1 What do French Health and Safety Committees talk about?

Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015
What do French Health and Safety Committees talk about?
a
a
Yann Poley , Johann Petit , Bernard Dugué
a
a
Equipe Ergonomie des Systèmes Complexes, Univ. Bordeaux, IMS, UMR 5218, 33400 Talence, FRANCE
1. Introduction
In French companies, the Health and Safety Committees called CHSCT create a unique opportunity to
debate about working condition related issues. However, the worker representatives have sometimes
difficulties to talk about the employees work and activity (Dugué, Petit & Pinatel, 2012; Gaillard & Terssac
(de), 2013; Granaux 2010; Terssac (de), Dufour & Bouvier, 2010; Verkindt, 2013). Starting from the
hypothesis that they seldom present the reality of work situations when dealing with these working condition
issues, our presentation will show how they actually address them. If they do not use the reality of work
situations, what arguments do they mobilize while addressing those issues?
To answer this question, our communication will rely on an analysis of 28 inspections conducted by four
different CHSCT of the same company. Starting from a quantitative analysis of these inspections, we will
then further our understanding by analysing one of them in more detail. It will allow us to understand the
current practices of the worker representatives and the difficulties mentioned earlier. 2. Method
We first analysed the different material at our disposal (our own observations of inspections and meetings;
the written accounts of those events made by the worker representatives) and listed the subjects identified
by the worker representatives. We found 318 different subjects. Then, to identify and classify the criteria
used by the worker representatives to define a specific subject, we applied to each subject the five square
diagram from Leplat and Cuny (1974), each square giving us a different criteria (task characteristics, workers
characteristics, activity at the work place, effects on the workers and results on the productivity). To further
our understanding, we conducted then a qualitative analysis of one of the inspection. We used the same
methodology as above and conducted also different interviews and email analysis.
3. Results
Our quantitative analysis showed us that the subjects are seldom defined by more than one criterion. 60 %
of them are describded through only one type of critiria and only 20 % mobilise 3 or more. Furthermore, if we
look at the type of critiria mobilised, we see that subjects are mostly defined by task characteristics (69 %);
only 20 % by the activity in the work place. This illustrates the way most worker representatives approach
working condition issues: “good” working conditions are mostly a question of applying standards and rules.
Therefore, they see the role of the CHSCT as to ensure that the workers and managers are applying them.
The qualitative analysis of an inspection showed us that the worker representatives filter the subjects
presented by the workers. We analysed the number of subjects listed during the inspection, in the written
report that followed and during the meeting after. During the inspection, 8 different subjects were found. The
written report listed 5 of them. During the meeting, only 4 were presented. Furthermore, our analysis brought
us to wonder about the place given to the workers in the construction of a diagnostic and a possible solution.
In this case, both aspects were conducted without them, outside using the workers as a source of
information. This is especially visible by the fact that none of the workers agreed to apply the propositions
made by the CHSCT, stating that they “didn’t want to be instrumentalized by the CHSCT”.
4. Discussion
As we can see, the subjects are mostly defined by task characteristics and worker representatives seldom
elaborate a diagnostic linking task characteristic, activity at the work place and effects on the worker.
Therefore, they do not analyse the situations with an activity based view. They address these situations with
standards to be applied to ensure good working conditions.
1 Proceedings 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne 9-14 August 2015
We also see a reduction in time of the number of subjects. As we have shown in a previous paper
(Poley, 2014), worker representatives have sometimes difficulties formalizing their observations and
interviews and the reduction in time could be explained by this aspect. The CHSCT also have multiple
subjects to deal with at the same time and it isn’t possible to treat them all with the same level of implication.
This brings the necessity to prioritize the subjects, to choose the “important ones”. Then, how, with whom
and with what information are they prioritized?
In conclusion, in order to be able to analyse work situations in their different aspects AND to use those
analysis in the CHSCT in a debate, the worker representatives need: (1) to be able to analyse differently the
situations and (2) to be able to formalize those analysis. As Daniellou and Martin (2008) explained, they
need “to acquire at the same time a skill to “do differently”, but they also need to be able to structure this new
1
way of doing, to put words on it and to construct the tools (intermediary objects) to aid decision making”
Finally, it brings the question of the worker representatives training. This last interrogation isn’t new in
ergonomics (as an example, see Laville & Teiger, 1991), it however brings us to question the place given to
those worker representatives during an ergonomic intervention, in order to “promote a developmental
2
dynamic during the intervention” (Falzon, 2013), making it a pedagogical act (Dugué, Petit & Daniellou,
2010).
Key words: employee consultative bodies, ergonomic analysis
References
Daniellou, F. & Martin, C. 2007. “Quand l’ergonome fait travailler les autres, est-ce de l’ergonomie?" In Les journées de
Bordeaux sur la pratique de l’ergonomie : Quand l’ergonome fait travailler les autres, est-ce de l’ergonomie?
Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 – IdC, collection Actes.
Dugué, B, Petit, J. & Daniellou, F. 2010. "L’intervention ergonomique comme acte pédagogique". In Pistes, Vol.12, n°3.
Dugué, B, Petit, J. & Pinatel, C. 2012." Les CHSCT, entre dispositifs et pratiques", ANACT.
Falzon, P. 2013. "Pour une ergonomie constructive". In Ergonomie constructive. Ed Falzon, P. Edition PUF, Paris.
Laville, A. & Teiger, C. 1991. "L'apprentissage de l'analyse ergonomique du travail, outil d'une formation pour l'action."
Travail et emploi, n° 47.
Leplat, J. & Cuny, X. 1974. "Les accidents du travail." PUF, Paris. Gaillard, I. & Terssac (de), G. 2013. "Risques psychosociaux et organisationnels : quel rôle du CHSCT?" In Organisation,
gestion productive et santé au travail. Eds Aballéa, F. and Mias, A. Toulouse, Octarès Editions. Coll. Le travail en
débats.
Granaux, S. 2010. "Les Comités d’Hygiène de Sécurité et des Conditions de Travail (CHSCT) dans les établissements
de fabrication de produits chimiques." Thèse de Doctorat Sociologie. Paris, EHESS.
Poley, Y. 2014. « Représenter le travail et les travailleurs." In Diversité des interventions, diversité des populations :
quels enjeux, quels défis pour l’ergonomie? Congrès national de l’Association Canadienne d’Ergonomie, Montréal.
Terssac (de), G., Dufour, S. & Bouvier, P. 2010. "Outils des représentants syndicaux au CHS de la fonction publique
territoriale : méthode d’analyse des malaises dans l’organisation et formation fondées sur la notion de Risques SocioOrganisationnels." CERTOP.
Verkindt, P.Y. 2013. "Les CHSCT au milieu du gué", Ministère du travail.
1
2
Translated by the authors.
Translated by the authors.
2