The rat problem in Mauritius first developed into a very visible health problem in 2024. Climate change had seen an alarming increase in flash floods in recent years on the African island. The vermin infestations came close behind.

In the summer of 2024, dozens were diagnosed with Leptospirosis, an infection caused by exposure to bacteria in rat urine which can cause symptoms including fever, abdominal cramps, vomiting, and headaches. At least 12 died.

And workplaces proved to be a prime breeding ground, unions said. “The rodents are much more present in the work environment than in domestic premises,” said Chuttoo Reeaz, president of the union CTSP.

He points to an incident at an animal feed company, Meaders Feeds Limited, which came to a head in June 2025. “For the past five to six months, workers have continually informed the employer that there is an overwhelming increase in rodents on the worksite, especially at night,” Chuttoo said.  “Unfortunately, the employer disregarded all the claims without a proper enquiry.”

He said the situation “reached a tipping point” on 3 June 2025, when workers obtained video recordings of numerous rats scurrying across cabinets and electric cables during a night shift.

FILTHY BUSINESS  Workers in the UK this year have warned workplaces from the giant Hinkley Point C construction site to hospitals have seen infestations of vermin and insects, creating infection and safety risks. More

After the company refused to act, the union went directly to the labour minister informing him “we have no alternative than to initiate an immediate stoppage of work.” The union meanwhile had “several exchanges” with the company’s management, raising concerns about leptospirosis, and other health, fire and electrical risks associated with the infestation.

The union’s actions led to an inspection by the enforcement agency on the day shift, when the rats were not active, prompting the employer to insist the workers return to work. The inspectors had been provided a copy of a video showing multiple rats running above workers’ heads. Still, the company’s return to work call was backed by the labour minister.

DIRTY RATS  Workers at this Mauritian animal feed walked out after a rat infestation created serious health and safety concerns. Government inspectors, the ministry and the employer all told them to get back to work. The union CTSP held out and the infestation was addressed. More

“The union was flabbergasted the ministry neither acted as a proper arbitrator nor did they issue a prohibition order to stop work,” said Chuttoo.

The union held firm and the company took action to address the infestation.

There is a law against it

Chuttoo said the absence of an explicit law on biological hazards was a barrier to getting enforcement action.

Now though, there is for the first time a global law covering rats and all other biological hazards at work. And all the International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) 187 member states are expected to respect it. In June 2025, as the CTSP members walked out, 5,400 delegates from governments, employers’ organisations and trade unions from these states assembled for the International Labour Conference in Geneva.

Delegates completed two years of negotiations and several more years of preparatory work to agree the Biological Hazards in the Working Environment Convention, (Convention 192), accompanied by a Recommendation, creating a comprehensive legal framework to protect workers from current and emerging biological risks across all types of work environments.

The fact there is a comprehensive Convention is, however, largely thanks to the resolve and negotiating nous of unions. Employers and some governments wanted the scope of the Convention to be limited to ‘biological agents’ – microorganisms like bacteria and viruses that cause infections.

WHO LOSES? Members of the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) also agreed the text of a legally binding treaty in 2025, designed to better tackle future pandemics. But a suite of International Labour Organisation (ILO) annotations (amendments) and that were supported by unions to extend protections to workers and reflecting the lessons of Covid, were ignored by negotiators. more

That would rule rats out. And anyone unlucky enough to be bitten by a snake or stung by a scorpion – major problems for agricultural and construction workers in many countries – would have been out of scope.

Green tobacco sickness, a recognised occupational disease of tobacco workers, would also be out, said unions, alongside any other conditions caused by toxic, allergenic or irritant plants. The microorganisms-only definition would have meant workers at risk of classic occupational diseases like bakers’ asthma caused by flour, or byssinosis, caused by exposure to cotton dust, would have been excluded.

James Ritchie, the union spokesperson for the 100-plus delegation of union reps on the ILO biological hazards committee, told delegates: “There is no rational definition by which an animal, be it a chicken or a cockroach, is not biological. There is no rational definition by which a plant, be it soybean or tobacco plants, is not biological.

“'Micro' doesn't define biological hazards, 'biological' does. To pretend otherwise requires linguistic gymnastics to justify a fiction which purposely excludes large swathes of workers from protections from what are, by any sensible definition, biological hazards.”

DEADLY OVERSIGHT  Employers and initially many governments wanted the biological hazards convention to be limited to diseases caused by microorganisms. But Green Tobacco Sickness, cotton lung and bakers’ asthma would have been among the classic occupational diseases excluded. Unions argued successfully there were some bigger problems in certain jobs, like poisonous plants and dangerous mammals, reptiles and insects.

