Frequently asked questions and answers about COVID-19 (03/16/2021)

In the workplace, the moment a worker has symptoms of COVID-19, is in close contact with a positive person, or is confirmed positive for COVID-19, they must notify the company, to inform the health surveillance area of ​​the prevention service of the situation, to begin activities to identify close contacts. The period to be considered will be from 2 days before the onset of symptoms.  If the positive has been diagnosed while being asymptomatic, the period to consider is from 2 days before the test that detected it.

In the workplace, case tracking is carried out by the health surveillance area of ​​the external prevention service.

If the result of said tracing does not determine that close contacts associated with that infected worker have occurred, no new preventive measures should be taken from those already implemented to date.  In the event that close contacts are determined, they must be removed from work and placed in quarantine for the 10 days required to confirm contagion. In the event that an outbreak situation occurs within the company (3 or more cases with active infection and epidemiological link), the health authority should analyze how to act in this regard, without ruling out the possibility of temporarily closing the activity.

In these cases of outbreak, the prevention service must carry out an investigation into the reasons that may have caused said outbreak within the company. The conclusions of said investigation can direct possible subsequent actions that Health may determine.

The situations may be different in each case.

The worker who is identified as a close contact by his social or family environment, due to a positive result in said environment, must go into quarantine for a minimum of 10 days, and must notify the company, so that the external prevention service begins the tracing of possible close contacts that he had since the 2 days prior to this notification. During the quarantine period, if the result is positive after the first diagnostic test, the previously identified workers will be considered close contact. If not, the company's workers can continue carrying out their normal activity.

In the event that a worker directly reports that he is positive, the company should immediately notify the situation to the medical area of ​​the prevention service, which will carry out case tracing, and propose the quarantine of possible close contacts. If a worker requires leave to remain in quarantine, because they cannot telework, the prevention service will give them a letter to the Public Health Service.

If diagnostic tests are carried out with positive results, they are mandatory to be communicated to the Public Health Service. These tests can only be carried out by healthcare personnel. We remember that the antibody test is not currently recognized by the Ministry of Health. The worker must inform the SPS that they have had a test with a positive result.

Tracing close contacts in the community is the responsibility of Health, but in the workplace it corresponds to health surveillance of the prevention service, and is thus reflected in the prevention services procedure. They cannot refuse to do so because they have been given this responsibility.

If you are in quarantine (not diagnosed as positive) or in isolation (diagnosed positive) and you can work at home respecting prevention measures with cohabitants and the company's production system allows it, it is not essential to request leave, it will depend on the symptoms and medical criteria.

If you cannot work at home, because you cannot respect prevention measures during quarantine or for organizational reasons at the center, you will request leave at your health center, either directly or through a report issued by your SPRL to your primary care doctor.

The instructions that the different health departments of the autonomous communities must follow are marked by the Ministry of Health through the document “STRATEGY FOR EARLY DETECTION, SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL OF COVID-19” that currently governs the version of February 26, 2021.

In this specific field it indicates:

“In cases that do not require hospital admission and are managed in the In the primary care setting, home isolation will be indicated, as long as effective isolation can be guaranteed.

Following the recommendations of the ECDC and the CDC9, isolation will be maintained until three days after the resolution of fever and clinical symptoms with a minimum of 10 days from the onset of symptoms. It will not be necessary to perform a PCR to lift isolation or to return to work. 10 days from the date of taking the sample for diagnosis. Follow-up will be supervised until epidemiological discharge in the manner established in each autonomous community.

If the company confirms a positive case within the scope of the company, it must communicate it to its prevention service, so that the work of tracing close contacts can be carried out. It will be the protocol of these traces that determines whether or not the identity of the positive case is revealed.

For its part, the Spanish Data Protection Agency indicates that if it were possible to achieve the purpose of tracking without specifying the identity of the infected person, it should be done that way. If, on the other hand, this objective cannot be achieved with partial information, or the practice is discouraged by the competent authorities, particularly health authorities, identifying information could be provided.

