How to count similar jobs. Similar jobs: what has changed? The procedure for conducting a special assessment of working conditions
When determining the hazard class of workplaces, their continuous or selective assessment can be carried out. In the latter case, similar jobs are analyzed. A special assessment of working conditions usually occurs in situations with a large number of full-time employees of the same type. This makes it possible to speed up the SOUT (special assessment) procedure and reduce the costs of implementing such assessment activities.
Key Features
The legislation contains a definition of a special assessment of the working conditions of similar jobs. This is part 6 of Art. 9 of the profile Law of December 28, 2013 No. 426-FZ.
As a result, a special assessment of the working conditions of similar jobs is when, at the stage of preparation for a special assessment, they can be classified according to similar characteristics: each generated category of objects will consist of similar places of work for hired personnel.
Law No. 426-FZ identifies a list of criteria by which jobs are combined into a group of similar ones. It is when:
- workplaces are located at one production facility, in one or more similar premises;
- working conditions are identical or almost identical;
- personnel in the performance of their labor function uses the same type of equipment, air conditioning, ventilation, heating and lighting systems have similar characteristics;
- similar jobs employ people with the same job descriptions, their qualification levels, positions, professional skills coincide;
- the workflow at different objects that are supposed to be combined proceeds in the same way;
- when performing tasks, hired personnel use tools and protective equipment with the same technical characteristics.
As the explanations say about the special assessment of working conditions at similar workplaces, if no matches are found for the entire set of characteristics, it is impossible to combine workplaces for the purposes of a special assessment. That is, only the continuous method is suitable.
Responsibility for identifying jobs of the same type and their division into groups is assigned to the commission for the preparation for the SAUT. This collegiate body is created by the head of the enterprise. One of the committee's functions is to complete list jobs that are in the company, collecting information about vacancies and other excluded jobs.
If there are many similar places in the enterprise, it is necessary to focus on the limit of the minimum coverage of workplaces by inspection. Evaluation must take place in relation to 20% of jobs recognized as the same. In absolute terms, the minimum coverage threshold is set to 2 work items.
Based on the results of a special assessment of the working conditions of similar jobs, the order of the management consolidates the overall picture - the SOUT map. For all the combined facilities, the same recommendations are made to improve the level of safety and comfort at work.
Examples of errors when grouping workplaces
At the preliminary stage, the employer draws up an approximate cost estimate for the special assessment. When calculating the required financial investments In this event, all enterprises seek to save. This, of course, is possible if similar jobs are combined: a special assessment of working conditions will then be carried out in relation to a smaller number of objects (by reducing the amount of work of experts, the cost of their services is reduced).
In the process of identifying similar places of work, gross errors can be made that distort the calculations. For example:
| Mistake | Example | Explanation |
| When combined into one group, the factor of different names was not taken into account positions and the presence of differences in job functions | The accounting department occupies one office. There are several accountants in the room and Chief Accountant with the cashier. The employer classified all financial personnel in one category. | This is the wrong approach - you can only combine accountants with similar functional responsibilities. And the cashier and the chief accountant have a set job duties different from all other jobs. As a result, in this example 3 groups of jobs. |
| The identity factor of the operated equipment is not taken into account | Service technical support client consists only of operators. They all work in the same room, their job duties and job titles are the same. The employer combined them into one group for a special assessment. | This step will be justified on one condition - the entire set of equipment and tools used by such employees of the department has identical characteristics, the dates of manufacture of these technical means and manufacturer's brands. |
| Inspection limit violated - similar workplaces, a special assessment of working conditions should cover in the amount of 20%, but not less than 2 staff positions | There are 5 cutters working in one workshop. They meet all the identity criteria for being grouped into a group of similar workplaces. A 20% verification threshold is calculated: it is equal to 1 unit (5 × 20%). The employer includes one position in the evaluation plan. | This is the wrong decision - if 20% of the positions within one group cover less than 2 staff positions, a special assessment is carried out for at least two jobs |
The main dilemma faced by the employer before conducting a special assessment of working conditions is the determination of the number of jobs subject to the SUT. In most cases, the calculations turn out to be incorrect, as the concept of “similar” jobs is incorrectly used. In this article, we will try to figure out how to avoid common mistakes.
What kind of jobs can be classified as similar?
According to paragraph 6, Art. 9 of the Federal Law of December 28, 2013 No. 426-FZ “On a special assessment of working conditions”, “similar” jobs are considered jobs that:
- located in one or more similar premises (zones);
- equipped with the same ventilation, air conditioning, heating and lighting systems;
- are employed by employees of the same profession, position, specialty with the same functions and mode of work; they must use the same -, tools, fixtures, materials and raw materials, as well as be provided with the same type of PPE.
