the tortfeasor.

Thus, when an employee is injured at work as a result of an accident, in addition to benefits for social insurance, other compensation payments, the employee will be able to claim compensation for moral damage both from the tortfeasor (outside organization conducting construction) and from the employer guilty of violating the requirements of Art. 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

The court in this situation is inclined to recognize the guilt of the employer in violation of the requirements of Art. 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, if the violation consists in the employer not instructing his employees, not warning them about the danger of being near the construction site. Also, the court is inclined to recover compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of the employee from both the tortfeasor and the employer (see the appeal ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated February 17, 2014 in case No. 33-424 / 2014).

Option 2: the employer is not able to see the movements of an experienced worker, but is found guilty

Example: despite the fact that the employee was trained, familiarized with the requirements of labor protection, he moved around the territory of the enterprise inaccurately: he slipped, stumbled, fell and as a result of which he repeatedly received injuries of varying severity, the State Labor Inspector during the investigation of accidents with the employee determined that the employer is to blame for this.

What was the breach: the employer was found guilty of not ensuring a satisfactory condition of the territory of the enterprise (apparently - the smoothness of the coating (author's note), the failure to develop safe schemes for moving around the territory.

Consequences for the employer (risks): the employer will face the risk of paying compensations established by Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as compensation for moral damage to an employee.

Rationale for qualification: if the cause of accidents is recognized as unsatisfactory maintenance of the territory and shortcomings in the organization of workplaces, the employer’s inaction to develop measures that exclude the impact on the employee of dangerous and harmful production factors when moving on the territory of the enterprise, and schemes for moving workers across the territory of the enterprise (including determining the places of passage through the facility, movement and stopping of transport), this can be qualified as a violation of the requirements of Art. 220 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Substantiation of consequences (risks): compensation for lost earnings (income), as well as additional costs associated with damage to health for medical, social and professional rehabilitation are provided for in Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation.

Confirmation judicial practice: the court in this case considers legitimate claims employee, in addition to those received in accordance with Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation of payments, and in terms of the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage (appellate ruling of the Lipetsk Regional Court dated February 17, 2014 in case No. 33-445 / 2014).

The court recognizes these requirements as lawful even if it establishes the fact of proper instruction by the employer of the employee, taking into account the experience and duration of work this employee at the same jobs and at the same workplace, and with his own negligence, which served as one of the causes of accidents with him at work.

Violation of labor protection requirements by an employee

sometimes hand employment contract It is surprising that minor violations on the part of an employee are qualified by the court as violations of labor protection requirements that can serve as a legitimate basis for punishment and, at times, dismissal. Still, such cases are not uncommon, and they are also worth knowing about. To the employee - in order to eliminate the risk of being involved in disciplinary responsibility for seemingly minor shortcomings, which at first glance cannot be called a violation. And the employer - in order to assess their own capabilities and the legitimacy of exposing employees to strict requirements regarding labor protection, as well as punishment for their violation. For the most part, cases of such qualification are typical for enterprises with increased fire and explosion hazards, for example, for oil refinery enterprises.

Example: Example: an employee smoked on the territory of the employer, for which he was justly punished.

What was the breach: the employer allows smoking at his enterprise in strictly designated areas. The employee was found guilty of violating labor protection requirements, as he smoked in an unspecified place, which has an increased fire and explosion hazard.

Consequences for the employer (risks): the employer has a risk of paying compensations established by Art. 183 and 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage to an employee in the event of an accident at work, which occurred partly due to smoking in an unspecified place.

Rationale for qualification: employee in accordance with Art. 214 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is obliged to comply with labor protection requirements, including numerous internal instructions operating on the territory of the employer. List and description of fire hazardous places at the enterprise, as well as requirements fire safety may be established by special departmental acts, for example, the Rules safe operation and labor protection for oil refineries dated April 1, 2001, approved by order of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2000 No. 162.

