Ural Aeronavigation Violates Labor Protection Law
9 July 2012 (09:14)
Sverdlovsk Region division of State Labor Inspectorate inspected Ural Aeronavigation, the subsidiary of Federal State Unitary Enterprise State ATM Corporation, for compliance with the labor protection requirements on June 4-29. As a result, twelve violations were revealed, the inspectorate reports.
For one, the company has no personal new format files to account for the means of individual protection for every employee, and no certificates of compliance are listed there. This contradicts paragraph 3 of the Inter-Branch Rules for Providing Workers with Special Clothing, Special Footwear, and Other Means of Individual Protection No. 290 dated June 1, 2009.
As for the accident which occurred at work on February 24, 2012 and involved an employee named N.L. Yakimova, no hazardous and health-threatening factors were listed in protocol N-1 (Section 7, a brief description of the scene of the accident).
Then, the subsidiary has no rules for the workers’ work and relaxation regime (the time the work starts and finishes, the time and the duration of the break); there is no protocol for summing up the total amount of time employees spend at work and no list for the jobs that need this sum-up.
The violations that were detected in the course of the inspection were reflected in the acts for checking the company for compliance with the Labor Code dated June 29, 2012. The official in charge had to face administrative liability in the form of a 2,000- ruble fine.
For one, the company has no personal new format files to account for the means of individual protection for every employee, and no certificates of compliance are listed there. This contradicts paragraph 3 of the Inter-Branch Rules for Providing Workers with Special Clothing, Special Footwear, and Other Means of Individual Protection No. 290 dated June 1, 2009.
As for the accident which occurred at work on February 24, 2012 and involved an employee named N.L. Yakimova, no hazardous and health-threatening factors were listed in protocol N-1 (Section 7, a brief description of the scene of the accident).
Then, the subsidiary has no rules for the workers’ work and relaxation regime (the time the work starts and finishes, the time and the duration of the break); there is no protocol for summing up the total amount of time employees spend at work and no list for the jobs that need this sum-up.
The violations that were detected in the course of the inspection were reflected in the acts for checking the company for compliance with the Labor Code dated June 29, 2012. The official in charge had to face administrative liability in the form of a 2,000- ruble fine.
 | Embed to Blog |  | Subscribe to Newsletter |  |