1.4 Organizations, Human Rights & Labour Practices in OH&S

1.4 Organizations, Human Rights & Labour Practices in OH&S

PECB explicitly examines the auditor's ability to explain the connection between organizations, human rights, and labour practices, and to define human rights principles and labour practice principles as stated in ISO 26000. This is not decorative context. It is the ethical justification for why an OH&S management system exists at all, and it appears in exam scenarios where an organization is technically compliant with a clause but has hollowed out the underlying right.

---

1. Why Occupational Health and Safety Is a Human Rights Issue

The right to safe and healthy working conditions is grounded in international instruments long predating ISO 45001:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 23 — everyone has the right to just and favourable conditions of work.
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), Article 7(b) — states recognize the right to "safe and healthy working conditions".
• ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) — originally four categories: freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; elimination of forced or compulsory labour; abolition of child labour; and elimination of discrimination in employment and occupation.

The 2022 amendment — a current fact auditors are expected to know

On 10 June 2022, at its 110th Session, the International Labour Conference amended the 1998 Declaration to add "a safe and healthy working environment" as the fifth fundamental principle and right at work. In the same resolution it designated two instruments as fundamental Conventions:

• ILO Convention No. 155 (1981) — Occupational Safety and Health Convention
• ILO Convention No. 187 (2006) — Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention

The practical consequence is significant: all ILO member states are now obliged, by virtue of membership alone and irrespective of ratification, to respect, promote and realize the principle of a safe and healthy working environment. For a lead auditor this reframes OH&S from a discretionary management concern into a fundamental right, and it strengthens the "other requirements" side of Clause 6.1.3 in jurisdictions where local statute lags behind.

---

2. ISO 26000:2010 — The Social Responsibility Framework

ISO 26000:2010, Guidance on social responsibility, is the standard PECB names directly. Two properties matter for the exam:

1. It defines seven core subjects of social responsibility.
2. It is guidance only — it contains no requirements, is not intended for certification, and cannot be audited for conformity.

The seven core subjects

The five labour practice issues

Within the labour practices core subject, ISO 26000 identifies five issues:

1. Employment and employment relationships
2. Conditions of work and social protection
3. Social dialogue
4. Health and safety at work
5. Human development and training in the workplace

Notice that health and safety at work is issue 4 of the labour practices core subject — the specific anchor point where ISO 26000 and ISO 45001 meet. ISO 26000 states the health and safety principle broadly: organizations should promote and maintain the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers, and prevent harm caused by working conditions.

Human rights principles in ISO 26000

The human rights core subject rests on principles including universality and inalienability (rights apply to all people and cannot be surrendered), indivisibility (civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights carry equal weight), interdependence, and non-discrimination. ISO 26000 also addresses complicity — an organization can bear responsibility for human rights harms committed by others where it enables, assists, or knowingly benefits from them. This is precisely the reasoning that makes contractor and supply-chain safety (Clause 8.1.4) an auditable obligation rather than someone else's problem.

---

3. The Audit Boundary: Guidance vs Certification Criteria

This is the trap most likely to appear on the exam.

An auditor who writes "Nonconformity against ISO 26000 clause 6.4.6" has made a category error and the finding is invalid. The correct move is to identify the ISO 45001 requirement the behaviour breaches, or the legal requirement captured under 6.1.3.

Where human rights become auditable evidence

ISO 45001 converts these principles into "shall" statements that generate objective evidence:

• Clause 5.4 — consultation and participation of workers, with an explicit obligation to remove or minimize obstacles and barriers to participation, and to protect workers from reprisal when they report incidents, hazards, risks and opportunities. Reprisal protection is a human rights principle expressed as an auditable control.
• Clause 5.4 — emphasis on non-managerial workers, ensuring the right is exercised by those most exposed rather than delegated upward.
• Clause 6.1.3 — determination of legal requirements and other requirements, which is where ratified ILO conventions and national OSH statutes enter the system.
• Clause 8.1.4 — procurement, contractors and outsourcing, addressing the complicity concern by extending OH&S obligations across the value chain.
• Clause 7.3 — awareness, including workers' awareness of their ability to remove themselves from work situations they consider present an imminent and serious danger — a right of refusal drawn directly from Convention No. 155.

Audit application: an organization whose worker consultation consists solely of a monthly bulletin issued to supervisors satisfies neither the human rights principle nor Clause 5.4. The finding is written against 5.4 — non-managerial workers were not consulted and barriers to participation were not removed — with the ISO 26000 and ILO context supplying the significance, not the criterion.