Within the workplace, and with the regulations currently in force, there is no obligation.

The only existing reference to vaccination in the workplace is associated with the R.D. 664/97 on biological agents, art. 8.3  Health surveillance of workers This section says the following:

 “ When there is a risk of exposure to biological agents for which there are effective vaccines, these must be made available to workers, informing them of the advantages and disadvantages of vaccination. When employers offer vaccines, they must take into account the practical recommendations contained in Annex VI of this Royal Decree.

[...]

The offer to the worker of the corresponding measure, and his acceptance of it, must be recorded in writing ”

.

The "Procedure for the performance of occupational risk prevention services against COVID-19" indicates: " Any decision-making on the preventive measures to be adopted in each company must be based on information collected through the specific assessment of the risk of exposure, which will always be carried out in line with the information provided by the health authorities. In this process, workers will be consulted and their proposals will be considered ".

In the technical criteria of the National Institute of Safety and Health at Work (INSST) “Personal protection measures against the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus: concepts on their use in the workplace (01.12.2020)” it is indicated "In view of the situation and indications established by the Ministry of Health, employers must integrate the analysis of protection against SARS CoV-2 in their risk assessment and, consequently, define the preventive measures for the protection against possible SARS-Cov-2 infection at work. "

All companies must carry out an evaluation of jobs for exposure to COVID-19 and classify them based on the levels established by the action procedure of prevention services. Based on this identification and classification, the preventive measures to be implemented in the company are determined.

If this evaluation of exposure levels determines that there is a risk of professional exposure to COVID-19, a specific biological risk evaluation should be carried out, as indicated in RD 664/97. In addition, the biological risk (with SARS-CoV-2 as a causal factor) must be identified in the general occupational risk assessment of the job.

In the rest of the companies, the specific assessment of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, from which the preventive measures that the company must implement must be specified, can be reflected in a separate document, or included in the contingency plan, or it can also be integrated into the already existing risk assessment.

The use of gloves is not recommended in activities that do not require direct contact with infected people. They can create a false sense of security and if we touch our nose, mouth or eyes with gloves that contain the virus, we can also become infected. It is more effective to wash your hands regularly and after suspecting that you have touched something with a virus on its surface. The best is the combined strategy of hand washing, surface cleaning, mask and ventilation.

There are conflicting positions here.

The Spanish Data Protection Agency, interpreting the Occupational Risk Prevention Law, indicates that it constitutes a measure related to monitoring the health of workers, which is mandatory for the employer and should be carried out by healthcare personnel.

OSALAN says that it is not indicated to take a temperature prior to starting work within the company. If the worker presents symptoms, their temperature must be taken at home.

Other sources interpret that taking the temperature is an appropriate measure since it does not cause discomfort to the worker and is intended to avoid possible sources of transmission of the disease. They also interpret that it is not part of health surveillance in the terms of art 22 of the LPRL, and it is not necessary for the temperature to be taken by health personnel, if the thermometers used (usually infrared) are easy to use and the interpretation of the data obtained simply consists of verifying whether or not it exceeds an already established limit.

In any case, if this temperature measurement is carried out, it is advisable to meet a series of requirements: designate the personnel who must carry it out and train them in the way of measuring, in the use of the equipment and in the use of the appropriate PPE; have the participation of workers' representatives; take the temperature of all staff who are going to share a workspace, regardless of their hierarchy; use the data only to prevent access by a symptomatic person and initiate tracing of close contacts.

The update of October 20, published by the WHO, in reference to aerosols indicates.

"Aerosol transmission can occur in specific settings, especially indoor, crowded, poorly ventilated spaces where infected people spend a lot of time with others, for example restaurants, choir practice, fitness classes, nightclubs, offices, and/or places of worship. More studies are being done to better understand the conditions under which aerosol transmission occurs outside of medical facilities where specific medical procedures called aerosol-generating procedures are performed."

We also indicate information provided by the American CDC, in reference to aerosols (Oct 28, 2020):

"Sometimes, COVID-19 can spread through airborne transmission.

