Georgian labour legislation addresses heavy, harmful and dangerous work (the Harmful Work) through specific regulatory frameworks designed to protect employees. The comprehensive list of Harmful Work categories, along with the criteria for evaluating such work, is established by Order No. 147/n (the Order). Importantly, this list is not exhaustive, meaning that work not explicitly enumerated may still qualify as Harmful Work if it meets the relevant assessment criteria.
Under the Order, the degree of harmful impact on work processes must be assessed based on multiple factors – not only physical conditions, but also indicators of work severity and intensity. Each indicator and its characteristic components are evaluated separately. A work position is classified as Harmful Work depending on how many of its components are assigned a harmful classification.
Working conditions are divided into four classes: Class I (Optimal) refers to conditions that pose no risk to employee health; Class II (Permissible) covers conditions within acceptable safety limits; Class III (Harmful) applies to conditions that may adversely affect employee health; and Class IV (Dangerous) encompasses conditions that pose significant health and safety risks.
To determine working conditions, five types of workload are evaluated (the Assessment Criteria). In the event of a dispute, courts will examine each of these Assessment criteria individually to determine whether a particular job falls within the scope of the Order:
1. Intellectual Workload
This criterion considers task complexity, information processing, distribution of functions, and the nature of work and individual responsibility. For example, creative work performed by scientists, designers, and medical professionals is classified as Class III, while work involving simple algorithmic tasks falls under Class I. Roles requiring complex coordination and information processing – such as vehicle drivers and air traffic controllers – are also typically classified as Class III due to the high degree of personal accountability involved.
2. Sensory Workload
This criterion evaluates the duration of concentrated attention, auditory and visual demands, and other sensory requirements of the position. Air traffic controllers, for instance, face the highest demands under this category due to the sustained attention their work requires.
3. Emotional Workload
The Emotional Workload criterion assesses the significance of potential errors, personal safety risk, and responsibility for the safety of others. Positions where mistakes carry greater consequences, where employees face risks to their own lives, or where they bear accountability for the safety of other persons are classified at higher intensity levels.
4. Monotonous Workload
This criterion examines repetitive task frequency, shift duration, and other factors related to routine work patterns.
5. Work Schedule
The Work Schedule considers the length of the working day, break frequency and duration, and other scheduling-related factors.
Judicial Interpretation: A Practical Example
The Supreme Court of Georgia (the Supreme Court) has examined whether the position of a locomotive driver employed at a railway workshop constituted heavy, harmful or dangerous work. The Court ultimately concluded that it did not.
In reaching this decision, the Supreme Court distinguished between objective and subjective assessment components. With respect to objective criteria – those measurable through specific tools and instruments – the Court found that the claimant’s position did not qualify as dangerous work. As for subjective components, such as indicators of work intensity and workload, the employee failed to discharge the applicable burden of proof. The Court further reasoned that, taking into account the monotonous nature of the work and its overall volume, as well as the fact that at least two employees were assigned to each shift, the position could not be classified as Harmful Work. Additionally, the Court held that the locomotive driver’s supplementary duties – obligations to be performed only under specific circumstances – could not serve as a basis for classifying the position as dangerous.
Key Considerations for Employers
Based on established court practice, employers should be mindful of the following principles:
Scope of harmful impact. The concept of “harmful impact” encompasses not only physical strain but also emotional stress affecting the employee’s nervous system. However, as the Supreme Court has emphasised, many positions involve certain elements of stress, which do not automatically place them within the Harmful Work category. The level of strain must reach a certain threshold of severity to warrant such classification.
Significance of error as an emotional workload component. One component of emotional workload assessment is the degree of responsibility for the outcomes of one’s work – referred to as the “significance of error.” This measures the extent to which an employee can influence the results of their labour. For certain professions, errors made during work performance may cause a technological process to halt or experience significant disruption, or may create life-threatening situations. Such positions are assessed at a relatively higher harm level (Class 3.2). Conversely, if an employee is responsible for the primary type of task but their errors only require additional effort from the collective team to correct, the emotional workload is considered comparatively lower (Class 3.1).
Burden of proof in litigation. In the event of a court dispute, the burden of proof rests with the employer to demonstrate that the degree of harmful impact established by the Order is not present. This may be accomplished, for example, through expert opinions and assessments.
Individual Assessment of Specific Work. In light of the foregoing, it is important to note that specific types of work not explicitly listed in the Order must be assessed on an individual basis. The degree of “harmful impact” – and consequently whether the work falls within the regulatory scope of the Order – should be determined by measuring and considering all of the criteria outlined above.
Statutory Restrictions on Harmful Work
Georgian legislation imposes the following restrictions on the Harmful Work:
- Prohibition on vulnerable categories. It is prohibited to enter into an employment contract for the performance of heavy, harmful or dangerous work with minors, pregnant women, women who have recently given birth, or breastfeeding women.
- Working time limitations. For employees engaged in heavy, harmful or dangerous work during night shifts, the maximum working time within 24 hours shall not exceed 8 hours. This rule does not apply in cases of shift work.
- Additional paid leave. Employees performing such work are entitled to additional paid leave of 10 calendar days per year.
- Mandatory health examinations. Employers are required to provide periodic medical examinations for employees engaged in harmful work, at the employer’s own expense.
Navigating the regulatory framework for the Harmful Work requires careful attention to the specific criteria established by the Order. Employers should conduct individualised assessments of their work positions, maintain proper documentation, and ensure compliance with all applicable restrictions – particularly those protecting vulnerable employee categories. Proactive compliance not only mitigates legal risk but also demonstrates a commitment to employee health and safety.