All of these conditions must be met simultaneously. If at least one condition is not met, then jobs cannot be summed up under the concept of “similar” jobs.
For example: you can consider the jobs of an accountant and a chief accountant, which are not similar. This is because they have different job titles and, as a result, different labor functions.
The desire of the employer to classify as many jobs as possible as “similar” is understandable. This reduces the cost of special assessment, since one card for a special assessment of working conditions is filled out for “similar” jobs and a general list of measures to improve working conditions is drawn up for them.
But it is worth understanding that not everything is as smooth as it seems. According to paragraph 1, Art. 16 of the Federal Law of December 28, 2013 No. 426-FZ “On a special assessment of working conditions”, 20% of the total number of “similar” jobs, but not less than two, should be assessed.
How does the notion of at least two work?
Example:
The company has five storekeepers who work in the same warehouse and perform the same duties. It would seem that we are talking about “similar” jobs and it is necessary to evaluate 20% of their total number, i.e. one workplace. But, relying on paragraph 1, Art. 16, “Determining the number of jobs subject to SUT” is limited to at least two jobs.
This is necessary to obtain an objective result in instrumental studies. In case of discrepancy with at least one measured parameter, according to paragraph 5, article 16 of the Federal Law of December 28, 2013 No. 426-FZ “On a special assessment of working conditions”, 100% of jobs will be subject to assessment.
A workplace with a special assessment of working conditions will be equal to one, regardless of the size of the employee's rate. That is, part-time employment - one job, for 0.3 rates - one job, for 2.15 rates - one job.
Why are workplaces with the same equipment not always “similar”?
The same in the workplace is not always a sign of the same production process. Let's look at an example.
Example:
In the office work: accountant, chief accountant, chief accountant. Everyone usually uses Personal Computer, monitor and office equipment. However, these workplaces cannot be “similar” due to the fact that the workplaces must be absolutely identical: make, model, and year of manufacture.
A similar example can be given for driver jobs.
Let's analyze the situation with cars:
Example:
The organization has five drivers who work on the following vehicles.
| Full name of the driver | car brand | Year of issue | Weight, t | State number |
| Ivanov | Renault | 2010 | 6 | w111mr |
| Sidorov | Ford | 2009 | 5 | s777kk |
| Petrov | Ford | 2013 | 7 | k999kk |
| Stakhanov | Ford | 2013 | 7 | k999kk |
| Pavlov | Ford | 2013 | 7 | k999kk |
| Kozhemyakin | MAN | 2017 | 5 | o009at |
| Petrukhin | MAN | 2017 | 5 | t567tt |
Often, employers classify all such jobs as “similar jobs”. This is wrong in principle.
Only the jobs of Petrov, Stakhanov and Pavlov will be “similar”, since the same car belongs to them.
The driver Ivanov has a car of a different brand, a different year of manufacture and carrying capacity, has a completely different registration number.
In general, so it is possible to enumerate ad infinitum. It is advisable to simplify the approach to solving this issue.
In this case, the number of jobs subject to SOUT is equal to the number of cars. For one car, you can assign as many “similar” places as many drivers are assigned to the same car by order.
When jobs for the same positions cannot be considered “similar”?
Sometimes jobs that have workers in the same position are not “similar” anyway. Let's say that in the staffing of the organization there are five heads of the multifunctional department. However, this does not mean that they have the same functions.
In such situations, it should be clarified which department the employee is in charge of. For example, a manager's workplace:
- sales department,
- Internet department and
- marketing department should be evaluated separately. Not less than important point in the definition of “similarity” of jobs arises due to shift work.
Example:
In production - 24 operators production line. Operators can work one shift or multiple shifts. In this case, it is necessary to clearly understand how to carry out the calculations. Let's look at the table:
The table clearly shows how the number of jobs subject to SOUT is determined. The main thing to remember is that the shift must be documented in internal local acts (collective agreement, employment contract or description organizational structure organizations, etc.)
Now in pictures to consolidate the result.
Thus, if you are not sure that you have taken into account all the features and correctly identified “similar” jobs, then it is better to seek help from an organization that will conduct a special assessment. You can download the necessary information on this issue in the Excel file attachment. This file automatically determines the number of jobs subject to SOUT. It is enough to enter certain data.
Main questions
- How to correctly calculate jobs for SOUT?
- Why aren't all jobs with the same equipment considered the same?