Some infections can spread through exposure to the virus present in small particles and respiratory droplets that remain in the air for minutes or hours. These viruses can infect people who are close to them. more than 6 feet away from the infected person or after the person has left the area.

This type of spread is called airborne transmission and is one of the main ways of spreading infections such as tuberculosis, measles, and chickenpox.

There is evidence that, under certain conditions, people with COVID-19 could have infected others who were more than 6 feet away. Transmissions occurred inside closed spaces with inadequate ventilation. Sometimes the infected person was breathing heavily, for example while singing or exercising.

Under these circumstances, scientists believe that the amount of smaller infectious particles and droplets generated by people with COVID-19 reached a concentration sufficient to spread the virus to other people. People who were infected were in the same space at the same time or shortly after the person with COVID-19 left.

Available data indicate that it is much more common for the virus that causes COVID-19 to spread through close contact with a person with COVID-19 than through airborne transmission.”

The most practical way to determine if we are reaching adequate air renewal levels is by controlling the concentration of CO 2 . It is advisable not to exceed 1000 ppm, and the ideal is not to reach 800 ppm of CO 2

CO 2 is an indicator of the volume of exhaled air in a room, and therefore it can be interpreted that the higher the CO 2 , the greater the risk of the presence of contaminated aerosols. It is still an approximation.  Being below the recommended limits is not an absolute guarantee of absence of risk. Nor does being above them in a non-exaggerated way mean that we are going to become hopelessly ill.

The work center must provide some type of ventilation for air renewal, either natural, with doors or windows, or forced, which must be provided with direct air supply systems from the outside, and forced extraction) and should provide a recommended air renewal rate of 12.5 liters per second per person.

To find out the forced ventilation possibilities that the company has, it is necessary to contact the air conditioning system maintenance company, which will report on the possible air inlets and/or forced outlets that the installation has, so that it can be calculated, even theoretically, if the ventilation rate it provides is sufficient. If the installation has an installation project, it will already be calculated.

Direct compressor/Split air conditioning systems do not generate air renewal, on the contrary, they generate recirculation that can increase the risk of exposure to aerosols because in the end we only remove the interior air.  In this equipment we should at least redirect the air flow so that it does not go directly towards workers, frequently change/clean filters and use the equipment with the lowest possible speeds.

Where natural ventilation is not possible or is not sufficient, outdoor air renewal rates must be achieved through mechanical systems, individual or centralized, that achieve a forced entry of external air, normally also associated with forced extraction systems that remove the interior air.

In these mechanical systems, in non-pandemic conditions, it is common to use air recirculation systems, which mix extracted air with intake air to reduce the difference in indoor and outdoor temperatures and save energy. In the current situation, it is necessary to maximize the intake of outside air and minimize recirculation. This goes against the principles of energy savings, which have historically prevailed in air conditioning systems, but in community transmission scenarios, ventilation is a priority over compliance with thermal comfort conditions.

In the context in which we find ourselves and in relation to SARS-CoV-2, when air recirculation occurs, it is recommended to increase the level of filtration of the recirculated air as much as possible, using the most efficient filters possible that are tolerated by the power of the installation as long as the minimum flow rate meets the 12.5 l/s per person established by the Regulation of Thermal Installations in Buildings for good air quality (IDA2).

To implement these measures, adequate knowledge of the technical characteristics of the installation is necessary, so advice from qualified technical personnel is recommended.

The use of autonomous purifiers can be a good support measure (not replacement) for ventilation, due to their theoretical capacity to retain the aerosols in which the coronavirus travels. However, this measure will not be effective if implemented poorly.

Not all autonomous purifiers are the same. Choosing it requires carefully analyzing the characteristics of the device and the needs we want to cover. It is necessary that these filtration equipment have filters certified by the UNE-EN 1822-1:2020 standard and a HEPA filter class 13 or higher is recommended.  The clean air flow rate (CADR) provided by a purifier is calculated for operation at maximum power, which implies more noise emitted. The flow of clean air that we will need for a given space will depend on the volume of said space that we intend to filter and how many air renewals per hour we want to achieve. In some cases it will be necessary to use more than one purifier. We recommend reading the “Guide for ventilation in classrooms” (CSIC-IDAEA, Ministry of Science and Innovation and Measurement), to learn more about the calculation of these parameters.

