A number of amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) came into force on 26 October 2026. The legislator justifies the amendments with the aim of reducing the administrative burden on employers and the Labour Inspectorate, eliminating duplicative obligations and making the occupational safety system clearer. Below, we provide an overview of the key changes and their practical implications for employers.
1. The deadline for the initial medical examination has been extended
Under the previous regulations, an employee’s medical examination had to be arranged within four months of starting work. This has now been extended to six months.
The extension of the deadline is justified by several considerations. First, it takes into account the possibility of a longer probationary period (for example, if an employee is on sick leave for part of the probationary period). Second, it allows the medical examination to be arranged after the end of the probationary period, thereby avoiding the need to carry out an examination on an employee whose employment relationship may end during the probationary period. Third, it enables better planning of medical examinations, given that the availability of such examinations is not uniform across all regions.
Generally speaking, however, we recommend that medical examinations be carried out during the probationary period to assess the employee’s fitness for the job, which is one of the objectives of the probationary period.
It is important to note that for work involving greater risks (such as exposure to biological hazards, carcinogens or night work), the obligation to carry out a medical examination before starting work remains.
2. The obligation to appoint a first-aid provider becomes more flexible
A first-aid provider no longer needs to be appointed if:
i. the company’s employees work alone,
ii. employers operating in a shared working environment have agreed on a joint first-aid arrangement, or
iii. the employer is a healthcare provider.
In practice, the definition of ‘working alone’ is likely to raise the most questions. According to the explanatory memorandum to the draft Act, this definition covers an employee ‘whose working environment contains no other people, including employees of other employers, and who does not share rented premises with other employees. Examples of such situations include a sales assistant working alone in a small shop or at a petrol station, a security guard on night duty in a warehouse, a cleaner for a housing association, an employee working remotely from a permanent home office, or a facade worker working alone on a site.’ The legislator has also clarified that in mixed situations where an employee works alone on the night shift but several people are together in the same workplace during the day shift, the company must appoint a first-aid provider, but this person need not be present when the employee is working alone.
Nevertheless, in the case of employees working alone, it is necessary to ensure that the necessary first-aid equipment is available and that clear instructions are in place on how to act in the event of an accident or health emergency.
3. The obligation to draw up safety instructions is being narrowed
The previous regulation stipulated an obligation to draw up separate safety instructions for both the work to be carried out and the work equipment used.
Under the amendment, the obligation to draw up separate safety instructions for the work to be carried out is removed; only the obligation to draw up safety instructions for the work equipment used remains. Even this is not required if the manufacturer’s user manual already contains sufficient safety information. Employers’ general obligation to instruct and train employees remains unchanged.
4. The election of a working environment representative and a working environment council becomes voluntary
Previous regulations required the election of a working environment representative in every company with at least ten employees and the establishment of a working environment council in companies with at least 150 employees.
Now, an employer is only required to organise elections for a working environment representative if at least 10 per cent of the employees of the company, its organisational unit or shift so request. A working environment council is formed either on the employer’s initiative or if 10 per cent of the company’s employees express a wish for this. The working environment council must have an equal number of employee and employer representatives, but it no longer necessarily has to have four members; it may also consist of just two members.
The legislator justifies the change on the grounds of reducing red tape: previous practice showed that representatives were often elected merely to fulfil a formal obligation, without any substantive need. At the same time, employers should bear in mind that the obligation to consult with employees on working environment issues remains in force regardless of whether a representative has been elected.
If a working environment representative is elected, it is no longer necessary to notify the Labour Inspectorate of this.
Every company must continue to have a working environment specialist; however, in future, this information no longer needs to be reported to the Labour Inspectorate.
5. A clear legal basis for testing employees for intoxication
Employers have a duty to remove an intoxicated employee from work, but previously the law did not provide them with a clear legal basis for testing for intoxication or for processing the necessary health data for this purpose.
Under the amendment, where there is reasonable suspicion, an employer is entitled to test an employee for intoxication by alcohol, narcotic or toxic substances, or psychotropic substances, and to process the health data necessary for this purpose. In the case of work involving a higher risk (for example, a crane operator, a bus driver or an electrician working on high-voltage power lines), reasonable suspicion is not required.
It is important that the employer establishes a procedure for testing for intoxication and makes this known to employees. The document must describe:
i. testing procedure – e.g. what is tested and how, what equipment is used and how it works, who (if anyone) is present during the test, and when the test is carried out;
ii. the definition of a positive result – which substance and what level of intoxication (numerical value), measured where, constitutes a positive result, and what the margin of error is;
iii. consequences of a positive result – it is important to bear in mind that, as a general rule, a first positive test result cannot immediately lead to the termination of an employment contract, particularly, for example, if intoxication is detected before the employee enters the workplace and begins work;
iv. measures to protect the employee and the procedure for challenging test results – e.g. whether the employee has the right to a retest, the right to request the use of an alternative method or the replacement of the testing device;
v. the consequences for the employee of refusing to undergo an intoxication test – e.g. the employee is suspended from work for that day; in such cases, the test is still considered positive;
vi. the procedure for documenting and retaining test results – by law, intoxication test data may be retained for up to three years, but more specific provisions should be set out in the internal regulations. However, the employer may, for example, stipulate that negative results are retained for a shorter period, given that there is generally no risk of a dispute in such cases.
6. Fewer obligations for companies with fewer than 10 employees
An employer with fewer than ten employees:
a) Is not required to commission a comprehensive assessment of the company’s occupational health and safety situation by an occupational health doctor and their team.
As a reminder, all other companies must carry out such an assessment at least once every three years. This provision came into force on 1 January 2023, and the first three-year period expired on 1 January 2026; therefore, all employers with ten or more employees should now have such an assessment in place.
b) There is no requirement to upload the workplace risk assessment to the Labour Inspectorate’s workplace data repository or to submit it to the Labour Inspectorate.
However, the obligation to carry out a risk assessment and to draw up a written risk assessment document remains. Our recommendation is nevertheless to submit the completed risk assessment document to the working environment database. If the risk assessment is not submitted, the company is more likely to be selected for inspection by the Labour Inspectorate.
7. The OHSA no longer applies in full to single-member private limited companies
Under the previous regulations, even a company where the sole shareholder is also the sole board member and the sole employee under an employment contract was required to comply with all occupational health and safety requirements, including drawing up a risk assessment and safety instructions for itself and undergoing a medical examination by an occupational health doctor.
Under the amendment, the OHSA no longer applies in full to such a company. As an exception, the provisions concerning the shared working environment and procedures relating to accidents at work, as well as certain regulations on sickness benefit, will continue to apply. If the sole shareholder of a private limited company uses agency workers, they must ensure compliance with occupational health and safety requirements in respect of the agency workers carrying out work on their premises. At the same time, the change also entails the loss of certain social guarantees arising from the OHSA: an accident involving such a person is no longer treated as an accident at work, and they are unable to claim compensation from the Social Insurance Board in the event of an occupational disease if the employer has since been liquidated.