- When will jobs for identical positions not be recognized as similar?
Conducting a special assessment of working conditions (SUT) begins with the preparation of a list of jobs to be assessed. This allows the employer to know the preliminary cost of the procedure. But due to the incorrect definition of similar jobs, price calculations often turn out to be erroneous.
How to calculate jobs for SOUT without errors?
Federal Law No. 426-FZ defines the signs of similarity, according to which workplaces are considered similar:
- located in one or several monotype rooms (work areas);
- equipped with monotype engineering systems (lighting, heating, ventilation);
- occupied by employees of the same profession, performing the same job duties in the same working mode using the same devices and tools, raw materials and materials, provided with the same PPE.
for example, the jobs of an accountant and a chief accountant will not be considered similar. Because, despite the fact that they work in a single workspace, their positions are called differently.
The desire of employers to attribute as many jobs as possible to similar ones is explained by the desire to minimize temporary and financial resources for the implementation of the SOT. After all, only 20% of the total number of similar jobs (but not less than two), for which General Map SOUT and a single list of actions to improve working conditions is being prepared.
for example, The staff of the call-center includes five operators who perform the same job duties in the same room. Of course, these are similar jobs. Since 20% of the total number is estimated, one workplace is subject to SOUT. But no, the law obliges to evaluate at least two jobs. Consequently, two jobs for the position of "operator" are required to be included in the list for the SOUT.
If the enterprise has two similar engineer's workplaces, they are both subject to a special assessment, which is required to ensure that the most objective results are obtained during instrumental measurements. Detection of discrepancies even in one indicator will result in the evaluation of all jobs.
The size of the employee's rate does not affect the workplace with the SAUT, which is equal to one with employment at 0.5 and 0.3 rates, two jobs - with employment at 2.15 rates.
Why aren't all jobs with the same equipment considered the same?
Equally equipped workplaces do not always mean the same production processes.
for example, an economist, an accountant and a personnel officer work in the same room. All of them are provided with the same computers, but their places cannot be similar, since all positions are different. In addition, the equipment must completely match in terms of such parameters as brand, model and even year of manufacture.
The company employs five drivers. One of them is assigned to a 2011 Peugeot car, the second one is a 2008 Kia, and the other three are 2012 Škoda cars. Employers consider such jobs similar and make a mistake.
Only three jobs occupied by Škoda drivers will be similar. The other two drivers work on cars of different brands with different production dates. To successfully classify jobs, you should also prepare information about the category in advance vehicle and the type of fuel used.
When will jobs for identical positions not be recognized as similar?
- Some jobs occupied by employees with the same positions cannot be considered similar.
- Shift work is another aspect that complicates the counting of similar jobs in the course of the SAMS.
The staff may include five managers who perform completely different functions. Therefore, counting similar places at SOUT, the units headed by these managers should be clarified. Their workplace may be a public relations, sales or marketing department, each of which must be evaluated separately.
14 operators of the enterprise are involved in a two-shift mode on the juice bottling line. The employer has added three jobs to the list of SOUT. But 7 operators work in one shift, therefore, in accordance with the signs of analogy, two workplaces are subject to assessment if the operators of the second shift work at the same workplaces and perform monotypic functions on the same equipment.
To correctly identify similar places, you should use the support of an expert organization that will conduct a special assessment. It will help to create a list taking into account all the nuances and distinctive features of similar jobs.
Answers on questions
How to explain to the staff the change in the class of working conditions?
In the organization of the education system, SOUT was carried out. Hazard class 3.1 was removed from the workplace of the cleaner, which resulted in dissatisfaction with the staff. How to argue the legitimacy of changing the class of working conditions from 3.1 to 2 for personnel?
Changes in working conditions of employees must be introduced against signature. The legality of actions can be confirmed by familiarizing personnel with the relevant normative documents. The improvement in working conditions, witnessed by the SOUT, gives the employer the right to cancel compensation previously assigned to cleaners.
Are additional insurance premiums, if the special assessment was established harmful conditions labor?
After the SOUT was carried out, a hazard class of 3.1 was established at workplaces for many positions (economist, personnel officer, etc.). Is there a need to make additional contributions to the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation or can we limit ourselves to eliminating lighting violations?
Workplaces with a class of working conditions 3.1, according to federal law No. 212-FZ, require payment of additional insurance premiums of 2%. After elimination of violations, an extraordinary SOUT is carried out. If improvements are confirmed based on its results, additional insurance premiums may be waived.
How to determine the impact of humidity and mold on the health of personnel?
