That’s what a disheartened director told me when I was carrying out a compliance audit.
This single occupational risk assessment document, rather enigmatically called a DUERP (Document Unique d’Evaluation des Risques Professionnels) in French is often at the end of the “To Do” list of legal formalities. Good news! The health insurance service has put a well-constructed interactive tool on line to enable the employer to fill out the single risk assessment document easily and free of charge (https://www.ameli.fr/entreprise/votre-entreprise/outils-gestion-prevention-risques-professionnels/outil-evaluation-des-risques). This is the ideal opportunity to finally be in compliance when the administrative noose is tightening around the company.
So what exactly is the DUERP?
First of all, the DUERP concerns all companies, from the moment the first employee is hired. Requirements are reduced for the smallest companies, but the aim is the same: target and prevent risks.
The first step therefore consists in mapping out the risks (falls, lumbago, road risks, electrocution, fire, addictions, burnout, harassment, etc.) generated by the company’s business activity in relation to its jobs and geographic sectors. Working in an office behind a computer screen does not carry the same risks as being in a shop in contact with customers or having a cup of coffee in the relaxation area.
Each risk must be calibrated according to its frequency, significance and existing measures of prevention.
The second step consists in determining the actions to be set up in order to remove or reduce the risks by duly assigning a manager, schedule and budget, and by anticipating a monitoring procedure.
Measuring risks enables the most serious risks to be tackled as a priority.
All this is recorded in a “single” document, the DUERP.
A false sense of security
It may come as no surprise that companies where office work predominates do not see the interest of this threefold task (mapping / prevention / logging). After all, what can go wrong, apart from tripping over an extension lead?
This sense of security can be deceptive.
First of all, because risks have a greater presence than you might think.
The fight against so-called “psychosocial” risks is increasing on an unprecedented scale. There are no longer any dismissals contested before the industrial tribunal without the employee also claiming harassment or discrimination. And no business is spared from this type of risk.
Covid demonstrated that the epidemiological risk clearly figures among the “universal” professionals risks and that the consequences can be serious.
Remote working is still a source of risk despite its seemingly positive effect on private life/professional life balance. A manager can become exhausted supervising his teams through a screen; the distance and associated detachment can end up by taking its mental toll.
Physical risks can also nestle away in the most trivial actions. For example, climbing onto an office chair to adjust a blind can provoke a violent fall, leading to the employee being immobilised for several months and then, when a return to work is finally possible, certain onerous adjustments have to be made for the employee, who may even face termination of their contract for professional incapacity.
Prohibitive costs in the event of an accident
In a small company, the costs of organising and financing the consequences of such accidents, even though they may be rare, gives food for thought about taking preventive measures.
In the event of an accident or illness, the absence of the DUERP shores up the employer’s failings with regard to his obligation of safety, compelling him to remedy the prejudice suffered within the scope of litigation brought before the industrial tribunal.
With regard to health insurance, it is no longer rare for employee burnout to be recognized as a work-related illness, which in itself generates costs: double the legal severance pay and the payment of compensation in lieu of notice (as the notice period could not be worked) if the occupational doctor finds that the employee is incapable of working and their employment contract must, therefore, be terminated. The absence of the DUERP will, moreover, be part of the elements taken into account when appraising the employer’s liability: the extra allowances paid by the CPAM to the victim will be re-invoiced to the company, at fault for not having taken the “primary” measures of prevention, among which is the DUERP.
Increasingly onerous legal texts
During the health crisis, employers were already strongly encouraged by the government to make use of this tool in fighting against the pandemic. Now, the lawmakers have made it a flagship tool for risk prevention in companies, regardless of how many people are on the payroll (Act n° 2021-1018 of 2 August 2021, to strengthen health safety in the workplace). Henceforth, the economic and social committee (CSE) is consulted in the DUERP and its updates (at a minimum of once a year in companies with at least 11 employees). Preventive actions must be “presented” to the committee. Different versions of the DUERP must be transmitted to the Occupational Health Department and must be archived for 40 years. Soon (in 2023 for companies with 150 or more employees, and in 2024 for the others), each version must be filed electronically on a digital portal…
It will, therefore, become increasingly difficult to slip through the net.