Navigation path

Search

Regulated profession

Back to homepage Back to previous screen
Norway

Bro-/traverskranfører (sertifikatkategori G4) (Norway)


  • Proportionality information

    1. Have you examined whether the requirements under your national legal system are
    directly or indirectly discriminatory on the basis of nationality or residence?
       

    We have examined the requirements, and have concluded that there are no elements of direct discrimination on the basis of nationality or residence.

    The requirement to have professional qualifications recognized is in practice applied to all EEA nationals with training from abroad, also Norwegian professionals, regardless of nationality or residence. In the regulation however, the requirement seems to only apply to professionals from other EEA States, which in practice is not the case, and the regulation is proposed changed to reflect this practice.

    In practice, the requirement to have qualifications recognized affects other EEA nationals more than Norwegians, since Norwegians are more lightly to have taken their training in Norway and so are not obliged to seek recognition.

    However, as shown below, the requirement is considered necessary to secure an adequate level of health and safety of the professionals and their colleagues in the construction sector.


    2. Which of the following overriding reasons relating to the general interest justifies the measure(s)?
         
    • Public security
    •    
    • Public health
    •    
    • Road safety

    3. What specific risks or benefits have you identified that your measure(s) is designed to, respectively, minimise or maximise?

       Please try to be specific in describing the nature of the risks/benefits you have identified
       Where you have selected more than one overriding reason relating to the general interest in question 2 please be sure to address each of these in your response. Wherever possible please include evidence.

       

    The incorrect use and operation of the work equipment regulated may result in accidents and serious injury or death. The construction sector, where the use of work equipment as regulated is typically used, has one of the highest incident rates, with 59 deaths in Norway from 2009 to 2014.


    4. How specifically do your measures operate to minimise the risk(s) or maximise the benefit(s) identified in question 3?

       When addressing this question please try to explain how the measures prevent the risks or guarantee the benefits.
       Where you have selected more than one overriding reason relating to the general interest in question 2 please be sure to address each of these in your response. Wherever possible please include evidence.

       

    It is assumed that proper training in the use of work equipment reduces the risk of accidents. The Labour Inspection Authority does not, however, at this point have the scientific data to confirm this assumption.


    5. In so far as you are able, please provide information that you have gathered regarding the concrete effects of the measure(s).

       For example, through impact assessments or information gathered during implementation or review of a measure. Member States who have recently undergone reforms may in particular be able to contribute helpfully to this field. Where you are able to provide cost-benefit analyses this would be particularly valuable.
       Information on whether the measures indeed successfully prevented risks from being realised (e.g. the number of sanctions imposed, a drop in transgressions since the measure was introduced or consequences from previous modifications of the regulation) would equally be helpful.
       Where you have selected more than one overriding reason relating to the general interest in question 2 please be sure to address each of these in your response. You may also wish to include evidence on consumer satisfaction or other measurements of the impact.

       

    There is at the moment no concrete evidence as to whether the requirement to have professional qualifications recognized has the desired effect of reducing the accidents caused by misuse of work equipment. The Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority have however made a report (See the report Kompass tema nr. 3 2015) on the fatal incident at work in Norway in the period of 2011-2014. 19 % of the deceased had foreign citizenship. Most of the incidents happened in construction industry, where 30 % of all fatalities had foreign citizenship.

    About the triggering causes, we find that human error was the triggering factor in 51 % of the incidents. Partly the human errors were made by someone (the deceased themselves or others) witch had a lack of expertise and training and not enough experience about the risks of the work, for example drivers of large machines running out or running into someone/something. This statistics supports the hypothesis that training in the use of work equipment is very important.


    6. Is the general interest objective you indicated in question 2 pursued in a consistent and systematic manner?.

       In approaching your response to this question please consider examples where you have addressed similar risks for comparable professions, not necessarily within the same sector. Is the approach you have adopted in this particular profession comparable or distinct from such similar cases and why?

       

    The regulated work equipment is preconsidered and categorized as high risk equipment. It is considered that for these types of equipment, the general training requirements are not sufficient.


    7. Please explain in how far the degree of complexity or the nature of the activities
    which are reserved justify that these activities can be exclusively performed by professionals possessing a specific professional qualification?

       For example: when the tasks are essentially of a straightforward nature (such as preparing and printing pay slips etc.), or involve essentially the execution of instructions, specific professional aptitudes should not be required.

       

    The regulated work equipment is characterized by the high risk of serious damage to the operator, surrounding people and environment with improper use.

    The list of regulated work equipment might not be consistent, other equipment might also have these characteristics. The scheme and its scope is under consideration by the Labour Inspection Authority.


    8. Where you have indicated several measures in place in the screening tab,
    have you reviewed the cumulative effect of all these measures on professional activities?

       If not, why not?
       If yes, please outline for us how you approached assessing this issue as well as the results and conclusions or any learning you drew from this. Where possible please include evidence.

       

    Not relevant.



    9. Have you considered the use of alternative mechanisms to achieve your objective(s)?
         
    • Reconsider the level of qualification requirements
    •    
    • Reduce the scope of reserved activities
    •    
    • Other, please specify

       Please briefly explain. Where you have selected more than one option, please be sure to address each of these in your response.

       

    The Labour Inspection Authority is in the process of evaluating the scheme of recognition of professional qualifications for the use of the regulated work equipment. This is part of a larger evaluation of the scheme of certification of the training organizations.

    This evaluation will look at the effect of the control of professional qualifications, the relation between the recognized qualifications and the correct use of the work equipment, and the effect of this on accidents. Based on this evaluation, several options is being considered,

    inter alia deregulation of the professions, another regulation of the work equipment in question, or develop the existing scheme with changes to the scope, including the scope of regulated professions.


    10. Conclusion

       Following your internal examination of this regulated profession, which of the following have you concluded?

    •    Maintain current system

       Explain where relevant:

       

    No additonal comments.


    11. Any other comments?
       

    No additonal comments.

Each country is responsible for updating information, on its regulated professions, competent authorities and statistics.
The Commission cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information. However, if errors are brought to its attention, the Commission undertakes to correct them, if deemed appropriate.

The Commission is in the process of updating some of the content on this website in the light of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. If the site contains content that does not yet reflect the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, it is unintentional and will be addressed.