The museum of the enterprise, dedicated to mining, geology and speleology, is located underground in the worked-out workings of an operating mine, the microclimate of which is characterized by natural high humidity and mold. Conducting SOUT applies to the workplaces of the guide and accompanying person, but there is no moisture and mold in the special classifier.
Is it possible and justified to assess the harmfulness of these factors outside the framework of the SOUT?
To determine the level of moisture and the nature of the mold, you can use the services of an independent expert organization with its own accredited research laboratory. When confirming the real negative impact these factors on the health of staff, the employer will have to organize medical examinations, as well as providing staff with overalls and PPE.
The most important thing about how to count jobs for SUT
- Similar jobs include jobs located in one or more monotype premises, where workers with the same positions and functions work.
- Mandatory special assessment covers 20% of similar jobs, but not less than two.
- Similar workplaces are equipped with the same equipment, up to the brand and year of manufacture.
- At shift schedule work, it is permissible to conduct a special assessment of only workers of one shift.
Recall that in accordance with clause 5 f.Z. No. 426 FZ of December 28, 2013 “On a special assessment of working conditions”, the commission, before starting work on a special assessment of working conditions, approves a list of jobs where a special assessment of working conditions will be carried out, indicating similar jobs.
Many people determine the list of jobs on their own in advance in order to calculate the approximate costs of conducting the SOUT.
But, as practice shows, very often this list is compiled incorrectly, including due to the fact that similar jobs are incorrectly identified.
Let's see what places can be considered similar?
According to clause 6 of the Federal Law. No. 426-FZ of December 28, 2013, the following jobs are recognized as similar jobs:
Located in one or more similar industrial premises(production areas);
Equipped with the same (same type) ventilation, air conditioning, heating and lighting systems;
where employees:
They work in the same profession, position, specialty,
Carry out the same labor functions in the same mode of working hours while maintaining the same type technological process using the same production equipment, tools, fixtures, materials and raw materials,
Equipped with the same personal protective equipment.
How many jobs can be classified as similar?
There are no legislative restrictions on how many jobs can be classified as similar. Naturally, employers tend to attribute as many jobs as possible to similar ones, as this reduces the cost of special assessment: one card for a special assessment of working conditions is filled out for similar jobs. This is where the mistakes start.
Example 1. In the state of a small cosmetology organization - a director, chief accountant, 2 administrators. Everyone works in the same office, using the same computer. When concluding a contract for the SOUT, the employer provides a list in which these jobs are listed as similar, justifying that the conditions are the same, since one office, equipment, i.e. there is only one computer for everyone, so the places need to be “certified” as similar.
Naturally, the manager is wrong, since the prerequisite is that employees belong to the same profession, specialty, position and perform the same job duties.
Also, the workplace of an accountant and a chief accountant located in the office opposite each other cannot be attributed to the same, even if the employees perform the same functions, are in the same working area. If there are different positions, then there can be no talk of analogy.
Sometimes jobs filled with employees of the same position or profession are still not similar.
Example 2. The organization has 3 plumbers. Two plumbers repair plumbing systems, and the third also periodically maintains sewer systems and descends into sewer manholes.
Despite the fact that the name of the profession is the same, the labor functions are different, so it is also impossible to classify jobs as similar.
A similar example, when jobs in one profession cannot be classified as similar, is associated with the use of different equipment.
Example 3. The organization has forklift drivers, 3 people. Ivanov is assigned a Maximal FD10T-M diesel loader, Petrov is assigned an MZiK EP-103KO electric forklift, and Sidorov is assigned a Heli CPCD25 / CPQD25 H2000 series forklift.
These jobs also cannot be attributed to the same, so the equipment used is different.
When similar jobs are identified, a special assessment of working conditions is carried out for 20 percent of jobs out of the total number of such jobs (but not less than two jobs) and its results are applied to all similar jobs.
If, however, when evaluating similar jobs, differences are revealed in the indicators of factors, signs that do not meet the requirements of similarity, a special assessment is carried out for 100% of jobs that were originally classified as similar.
S. Burlakova
Since 1997, we have been helping our clients in the field of labor protection and personnel office work. We provide services throughout Russia. Remotely, in a short time, our specialists will help to solve any issue.
Below you can select the service you are interested in.
Ready-made packages of documents
on labor protection and personnel
from 3500 rubles
01-09-2016
The Special Assessment of Working Conditions (SAUT), which replaced workplace certification in 2014, radically changed the approach to assessing working conditions at workplaces and assigning guarantees and compensations based on its results.