Unions, coordinated by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), also argued there must be an explicit mention of allergens and irritants, and a reference to ‘sequelae’ like Long Covid that can come after an infection. Injuries must be included too.

After tense negotiations, governments from Africa, the European Union and Latin America, as well as the UK, Canada and Australia, fell in behind the unions. A definition that included all injuries and diseases related to biological agents, substances and products was agreed.

Breakthrough wins

The broad definition wasn’t the only win for unions. There were several firsts in the language negotiated, that should set a new baseline for subsequent ILO negotiations.

This is the first ILO convention to including explicit language recognising the essential role of whistleblowers and requiring they are protected from retaliation by employers.

No previous convention has ever required national policies to take into account “the impact of climate and environmental risks”, stipulating there shall be “adequate action to prevent and address identified risks.”

Unions argued this was a critical clause, as rising temperatures have seen a rapid spread of vectors like disease-spreading mosquitoes, as well as extreme weather events like floods increasing the risk of sewage borne and other diseases.  

DONE DEAL  James Ritchie (left), the union-side spokesperson in the ILO biological hazards negotiations, and ILO secretary general Gilbert Houngbo, celebrate the successful completion of two years of negotiations.

The Recommendation also for the first time includes language in an ILO safety instrument on income protection, noting governments should “endeavour to provide access to basic income security, as well as measures for business continuity, during periods of isolation or quarantine.”

The Convention and Recommendation signed in the conference’s closing session on 13 June 2025 was described by global construction union BWI as “a major step forward in securing safe and healthy working environments for all, especially those most exposed to biological agents, substances or products, be it exposure to bacteria and viruses in workers’ accommodation, snake bites on a construction site or a worker’s allergic reactions to plants in the forest.”

BWI, whose safety director Linnea Wikstrom headed the union negotiating team with Hazards editor and ITUC occupational health head Rory O’Neill, added: “The new instruments establish clear obligations for governments and employers to prevent, eliminate, or where elimination is not possible, control biological hazards.

UNION HANDS Members of the workers’ group celebrate the successful conclusion of the negotiations for a biological hazards convention and recommendation.

“They also ensure workers and their representatives have the right to participate meaningfully in occupational safety and health processes, and guarantee the right to refuse dangerous work and report violations without fear of retaliation.” The global union noted the new instruments “emphasise both the physical and mental wellbeing of workers.”

BWI said agreeing the convention was just the first step. “Now it’s time to turn victory into reality,” it said. “BWI calls on all affiliates to take action: Contact your governments; demand ratification; push for national implementation.”

It was a point reiterated by safety professionals’ organisation IOSH. “Now is the time for governments to act decisively, ratify the convention and embed this protection into the heart of national OSH policies and strategies,” said Ruth Wilkinson, head of policy at IOSH.

Unite national health and safety officer Rob Miguel, who with UNISON’s Joe Donnelly was a UK member of the workers’ group in the negotiations, said: “The new instruments establish clear obligations for governments and employers to prevent, eliminate, or where elimination is not possible, control biological hazards.”

Key points: Biological hazards convention and recommendation

The Biological Hazards in the Working Environment Convention (ILO Convention 192) provides the first global law on the issue, and is much more comprehensive that any current national laws.

The EU biological agents directive is limited only to infection risks, missing out entirely hazards posed by plants and animals. And the UK doesn’t even have a dedicated law on biological hazards at work. Instead, it retrofitted some language on infections to the pre-existing Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH).

Even governments who don’t ratify the convention are still required to ‘respect, promote and realise’ the principles – hazards caused by biological agents, substances and products are identified explicitly in the fundamental ILO safety Convention number 155, so all governments must take action to address these risks.

This means unions should be demanding comprehensive protections reflecting the safety, rights and employment protections spelled out in their fundamental rights at work and clarified in the biological hazards convention.

Unions needn’t don’t need to wait for governments to act. They can build the provisions into collective agreements. The biological hazards convention includes clauses requiring both employers and governments to recognise the role of collective agreements in implementing the Convention.