Substantiation of consequences (risks): for committing a disciplinary offense, that is, non-performance or improper performance by an employee due to his fault of the labor duties assigned to him, the employer has the right to apply disciplinary sanctions in the form of a remark, reprimand or dismissal on appropriate grounds (Article 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation). In case of damage to health or in case of death of an employee due to an accident at work or an occupational disease, the employee (his family) shall be compensated for his lost earnings (income), as well as additional expenses related to damage to health for medical, social and professional rehabilitation or appropriate expenses in connection with death of an employee (part 1 of article 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Judicial confirmation: the court in this case considers smoking in a place not designated for this as a violation of not only discipline, but also the requirements of labor protection. As a result, the court recognizes as lawful the punishment of an employee who violated labor protection requirements, in particular, who smoked in a fire hazardous place at the enterprise (decision of the Leninsky District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur Khabarovsk Territory from 04.08.2011).

Example: Example: an employee of an explosive production, instead of a work T-shirt, put on an ordinary one, for which he was rightfully punished by the employer.

What was the breach: the employee was found guilty of violating labor protection requirements, as he did not fully put on the kit working clothes given to him by his employer.

Consequences for the employee (risks): the employee risks being brought to disciplinary responsibility, including dismissal.

Consequences for the employer (risks): the employer has a risk of an accident at work, as a result of which the employee will have to pay compensation, established by Art. 183-184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.

It should be remembered that if during the investigation of an accident with the insured it is established that his gross negligence contributed to the occurrence or increase of harm caused to his health, then, taking into account the conclusion of the elected body of the primary trade union organization or another body authorized by employees, the commission establishes the degree of guilt of the insured in percentage (h 8 article 229.2 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation).

Rationale for qualification: employee in accordance with Art. 214 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is obliged to comply with the requirements of labor protection. Wearing non-certified clothing that does not meet labor protection requirements at the workplace is a serious violation. An example of qualification: in the event of an accident, by virtue of its functionality, an employee can be involved in its liquidation. If at this moment he is wearing clothes that do not meet safety requirements (capable of accumulating static electricity), then due to the specifics of production (gas explosion hazard), the accident will not be eliminated, more serious consequences may occur. The T-shirt, which is workwear and is issued to employees, must be 100% cotton and must be certified.

By his actions, the employee, having changed, it would seem, T-shirts of the same quality, violated the labor protection requirements established by regulations at the federal and departmental levels, and therefore the application of punishment to him for being at work not in overalls is lawful. If the employee is provided by the employer with overalls, then, completely or partially without putting them on, the employee deliberately violates safety regulations, which can contribute to accidents at the enterprise.

According to departmental rules and regulations (for example, the Rules for Safe Operation and Labor Protection for Oil Refineries dated April 1, 2001, put into effect by order of the Ministry of Energy of the Russian Federation dated December 27, 2000 No. 162), as well as internal local acts it is forbidden for a particular employer to enter objects with explosive zones in shoes with iron heels or nails, as well as in clothes that can accumulate static electricity; service personnel during work must use the overalls issued to them, special footwear and other personal protective equipment (PPE). Thus, the plaintiff's presence at the workplace in non-certified clothing that does not meet labor protection requirements is also a violation of labor protection requirements established by regulatory enactments.

Substantiation of consequences (risks): in accordance with Art. 192 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation for committing a disciplinary offense, that is, non-performance or improper performance by an employee through his fault of the labor duties assigned to him, the employer has the right to apply disciplinary sanctions. The application of a commensurate punishment to an employee for being at work in non-certified overalls is lawful.

According to Art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, as a result of an accident at work or an occupational disease, the employer has an obligation to compensate the employee (his family) for his lost earnings, as well as additional costs associated with damage to health for medical, social and professional rehabilitation or corresponding costs in connection with the death of the employee.

Judicial confirmation: the court in this case considers it lawful to punish an employee who violated the requirements of labor protection, being at work not in a T-shirt issued by the employer, which is part of certified overalls, but in an ordinary T-shirt (decision of the Leninsky District Court of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Khabarovsk Territory of 08/04/2011 , by which the court found it legal and justified to reprimand an employee for being at the workplace in an uncertified T-shirt).