Autonomous purifiers have certain drawbacks such as their cost, noise emission or the need to place them in the center of the room and away from obstacles that could obstruct their air inlet and outlets. Like any other mechanical ventilation and filtration system, to be effective and not generate risks, it must be adequately maintained by periodically replacing the filters in safe conditions, which will be described in the instructions for use and maintenance that will accompany the device. It must be remembered that purifiers do not eliminate CO 2.

It is important to be clear that no filtration system, no matter how sophisticated, will prevent the direct transmission of the virus from one person to another who is close to them. Therefore, we must try to maintain safe distances and ensure that everyone uses quality, well-fitting masks at all times, and ventilate the rooms as often as possible.

The air radiator works with resistors that heat air driven by a fan. In closed spaces, a fan does not renew the air, it only recirculates the air that is already inside the room. In theory, its use in this case is inappropriate since aerosols could be more mobile, thus increasing the risk of transmission. Applying the precautionary principle, it is better not to use it. On the contrary, if a convection radiator (with water) or radiation (electric without air impulse) is used, we do not find any drawbacks.

In mathematical simulations carried out, it is observed that the aerosols generated by a person running without a mask remain behind them at the height of their head in the space they have traveled. This space behind the runner is the most at risk for a nearby person, and, of course, for another runner who continually follows behind.

In theory, in an open space (such as a park), in which the volume of fresh air tends to infinity, the aerosol dilutes quickly. If a runner without a mask passes next to another person wearing an approved and correctly placed mask, the theoretical risk of contagion is not significant.

The face shield is a good protective accessory if used together with the mask. It acts as a barrier against the direct projection of droplets or splashes.

Its use without a mask is not appropriate. Only in cases where a person is unable to use a mask, the use of the face shield alone as substitute protection can be considered.

Art 7 of Royal Decree-Law 21/2020, of June 9, on urgent prevention, containment and coordination measures to confront the health crisis caused by COVID-19, indicates that all citizens must adopt the necessary measures to avoid the generation of risks of spread. It also indicates the employer's obligations, including providing workers with protective equipment appropriate to the level of risk.

This level of risk and the appropriate mask is determined by the company with the collaboration of the Prevention Service, in accordance with the provisions of the “Procedure for the performance of occupational risk prevention services against COVID-19”.

If the company is affected by RD 664/97 on biological risks, it will adhere to this standard.

Yes, they can continue to be used, in cases recommended by the Ministry of Health, and if the prevention service considers it so. We would be talking about jobs in scenarios with a low probability of exposure, which are positions assimilated to the general population. In these cases, the use of the type of respiratory protection will be determined by the prevention service, and if a hygienic mask is considered sufficient, there is no reason not to propose it.

It is necessary to remember that the technical criteria of the INSST is that hygienic and surgical masks, in this context, must be considered PPE based on article 4 of the Occupational Risk Prevention Law.

KN95 and N95 masks can only be used if they were in Spain before October 1, 2020 and had obtained a temporary authorization issued by a market surveillance authority.

Use times should be limited to the manufacturer's recommendations. If data is not available, it is recommended not to extend its use beyond one work shift.

N95 masks are designed as single-use devices, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends up to 8 hours of continuous use.

In the case of NR self-filtering masks (non-reusable) in accordance with the UNE 149 standard, their use is limited to one work shift (maximum 8 hours)  although they can be used intermittently by removing them during lunch breaks or between the morning and afternoon shift.  It is not considered appropriate to extend this intermittent use to different days.