Definition The Biological Hazards Convention includes a broad-based definition covering all biological hazards, including microorganisms, hazards of animal or plant origin, and their associated diseases, irritant, allergic and toxic effects and injuries. Convention Article 1(a) notes: “‘biological hazards’ refers to any microorganisms, cells or cell cultures, endoparasites or non-cellular microbiological entities, including those which have been genetically modified, and their associated allergens and toxins, as well as allergens, toxins and irritants of plant or animal origin, when exposure is worked-related, which can cause harm to human health. Harm to human health caused by exposure to biological hazards in the working environment includes diseases and injuries”.

Health impacts The Convention includes a wide definition of health, including physical and mental health. Article 4(c) requires national policies to take account of “the need to develop arrangements for the effective management of exposure to biological hazards and risks in the working environment, including emerging or re-emerging hazards and risks, and prevention, preparedness and response measures, such as plans and procedures, to deal with accidents and emergencies related to these hazards, considering workers’ physical and mental health and wellbeing as well as, if appropriate, the need for support mechanisms for employers.” This is reinforced in the Recommendation, paragraph 4, which notes: “Health not only indicates the absence of disease or infirmity but also includes the physical and mental elements affecting health which are directly related to safety and health at work.”

Climate and environmental action The convention’s Article 4(d) says the national policies shall take into account “the impact of climate and environmental risks on exposure to biological hazards in the working environment and the need to take adequate action to prevent and address identified risks.”

Men and women The convention Article 4(f) specifies national policies shall recognise “the importance of ensuring, as appropriate, a perspective that considers all workers, including different levels of exposure and risk faced by women and men.” Article 10(b) adds governments must “establish, implement and periodically review procedures” for “the production and publication of annual statistics, disaggregated by sex, on occupational accidents, occupational diseases and, as appropriate, dangerous occurrences, that are caused by exposure to biological hazards in the working environment.” Article 16 notes employers shall “adopt preventive and protective measures as a result of an assessment of biological risks in the working environment so far as is reasonably practicable, ensuring, as appropriate, consideration of different levels of exposure and risk, including those faced by women and men.”

A precautionary approach The convention includes repeat mentions of the need for a precautionary approach. Article 5(b) says national authorities shall promote new research where there is “insufficient information”, with Article 7.1 saying they must “update national arrangements and guidelines on preventive and protective and, as appropriate, precautionary measures for the control of biological hazards and risks in the working environment”. Under Article 8.1, the Convention says governments “shall provide timely information and support to employers, workers and their representatives concerning preventive and protective and, as appropriate, precautionary measures for the control of biological hazards and risks in the working environment, based on an evaluation of biological risks by the competent authorities.” The requirements on governments are reinforced in the Recommendation Paragraph 9(c) which says national policy should “consider uncertainties”. Article 16(g) of the Convention says employers shall “take precautionary measures where the available information is insufficient to adequately assess the risks.”

Whistleblower protections The Convention includes a requirement for confidential mechanisms for reporting hazards to authorities, with explicit protection of whistleblowers from retaliation. Article 6(b) says government shall “ensure easy and confidential access for workers and their representatives to appropriate and effective reporting mechanisms to address any breach of national laws and regulations related to exposure to biological hazards in the working environment.” Article 6(c) says they shall “ensure that those who report such breaches are protected against retaliation.”

Accessible information Convention Article 8.2 notes “information shall be provided in an accessible form and understandable language, be periodically reviewed, and be updated as necessary to reflect the latest scientific and technical knowledge.”

Special protection The Convention includes explicit protections for vulnerable workers, with ‘specific provision’ where needed, ensuring this doesn’t result in discrimination or occupational segregation (Article 7.2(c)(ii)). The Recommendation includes sub-paragraphs on “workers in need of protection due to their social situation and multiple disadvantages” (Paragraph 11(f)) and “migrant workers” (Paragraph 11(g)).

Compensation The Convention’s Article 12 requires a comprehensive compensation system. It notes: “Each Member shall ensure that any disease, injury, incapacity or death due to occupational exposure to biological hazards in the working environment shall give rise to an entitlement to employment injury benefits or compensation, in accordance with national law and practice.”

Enforcement Article 13.1 of the Convention says governments “shall ensure the enforcement of national laws and regulations concerning exposure to biological hazards in the working environment through an adequate and appropriate system of inspection and, where applicable, other mechanisms for ensuring compliance, including the supply of technical information and advice to employers, workers and their representatives, and shall allocate adequate resources and the support needed for these functions.”

Penalties Article 14 stipulates governments “provide for adequate penalties and remedial measures for violations of the laws and regulations concerning biological hazards in the working environment and ensure their effective application.”

