Procurement, those who compensate in case of accident at work: the 4th question | The referendum explained

The fourth referendum question (Here the referendum question as will be presented to the polls) intervenes in the field of health and safety at work and concerns the so -called Consolidated Text of 2008. The CGIL, which promoted it, rIcorda that about 500 thousand reports of accidents at work in one year and a thousand dead are: This means that in Italy three workers or workers die at work every day. In the sight, according to the major union of the country, there would be contracts and the subcontracts (Here the guide of the Ministry of the Interior to the other referendum questions).

What is asked

We ask to change the current rules, which prevent the contracts in the event of an accident to extend the responsibility to the contracting company: « We change the laws that favor the use of contractors without financial solidity, often not in compliance with the accident prevention rules. Abbogare the existing rules and extending the responsibility of the client entrepreneur means guaranteeing greater safety at work « , claims the CGIL.

The elimination of responsibility for the client in charge

The request for Popular referendum therefore aims to repeal art. 26, paragraph 4, second period of Legislative Decree n.81/2008limited to the words « The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to the damage consequence of the specific risks proper to the activity of contracting or subcontracting companies « . The aim is to eliminate the limitation of responsibility which, according to the legislation in force, exempts the client, the contractor and the subcontractor, From responding, not only directly (art. 26, 3rd paragraph), but even in via Solidale (art. 26, 4th paragraph) of the damage suffered by the victims of the work.

The deterrence towards the client

The will of those who promoted it is to guarantee the full and actual compensation for the damage of the victims (for the part not compensated by the social insurer inail or Ipsma). He therefore wants to promote the strengthening of workers’ safety and health, as even solidarity civil liability can fulfill a deterrence functionpushing those who have delegated to others their obligations on the subject – introducing them to the places of the company – not to be completely disinterested in work safety.

The uncontrolled appeal to contracts and precariousness

Several jurists share this more restrictive approach, others believe it is risky to repeal those words. What is certain is that the uncontrolled appeal and I would say frantic to contracts in Italy is one of the factors of greatest precariousness of work and greater harmful of accidents at work. When there are serious accidents at work, it is often discovered that in that working context there is a chain of subcontracting. The referendum tries to intervene in this phenomenon repealing that rule that excludes the client’s solidarity responsibility, that is, of those who originate the subcontracting chain and therefore create the situations of greater danger for work safety from the origin.

The reasons for the no

According to detractors to repeal this question, on the other hand, only affects the rule that excludes solidarity between the client and contractor when it comes to a contract conferred on a contractor who has specific professionalism. The repeal, in essence, would eliminate the differentiation between generic contracts and specific contracts. The fear is that this can generate greater legal uncertainty and push the clients to be more reticent in sinking contracts, fearing penalties or responsibilities in the event of accidents. The victory of the ‘yes’ in the referendum, according to this approach, could complicate the management of contracts, with greater pressure on the client who would also find himself responding for situations outside his control, but with a lesser involvement of the contractor who may not fully face his obligations on the subject of security.