In the case of using R masks (reusable) and COVID masks (with PPE-R/02.075 certification) the manufacturer will establish the conditions under which they could be used again from one shift to the next. In any case, if they are used as a specific prevention measure for workers with professional exposure to COVID-19, it must be remembered that the R.D. 664/97 discourages the reuse of respiratory protective equipment.

The protection offered by masks is most effective when all workers wear them, that is, when they are used by the community and not only by the individual. The use of masks by all staff contributes extraordinarily to reducing the probability of contagion.

However, it is important to remember that the use of a mask is another barrier. No measure alone provides complete protection against transmission. The use of the mask must be complemented with the rest of the preventive, hygienic, social distancing and ventilation measures. The combined adoption of all these measures provides very effective protection to prevent transmission.

Masks are only as effective as their fit, since their weakest point is perimeter leaks. Although the mask itself has a high filtration efficiency, unless a tight seal is achieved, the overall efficiency will be much lower.

In a study carried out at the University of Wisconsin-Madison at the end of 2020, the effectiveness of cotton fabric, hygienic and surgical masks was evaluated using adjusters. The adjusters used were elastic pieces that adapt to the contour of the face and head, sealing the edges of the mask. The study measured both protection with a mask and adjuster towards others (escaping aerosols) and towards oneself (inhaled aerosols).  It was observed that the use of the adjuster made the filtering efficiency of the hygienic and surgical masks very close to those corresponding to their category. Cloth masks did not improve their filtering efficiency almost with the adjuster. It is concluded that the combined use of an approved mask (surgical or hygienic) with an adjuster and with continuous ventilation would reduce the risk of contagion by aerosols in spaces

Research is currently underway (ADEMA-UIB) on other types of non-elastic adjusters, with thermoplastic materials that previously heat the piece and, subsequently, when it cools on the face (with a surgical mask) of the user, they acquire their shape. Also through a facial scan and subsequent low-cost materialization with a 3D printer.

Who must determine the prevention measures against COVID -19 in the work environment, based on the exposure levels, is the company's prevention service. If it has determined that the necessary safety measure is a hygienic or surgical mask, the company would be obliged to comply with this level of protection, leaving room for consultation and participation of workers in choosing the specific model.

The fact that workers want to increase the level of respiratory protection to a self-filtering type, if the level of exposure does not require it and the prevention service does not advise it, should not generate an obligation. Another issue is that margin could be left for the worker who wants to use, if he feels calmer, respiratory protection with higher levels of protection, such as an FFP2 or FFP3 self-filtering mask. Workers should also know that this type of protective equipment has higher levels of breathing resistance than surgical masks, for example.

The route of transmission through the eyes by aerosols may be possible but is not considered very significant. If someone were to cough or sneeze at another person in close proximity, the risk of ballistic droplets hitting their eyes is greater. In that case, eye protection might be helpful in the form of a face shield or universal-frame safety glasses. However, if in a given environment the aerosol route of infection through the eyes is considered significantly likely, full-frame protective glasses would have to be used that, in contact with the face, tightly enclose the orbital region.

For a mask to be washable, it must be indicated by the manufacturer.

The use of FFP3 respiratory protection has a mandatory occupational need in the healthcare field, where there is a risk of professional exposure to bioarosols, because medical techniques are being carried out that advise it. And as such it is reflected in RD 664/97.

In the rest of the activities, the use of such demanding respiratory protection must be voluntary, due to an individual problem that the worker may have. It must be remembered that it is the respiratory protection that has the highest levels of breathing resistance.

There are two techniques for calculating the filtering capacity of the materials used to manufacture masks.

The bacterial filtration test is a bioaerosol filtration test, which is passed through a mask, and the number of colonies that form on the test plates that are placed behind said mask is checked. The result is compared with the same number of plates in a control that is carried out without filtering said aerosol through the filter material.

A particle filtration test is based on concentration difference testing on both sides of a mask, usually with a NaCl-based aerosol. The test can be performed with different aerosol sizes, depending on the test to be performed.

Both provide information on the filtering capacity of the material, under laboratory conditions, based on the particle size with which they are tested.

