[ad_1]
There has been talk of school again, as it had not happened for years, due to the emergency of the coronavirus, putting it at the center of the debate. A debate that, however, runs the risk of being more object of political exploitation than constructive. Unfortunately, the importance of school is only remembered in emergency situations. For example, the state of security of buildings, when an earthquake occurs, surveillance conditions, when a tragedy occurs, the security conditions of school personnel, when an assault occurs.
It is clear that the emergence of the coronavirus has also become a pretext to start introducing mechanisms that lead to a new school. See the new desks, see digital teaching. But in all this we witness a mere increase in burdens, for all school personnel, and few honors and awards.
Long-standing problems include, for example, that of wages, and then, for example, this might be the right time to assess the risk allowance for school personnel. The economic resources are there given the number of billions that will soon arrive from Europe. These are proposals that have already been raised recently by more than a few realities and it is worth pausing for a full reasoning.
Compensation for risk
These are commonly recognized indemnities for certain types of personnel for whom there is what is defined as a significant presumption of risk. Essentially, it corresponds to those work actions that involve continuous and direct exposure to risks detrimental to the health and personal integrity of the worker, regardless of the category or professional profile to which they belong.
Biohazard
INAIL in your document Biological risk in the workplace. Technical information sheets. Milan: INAIL, 2011 states that “schools are counted among the so-called“ indoor environments ”(confined living and working environments). In them, educational activities are carried out in the classroom, in the gym, and / or in the laboratory, as well as administrative activities. By biological risk, special attention deserve institutes that have particular directions such as microbiological or agricultural. In fact, these schools usually carry out laboratory activities that require contact with microbiological cultures or exercises in the agricultural and livestock sector ”.
The sources of danger, according to INAIL, are given by:
- poor maintenance and hygiene of the building;
- inadequate ventilation of rooms and maintenance of equipment and systems (for example, air conditioning systems and water systems);
- furniture and curtains;
By the type of business carried outINAIL continues in its document, in promiscuous and densely busy environments, Biohazard in schools is also linked to the presence of those who study or work there. (teachers, students, operators, and school staff) and is primarily infectious in nature (bacteria and viruses). To this is added the risk of contracting parasites, such as pediculosis and scabies, and the risk of allergies (due to pollen, dust mites, mold, etc.). Sources of danger specific to some institutions (microbiological or agricultural) can be microbiological cultures, plant and animal substances or products, etc. The routes of transmission are usually airborne or by contact with contaminated surfaces and objects. “
Therefore, the biohazard at school clearly already existed before Covid 19.
The TU on safety at work
The main legislative references in force regarding the prevention and protection of biological risks in the workplace are regulated by Legislative Decree 81/2008. Article 267 defines what is understood by biological agent, microorganism and cell culture. But article 268 is the most interesting one dedicated to the classification of biological agents. So we read:
Biological agents are divided into the following four groups based on the risk of infection:
- Group 1 biological agent: agent that is unlikely to cause disease in humans;
- Group 2 biological agent: agent that can cause disease in humans and pose a risk to workers; it is unlikely to spread in the community; effective prophylactic or therapeutic measures are usually available;
- Group 3 biological agent: agent that can cause serious illness in humans and poses a serious risk to workers; the biological agent can be disseminated in the community, but effective prophylactic or therapeutic measures are usually available;
- Group 4 biological agent: a biological agent that can cause serious illness in humans and poses a serious risk to workers and may present a high risk of spread in the community; Effective prophylactic or therapeutic measures are usually not available.
In the event that the biological agent subject to classification cannot be unequivocally attributed to one of the two groups indicated above, it must be classified in the highest risk group of the two possibilities.
While it is Annex XLVI that regulates the list of biological agents of groups 2, 3 and 4, including eleven types of viruses. But specifying that “All viruses that have already been isolated in humans and that still do not appear in this annex must be considered as belonging to at least group two, unless it is shown that they cannot cause disease in humans.”
Therefore, it is undeniable that there is a biological risk for school personnel.
To recognize biohazard compensation, negotiation or legislative intervention is required
The Court of Audit Sicilia Sect. Jurisdiction, 04/16/2020, n. 157 noted that “the recognition as an accessory treatment of compensation for VDU in the complementary bargaining after 2012 contrasts with the principles of the national legal system and collective bargaining, since compensation for risk can only be awarded in the presence of these situations / performances identified in the context of complementary decentralized negotiation, which imply a specific, continuous and direct exposure to risks harmful to health and personal integrity. Generic risks linked to the typical contents of a specific professional profile are already remunerated with salary provided for in the national collective agreement ”.
While it’s also interesting to note what Cass said. civ. Ord. Work section, 06/07/2018, n. 14836 (RV 648998-01). Which indicated that compensation for risk (in this case for radiation) is automatic and to the greatest extent, together with the related provisions of biological license, health surveillance and periodic control visits, to the personnel of which there is a presumption absolute exposure to risk, inherent to the functions naturally linked to the position held; on the contrary, workers who do not belong to the sector in question and request the imputation, the burden of demonstrating exposure, neither occasional nor temporary, to a similar risk, based on the technical criteria dictated by current legislation.
Therefore, tolerance for biological risk, which is not a merely generic risk in the case at hand but a specific one, it would be convenient to recognize it to all school personnel, and be recognized, as it could be deduced at the level of reflection from these two phrases that Although issues from other labor sectors that are still relevant are discussed, it is necessary to intervene at the legislative and / or contractual level.
One could also reason more generally on the occupational risk allowance for school personnel, which is exposed not only to biological risk but also to aggression from what are now called users. In short, work in schools is at risk, there are dangers and it is fair to protect school personnel who, it never hurts to remember, have the most “indecent” salaries in Europe for their work, even with financial recognition. And authority also goes through economic recognition.
[ad_2]