Having considered the presented examples of court decisions with an unusual qualification of actions / inaction of the parties to an employment contract as a violation of labor protection requirements, we can draw the following conclusions:

Violations of labor protection are not only typical cases set forth in regulations, but also situations that, although not fixed in law, logically follow from established legislative requirements, as well as the norms of local acts of the employer.
Even for minor sins, which the court, nevertheless, qualifies as a violation of labor protection requirements, the employee can be punished. And in this case, the court recognizes the punishment as lawful and justified, unless, of course, it establishes violations in the procedure for bringing the employee to disciplinary liability.
An employer may be found guilty of violating labor protection requirements even in the absence of harmful factors affecting the employee. After all, the absence of instruction, and even failure to warn of the danger (non-fixation of this instruction) of obvious factors, is recognized as a violation.
Thus, practice shows that the employer should not "relax", considering himself to have fulfilled all the established labor protection requirements. Sometimes unfortunate accidents can lead to the identification of completely non-obvious violations. Of course, this does not mean propaganda of the logic of nihilism: "Ah, anyway, in some way I will be recognized as a violator of labor protection requirements and held accountable for this." The article provides a selection of non-standard qualifications of unusual situations that became known only due to the emergence of a litigation. In other cases, it is not at all necessary that negative conclusions of the court or the state labor inspector about the violation by the employer of labor protection requirements will follow. On the contrary, knowing the legitimacy of qualifying minor violations in the behavior of an employee as a violation of labor protection requirements, the employer will receive additional leverage in the future to influence the discipline of employees who consider it impossible and unlawful to punish them for such minor (as described in the examples) misconduct.

1 Such consequences are possible in the event that a direct causal relationship between the employee's smoking in an unspecified place and the accident at work as a result of a fire that occurred to him, as well as the gross negligence of the employee himself, could not be established.

It is considered the most important component of the safety management system in any enterprise. This event is mandatory for any production.

According to Article 212 of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation, each employer is obliged to ensure that inspections of the state of working conditions at workplaces in their company are carried out. The overall reputation of the organization and the overall satisfaction of the participants in the labor process with their work depend on how competently control is carried out in production, how effective the measures for correcting existing shortcomings are.

What should be the control of labor protection in organizations?

Effective. Checking the state of labor protection should be carried out not for show, but to identify and eliminate existing shortcomings.
Objective. Labor protection control should be carried out by qualified specialists. All facts and phenomena in the company must be checked so that the result is given Objective assessment the existing labor protection system.
Systematic. To maintain the proper state of the labor protection system in the organization, regular verification of compliance with all rules is required.
Timely. Checking the state of labor protection at the enterprise should be carried out when there is time and the opportunity to correct all the shortcomings. It is important to understand that the health, safety and life of workers depends on the quality of the organization of control in production.

Types of control

The control of labor protection at the enterprise can be divided into the following types:

Technical. The objects of verification in this case are the objects of labor. Namely, manufactured goods, company documentation, etc.
Social. The activities of the employees of the enterprise are subjected to verification.

Production control, in turn, can be divided into other 2 groups:

Departmental. It is carried out at a particular enterprise by a higher organization. This may be labor protection control, which is carried out systematically, an inspection of working conditions at the request of employees of a subordinate organization, or control by the state. Compliance with all state regulations at the enterprise is monitored by such a body as the Federal Labor Inspectorate.
Public. The initiators of inspections of the state of labor protection are trade unions, which act in the interests of production workers. These organizations, according to Article 370 Labor Code RF, monitor the fulfillment by the employer of the conditions reflected in the employment contracts.

There are 3 forms of conducting inspections of the state of labor protection in an organization:

Constant control. It provides for a daily check by the employee of the organization of the state of labor protection. First of all, he checks the serviceability of equipment, the literacy of the use of protective fences and installations in hazardous industries, the condition of overalls, the cleanliness of the workplace, and the availability of fire extinguishing equipment.
operational control. Periodic check the state of labor protection, which is carried out by the heads of departments of the enterprise together with members of trade unions or labor collectives. These authorized persons check the correctness of the production control measures, the compliance of the work performed current instructions, safety of equipment and tools, compliance with life safety rules when working with explosive and flammable materials, sanitary condition of all premises of the enterprise.
Selective control. An inspection at the enterprise is carried out once a month (or more often) by a special commission, which includes an engineer for labor protection and a representative of a higher organization. In this case, the availability and proper use of protective equipment by employees, compliance with all laws and regulations of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation by employers, the implementation of all measures that control the safety of workers, the implementation of plans to improve working conditions, certification of workplaces, the effectiveness of training courses for employees, sanitary and hygienic condition of premises and overalls, etc.

Methodology for checking the state of labor protection

One of the most effective forms of checking the state of labor protection at enterprises is a three-stage control.

1 step. The check is carried out by the head of this type of work (foreman, foreman, head of the site) daily or every shift at the beginning of the working day, and in some cases throughout the entire shift.

The condition of workplaces, the serviceability of technical equipment, ventilation, lighting, the condition of the premises, the availability of fire extinguishing equipment and other safety equipment are checked. If any shortcomings are identified, measures are taken to eliminate them. If it is not possible to resolve all the problems on their own, the head of the department reports the existing problems to a higher manager and asks for appropriate measures to be taken.

2 step. The inspection is carried out by the head of the unit (head of the workshop, senior foreman, engineer) at least 1-2 times a month with the participation of authorized persons for labor protection. During the check, it is revealed whether the corrective actions that were found during the “first stage” control are being carried out. It also checks the serviceability of equipment, vehicles, detects the presence of accidents and checks the work to prevent them.

3 step. The audit is carried out at least once a quarter by a special commission, which includes the head of the enterprise and representatives of higher organizations. Also, deputy directors can take part in this event, Chief Engineer, trade union representatives, technologists and other persons responsible for labor protection. The “third stage” check concerns all production departments of the enterprise. The commission checks the implementation of the measures outlined during the control of levels 1 and 2, compliance with all laws of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation and other standards, the condition of buildings and premises in which people work, plans to improve working conditions, etc.

The result of checking the state of labor protection

At the end of the control measures at the enterprise, all comments are entered in the "Inspection Log" and a special act is drawn up. It indicates the name of the institution, members of the inspection commission, all identified violations (if any). Then this act with the results of the check is transferred to the head of the organization.

The results are discussed within a week at a meeting with the director of the enterprise with the participation of all heads of departments, as well as representatives of trade unions. Here, all identified shortcomings and violations are analyzed, methods and deadlines for correcting these errors are outlined, and persons responsible for these activities are appointed. After all errors have been eliminated, the data of the heads of departments are entered into the "Inspection Log", who, when carrying out the following measures to control labor protection, are appointed responsible for correcting deficiencies in production.

30.07.2018

In the process labor activity, cases of occurrence of various incidents, emergencies, causing harm to the health of workers and equipment are not uncommon.

Such cases often occur due to violation of labor protection and production safety standards.

Federal legislation, along with local regulations, provides for a list of penalties and safety rules at work, both in relation to employees and the employer.

List of major violations of safety regulations at work

List of main violations of legislation in this area contained in labor law, as well as recommendations and other regulatory legal acts of ministries and departments according to the profile of the organization's activities.

In some cases, violations may be specific, given the scope of the enterprise.

Examples of major violations of occupational safety requirements and standards include:

There are also specific violations, allowed by both parties of labor activity - when working at height, the employer does not provide employees with safety equipment; when working with flammable substances, there are no fire extinguishers.

These violations are of a special nature, as they are inherent in organizations operating in certain areas of production.

Rough

The legislator also identifies certain types of violations, both on the part of the employee and the employer, which are classified as gross:

Caused the death of a person

If the violation of labor protection standards and safety rules resulted in the death of an employee, the management of the organization should act within certain stages established by labor legislation:

First of all, it is necessary to call the medical service to provide assistance or establish the fact of fixing the death of an employee.
After that, you should notify the relatives or legal representatives of the employee about the fact of death at work, while calling the police to record the circumstances and causes of death.
You should also create special commission on the investigation of an accident at work by the employees of the enterprise by issuing an appropriate order.
Carrying out verification activities by the labor inspectorate and law enforcement agencies.
Issuance of the conclusion of the commission for the investigation of the accident and the police on the circumstances of the incident and the designation of those responsible for the incident.

Sample letter of punishment

Registration of an order on punishment for violation of labor protection rules should be carried out only based on labor law and comply with OT regulations.

Also such a document must comply with the rules and standards of GOST on document management and the rules for maintaining the documentation of the enterprise itself.

The document must indicate:

name of company;
the basis for punishment and confirmation of the guilt of the employee;
indication of the personal data of the employee and indication of his position;
labor laws that the employee has violated.

Useful video

About criminal liability for violation of labor protection requirements, described in detail in this video.