They are identified with the 4 digits of the Notifying Body when said masks are sterile.

The mask filters particles, it does not retain gases or repel them. The CO 2 passes through the mask.                              

This practice is justified by health workers arguing that this way the FFP2 is protected from the splashes that are frequent in the performance of their tasks. This avoids changing the FFP2 before 8 hours of use if there is a splash, since only the surgical one that is the one that the splash impacts would have to be changed. Using this combination of masks does not significantly improve filtration efficiency and increases resistance to air passage. The adjustment of the FFP2 does not improve either.  We understand that, at the current time when there is sufficient availability of FFP2 masks, it would be more convenient to only use a well-fitting FFP2 mask and change it in case of a splash.

Given the argument of using them to guarantee the use of a medical product in specific situations where the standard or medical protocols require it, we remember that there are dual masks on the market, which have FFP2 and medical product certification.

It is not recommended to use two surgical masks, two hygienic masks or two FFP2 masks together.  The increase in filtration is not worth it.  The resistance to the passage of air increases and the fit may worsen, causing air to leak over the edge of the mask.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published an article showing that placing a hygienic mask over a surgical one helps improve the fit, which reduces the risk of transmission. The goal is not to add another filter layer, but to improve the fit. However, this combination increases the resistance to the passage of air and could generate a feeling of suffocation and increased humidity. In addition, the hygienic mask must be well adjusted over the surgical one. We understand that, if possible, it would be preferable to use a surgical mask that fits well on the user's face or use elastic adjusters.

We do not consider it appropriate to advertise specific models of masks.

We recommend that masks meet the requirements set by the O.M. CSM115/2021 for hygienic masks, since it establishes a specific field for transparent type masks, with some exceptions that finally allow their use.

For example, in terms of breathability, it indicates that if the hygienic mask has some areas composed of materials that do not allow air to pass through, a risk evaluation must be carried out to ensure that the product does not unduly obstruct breathing or cause any risk after prolonged use, and the information resulting from such evaluation must be included on the label.

Those that are completely made of plastic, without filtration properties, that are used as half facial screens covering the nose, mouth and chin are outside the scope of Order CSM/115/2021.

Although SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with an average size of 0.1 µm, it uses droplets and aerosols as vehicles. The majority (more than 90%) of infectious aerosols are estimated to be up to 10 µm in size.

The objective of masks is not to exclusively filter particles the size of the virus but to retain the largest possible proportion of the different sizes of droplets and aerosols that we generate when exhaling.

The ITSS is authorized by Royal Decree-Law 21/2020, of June 9, on urgent prevention, containment and coordination measures to address the health crisis caused by COVID-19 to monitor, require and issue an infringement report to the employer who fails to comply with the obligations required in article 7 of said Royal Decree-Law, insofar as it affects workers in the workplace.

Labor and Social Security Inspectors are authorized;  the Labor Sub-Inspectors of the Occupational Health and Safety scale; and the Authorized Technicians of the autonomous communities These technicians of the CCAA cannot issue infringement reports themselves. They must first request correction of what they do not consider appropriate and, if the company does not correct it, they send a report to an inspector so that he can issue the violation report.

The employer (businessman in the terms of art 1.2 of the ET). Cooperative societies are responsible with respect to their worker members.

No. If the inspector finds non-compliance that implies a risk of contagion, he or she can send a report to the health authorities. These health authorities can carry out "preventive closure of facilities, establishments, services and industries" and the "suspension of the exercise of activities" (art. 54 General Public Health Law).

NO. The accommodations made available to workers by the employer must also comply with the measures, even if they are located outside the work centers. If the accommodation coincides with the workers' domicile, it will be necessary to obtain their express consent, or, failing that, the appropriate judicial authorization.

NO. The means of transport to travel to work, which the employer makes available to his workers, are not considered subject to inspection, nor are the means of transport for traveling passengers, but if the Inspection observes non-compliance with health regulations, it will proceed to inform the competent health authorities.