To date, the practice of active use of SOUT in all cities of Russia is more than two years. During this time, an extensive practical base has been accumulated in legal sphere with numerous judgments on various issues. But, in spite of this, cases of gross violation of the law during the conduct of the SOUT are still very common. Errors are made both through the fault of the organization conducting the SATS, and as a result of oversights by the employer and the commission for the SATS. And, as a rule, most of all inconsistencies happen at the beginning of the process - in preparation for the SOUT.
Counting the number of jobs
The first stage in the work of the commission for conducting the SAUT is the approval of the list of jobs subject to, with the determination of the number of similar jobs. In practice, this stage causes significant difficulties, especially when it is necessary to count the number of jobs with the same job titles and several employees.According to Art. 209 Labor Code The Russian Federation defines a workplace as a place where an employee must be located or where he must arrive to perform his duties, and which is directly or indirectly controlled by the employer. It follows from this that for a correct calculation it is necessary to understand how many employees are simultaneously involved in one workplace.
Let's look at a few examples:
1. In an organization where there is no shift and shift method work, 5 accountants work at the same time. In this case, during the SOUT procedure, 5 jobs for the position of "Accountant" should be indicated;
2. In the “day after three” mode, 4 watchmen work, that is, workers replace each other and, in fact, only one is present at the workplace. For this case, when conducting SOUT, it is allowed to reflect one workplace for 4 people;
3. In one workshop, 6 turners work on 3 machines in 2 shifts. At the same time, during the working process, each worker alternately works on each of the 3 machines.
Following the condition of simultaneous presence at the workplace, 3 workplaces are approved for verification. However, in case of compliance with the established criteria, which we indicate below, it will be possible to recognize these jobs.
similar, which will significantly reduce costs.
Sometimes, members of the SUT committee may equate the number of employees with the number of pieces of equipment. This technique simplifies the design of the list of jobs, but it does not always turn out to be true, for example, in cases where:
Note that such rules also apply to non-stationary jobs that have identical names: when compiling the list, several such places cannot be automatically counted as one workplace.
Compliance with job titles
By order of the Ministry of Labor of Russia dated January 24, 2014, the Instructions for filling out reports on the implementation of the SOUT procedure were approved. The specified document states that the name of the position in the materials of the special assessment of working conditions must strictly correspond to the organization's staffing table. It is not uncommon for a commission, for reasons of trade secret, presents to the experts conducting the SATS, a list of jobs that does not correspond to the “staff”. In the future, such falsification may lead to the fact that the regulatory authorities recognize the incompleteness of the SAUT due to the lack of materials for the evaluation of some positions.In order to avoid such errors, it is necessary to follow the strict correspondence in the job titles, which are indicated in the materials of the SOUT, staffing and employment contracts.
Production restructuring
Many organizations, in order to optimize some business processes, are restructuring, which entails, often minor, changes in job titles. At the same time, the working conditions and job responsibilities of employees practically do not change. Based on this, many employers do not consider it necessary to conduct an unscheduled SOUT, even though the updated job titles in the staffing table andemployment contracts do not correspond to the collected materials of the SOUT.
There is also a more aggravated version of this problem, when changes in the organization become so frequent that during the staffing undergoes many adjustments. In this case, the members of the commission for the implementation of the SUT and the engineers for labor protection should inform the management of the organization about the consequences of such reforms and the financial costs arising from them.
In accordance with Federal Law 136, which entered into force on 05/01/2016, if the workplace was renamed without causing fundamental changes, the SOUT can not be carried out again, and the commission issues an order and decides not to conduct an unscheduled SOUT.
Signs of the similarity of jobs
Combining several jobs into similar ones significantly reduces the cost of, since the mandatory SOUT is carried out in relation to only 20% of all similar jobs (but not less than two). The results obtained during the implementation of the SATS apply to all similar workplaces and, accordingly, one documentation is developed and filled out: a single SATS map and a list of measures to protect labor and improve the working conditions of workers.The features that similar jobs must comply with are set out in Art. 9 FZ No. 426-FZ:
To determine the similarity of jobs, all of the above conditions must be met. The functions of determining similar jobs are assigned to the commission for conducting the SAUT, and confirmation of the correctness of the allocation of places to similar ones is the task of the expert of the organization conducting the SAUT. According to Art. 16 of the Federal Law No. 426-FZ, in the event that during the SOUT the workplace is found to be inconsistent with at least one of the signs, it will be necessary to assess the working conditions at all workplaces that were previously recognized as similar.
Summing up all of the above, we outline a few rules that will help to compile a correct list of jobs subject to SOUT: