Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (Revised), 1934 (No. 42) - Argentina (Ratification: 1950)

1.  In its previous comments the Committee noted that for each risk-producing substance the left-hand column of the list of occupational diseases in Decree No. 658/96 gives a restrictive enumeration of the pathological symptoms resulting from the exposure to the substances. In reply, the Government indicates in its report that the restrictive nature of the list of pathological symptoms is of no import other than for the automatic incorporation of new pathologies, but that the law provides for an annual review whereby new infections recognized as having their origin in exposure to a risk-producing substance in the course of an occupational activity may be added to the list with the prior agreement of the Standing Advisory Committee (section 40 of Act No. 24.557). In these circumstances, the restriction is purely technical, since if the causal link between the risk-producing substance, the disease and exposure during work is proven, it is possible to request the Standing Advisory Committee to approve the incorporation of the disease in the list, thus recognizing that it is occupational in origin. While noting this information with interest, the Committee recalls that, by listing for each disease in the schedule the trades, industries and processes liable to cause the disease, the Convention aims to relieve workers in the trades and industries listed from the burden of proving that they have actually been exposed to the risk of the disease in question, which in some cases can be particularly difficult. Furthermore, the Convention is deliberately worded in general terms so as to cover all occupational diseases and all poisoning resulting from exposure to the substances listed in the schedule to the Convention when they affect workers engaged in the trades, industries and processes listed in the schedule. In view of the objectives pursued by the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will be able to reconsider this matter and that in its next report it will be in a position to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to change the current legislation so that the pathological symptoms corresponding to the diseases in the schedule to the Convention are non-restrictive. In the meantime, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on the working of the procedure for recognition of new occupational diseases by the Standing Advisory Committee, particularly as regards determining the causal link between the disease, the risk-producing substance and occupational exposure.

2.  With regard to certain items in the schedule, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points:

(a)  In its previous comments the Committee stressed the need to add to the item on anthrax a reference to the loading and unloading or transport of merchandise. The Government states that this reference covers the possibility of a worker coming into contact with organic remains contaminated by the anthrax bacillus and that this situation is provided for in the legislation by the final paragraph of the item on anthrax which mentions "workers who showed no symptom of the disease and, by exposure to the agent, develop certain of the clinical symptoms described". The Committee takes note of this information. It hopes that in the annual review of the list of occupational diseases it will be possible to add the loading, unloading or transport of merchandise in general to the activities likely to cause anthrax, in order to remove any ambiguity from the legislation. In this connection, the Committee recalls that the provisions of the Convention on this point aim to establish a presumption of the occupational origin of the disease in favour of workers called upon to handle products which are so diverse in origin that it would be difficult if not impossible for them to prove that the merchandise transported was in contact with infected animals or remains of animals.

(b)  In reply to the Committee’s previous comments on the item on silica, which omits silicosis with pulmonary tuberculosis, the Government indicates that tuberculosis is a complication of silicosis and the absence of this disease under the item in question does not mean that pneumoconiosis caused by silica, whether or not accompanied by tuberculosis, cannot be recognized as an occupational disease. The Committee notes this information. It considers that, to avoid all ambiguity and ensure that workers are protected in accordance with the Convention, it would be appropriate at the next annual review of the list of occupational diseases to complete the enumeration of the diseases under the item on silica by an express reference to silicosis with or without pulmonary tuberculosis, if necessary with a reservation that the silicosis must be a determining factor in the incapacity or death, as the Convention allows.

(c)  In its previous comments the Committee stressed that the requirement of exposure of at least ten years in regard to primary epitheliomatous cancer of the skin was particularly long in that skin cancers can appear after five years of exposure. The Government indicates in this connection in its report that in reconsidering this matter it would be particularly useful to know the medical basis for the Committee’s comments. The Committee recalls that, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), skin cancers usually take five to 50 years to develop, and may occur even after the cessation of the exposure. It refers in this connection to the publication Early detection of occupational diseases, WHO, Geneva, 1986, pages 194-197.