When the ITSS is aware of non-compliance with public health regulations, it must notify the regional Health Authority for the appropriate purposes, for example, if it confirms possible cases of contagion and that the mandatory detection, notification and monitoring measures have not been adopted.

The public health measures established in paragraphs a), b), c) of article 7.1, and in paragraph d) thereof, when they affect workers. Briefly they are:

  • Adopt ventilation, cleaning and disinfection measures.
  • Provide workers with water or soap or hydroalcoholic gels or authorized virucidal products.
  • Establish measures to guarantee safe distance at work and, if this is not possible, provide workers with appropriate PPE. The ITSS considers that the first and main obligation of companies is to guarantee that interpersonal safety distance is maintained. In the CCAA where the mandatory use of masks is established in general, including workplaces, regardless of whether or not the safety distance is maintained, the ITSS may require compliance with this obligation and impose sanctions.
  • Avoid massive coincidence of people, both clients and users. This measure does not affect people who do not have the status of workers for the employer, such as customers in a business, which rules out the control of capacity in an establishment.

NO. According to ITSS technical criterion 103/2020, the means of transportation made available to workers by the company to travel to workplaces should not be considered within the scope of action of the Labor and Social Security Inspection. Nor to passenger transport vehicles.  However, if the Inspection observes non-compliance with health regulations, it will inform the competent health authorities.

It is mandatory to designate a responsible person.

The document “PREVENT, HYGIENE AND HEALTH PROMOTION MEASURES AGAINST COVID-19 FOR EDUCATIONAL CENTERS IN THE 2020-2021 COURSE” does not specifically call this figure “coordinator” but establishes the need for his or her designation. The latest version of this document at the time of writing this response is 03/16/2021.

“ All educational centers will designate a responsible person for aspects related to COVID-19 who must be familiar with all documents related to educational centers and current COVID-19. This person will act as an interlocutor with the health services at the request of the corresponding public health unit or on his own initiative when he must consult on any matter and must be familiar with the effective communication mechanisms that have been established with the health officials in his territorial area. The coordinators act as an essential instrument in communication between the Public Health Services and the schools to guarantee prevention - and, where appropriate, action - in the event of suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the educational center. 

And it also recommends: “ It may also be useful for educational centers to create a COVID-19 team made up of the center management, secretary, one or more members of the teaching team, a member of the cleaning service and representation of families and students, which guarantees compliance with the basic principles and that the entire educational community is informed of their implementation ”.

Some autonomous communities have issued their own regulations that expressly include this figure (for example, the Community of Madrid: ORDER 1035/2020 of August 29, of the Ministry of Health).

In some guides or technical documents the need for the designation is indicated. However, there is no regulatory provision (Law, Regulation or Order) that indicates the obligation to have the Covid manager or manager documented. Of course, it is still mandatory to implement organizational, technical and hygiene measures against COVID-19. And one or more people responsible for this implementation must have been designated. Therefore, in practice it is advisable to make a documented designation of the person in charge or COVID manager.

According to technical criterion 103/2020 of the ITSS, in a visit by the ITSS the absence of this formal designation will not be considered an infraction by the ITSS, but the convenience of doing so will be made clear to the company.

The economic benefits of workers, in money or in kind, for the professional provision of labor services as an employee are established in the individual contract and in collective bargaining. We wish you good luck in your application.

If the designated person meets all the requirements, he/she will not be able to decline the appointment due to his/her duty to comply with the employer's instructions (art. 5.c of the Workers' Statute).

Some technical documents from the health authorities indicate the need to draft this plan, but what is strictly mandatory is to comply with the organizational, technical and hygiene measures against COVID-19, which are included in art 7. of RD 20/2021.

There is no regulatory provision that establishes the obligation to document compliance with these measures. According to criterion 103 of the ITSS, the inspection will verify whether the measures are complied with, and if there is no plan that includes these measures, the company will be informed of the convenience of having that document, but failure to comply with said documentary formalization is not considered to constitute a violation of article 7 or any other regulatory precept.

Despite this, writing and continuously updating a contingency plan is very convenient. It seems obvious and logical to think that adequate management of the adoption and implementation of measures requires that they be documented by the company, among other things due to the need to adapt them to its own characteristics. Also to establish the people responsible for its implementation, and all this without forgetting that such documentation is also convenient in the process of information and training for workers, and to comply with the obligation of information and consultation with workers' representatives.

The contingency plan is based on an evaluation of the risk of exposure to COVID-19, from which the preventive measures that the company must implement must be specified.

The contingency plan must guarantee the response capacity and coordination of the company's internal management, in the face of the different scenarios that may occur during the pandemic.

The responsibility for its preparation and monitoring lies with the company. To do this, you must have the advice of the Prevention Service in order to carry out the risk assessment and guide the implementation of preventive measures.

There is no mandatory format. The different Prevention Services have developed their own. Some regional health and safety institutes have also developed different models, such as ISSLA (Aragon), INVASAT (Valencia) or OSALAN (Basque Country).

There is no official format, but there are several suggested ones, linked to contingency plan models prepared by regional health and safety institutes, such as ISSLA (Aragon), INVASAT (Valencia) or OSALAN (Basque Country).

YES. Article 64.5 of the Workers' Statute establishes the right of company committees and personnel delegates to be informed and consulted on all company decisions that could cause relevant changes in the organization of work, and on the adoption of possible preventive measures, especially in the event of a risk to employment.

It is also indicated in the SPRL action procedure that establishing continuity plans must be done through a process of participation and agreement with the legal representation of the workers.

The ITSS, in technical criterion 103/2020, considers that all personnel must have specific and updated information and training on the measures implemented in their workplace. Failure to comply with information and training obligations must also be considered an infringement and may proceed by formulating requirements or issuing infringement reports as if it were a non-compliance with the prevention measures themselves.

He justifies this by saying that this is indicated in the “Procedure for the performance of occupational risk prevention services against COVID-19” and that it is evident that there is a close link between the adoption and implementation of preventive measures and the information and training of workers. And it cannot be understood that the implementation of the measures occurs in an effective manner without updated information being provided to the workers, and in some cases training, on the measures that are going to be adopted and how they are going to be implemented, as well as on the obligations that may fall upon them, for example, establishment of shifts, on the use of masks and their characteristics and guidelines for their use, organization of workstations or other organizational measures, location of the points intended for cleaning, ventilation of jobs and workplaces, use of ventilation and air conditioning equipment, etc.

There seems to be a consensus that companies with jobs exposed to biological risks in accordance with RD 664/97, for which SARS-CoV-2 constitutes a risk inherent to their activity, the training would fall under article 19 of the LPRL, and therefore “ The training may be provided by the company through its own means or by arranging it with outside services ” The trainer must have sufficient training and belong to the preventive modality adopted by the company.

In the rest of the companies or jobs in which the transmission of COVID-19 is not a risk inherent to the work activity, the training would not be strictly subject to said article and we should base ourselves on the criteria set by the Action Procedure for Prevention Services. This document indicates the need to provide training to workers regarding COVID, but does not specifically define which figure can or should provide it. Nor is ITSS specified in its technical criterion 103/2020. Therefore it leaves room for interpretation.

Let us not forget that the objective of this training is the implementation and execution of the specific and concrete measures that will be applied in the company against the risk of COVID contagion.

It could be considered that the training would be carried out by company personnel who are familiar with the specific measures to be implemented in the company, as well as the obligations that may fall to the workers: establishment of shifts, use of masks and their characteristics and guidelines for their use, organization of workstations or other organizational measures, location of points for cleaning, ventilation of workstations and workplaces, use of ventilation and air conditioning equipment, etc.

We understand (without our opinion having legal validity) that, in these cases, the person responsible for the implementation and monitoring of the contingency plan, or the employer himself or middle managers could carry out this training work, which could also be continuous, reinforcing the knowledge of the workers on a daily basis and controlling and, where appropriate, correcting the inappropriate behaviors detected.

What did you think of the content?