Workers’ rights The Convention includes extensive rights for workers and their representatives, including rights to information and consultation (Article 19). Workers have the right to refuse dangerous work with no undue consequences (Article 21(a)), and can’t be required to return while the danger remains (Article 21(c)). The Recommendation clarifies that workers and their representatives have the right to “consultation and participation” (Paragraph 9(a)(v)).

Collective agreements  The Convention’s Article 22 states: “Employers shall, consistent with national law and practice and applicable collective agreements, adopt preventive and protective measures as a result of an assessment of biological risks in the working environment so far as is reasonably practicable.” Article 16 requires: “Each member shall give effect to the provisions of this Convention, in consultation with the most representative organisations of employers and workers, through laws and regulations as well as through collective agreements or any other measures consistent with national conditions and practice…”

Outbreak support The Recommendation calls for “support for workers and employers in case of orders of isolation and quarantine” (Recommendation 8(c)). The  Recommendation also notes national plans and procedures should include “measures to be taken in the working environment in the event of outbreaks, epidemics or pandemics, including support for workers and employers in case of isolation and quarantine orders” (Paragraph 12(c)).

Income and job security  The Recommendation notes: “Members should, in accordance with national circumstances, endeavour to provide access to basic income security, as well as measures for business continuity, during periods of isolation or quarantine” (Paragraph 17); and “Members should endeavour to provide, as appropriate, protection from dismissal if, while complying with monitoring, travel restrictions, quarantine or isolation orders, or for related preventive or curative treatments, workers have to be absent from work” (Paragraph 18).

Supply chain clause The Recommendation notes: “Members should encourage both national and multinational employers to provide adequate occupational safety and health conditions and contribute to a preventive culture to eliminate hazards or minimize these risks” (Paragraph 15).

Treatments Free vaccinations and other protective health measures are covered in the Recommendation, which calls for “the provision of appropriate and adequate preventive measures, in accordance with national law and practice and on the basis of a risk assessment, which could include the facilitation of vaccination, immunisation, chemoprophylaxis and testing to all workers free of charge and on a voluntary basis” (Paragraph 22(b)).

• Biological Hazards in the Working Environment Convention, 2025 (No. 192)).
• Convention in العربية Deutsch español français русский 中文  
• Biological Hazards in the Working Environment Recommendation, 2025 (No. 209)).
• Recommendation in العربية Deutsch español français русский 中文

Smelling a rat over workplace infestations

In July 2025 hundreds of construction workers at the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant staged a wildcat strike over concerns including a site “overrun by rats.”

Unions Unite and GMB warned the developer, the French energy giant EDF, that urgent action was needed because the rodents were “everywhere”.

One worker commented: “They’re all over. You see them just sat there, looking at you. It is worse near the canteens, where I guess it started. But they are everywhere now.”
A second worker told the Observer: “The more men working on the site, the more rubbish on the site – and the canteens are not clean either. It has just become worse over time.”

The company said vermin could sometimes be a problem on all large construction sites, adding a specialist company had carried out a survey and measures were in place to address the issue.

Infestations are not a problem restricted to blue collar workplaces.

A 2025 UNISON poll of nearly 9,000 health workers painted a worrying picture of the crumbling NHS estate, with one in six (16 per cent) hospital staff reporting they had seen vermin inside their buildings in the past 12 months.

The same proportion reported evidence of infestations such as silverfish, ants and cockroaches.

The infestations pose a health risk, as cockroaches can transmit illnesses and diseases like gastroenteritis, diarrhoea, typhoid and salmonella.
Rats are known to carry diseases such as leptospirosis.

One UNISON member at a Wirral hospital said fly infestations and dead rats had forced operations to be cancelled.

Another said there were vermin bait boxes dotted all over his hospital in north-west England, yet rats still got into a room storing sterile instruments and supplies.

WHO agrees legally binding pandemic treaty

Members of the World Health Organisation (WHO) have agreed the text of a legally binding treaty designed to better tackle future pandemics.

The Pandemic Agreement was signed off at WHO’s World Health Assembly on 20 May 2025.

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” said WHO director general Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.  “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats.

“It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during Covid-19.”  

WHO said the Pandemic Agreement sets out the principles, approaches and tools for better international coordination across a range of areas, in order to strengthen the global health architecture for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. This includes through the equitable and timely access to vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

The Pandemic Agreement is however a disappointment from a workplace safety standpoint. The original draft did offer protections for health care, which remain, and amendments lobbied for by unions secured new language on protections of seafarers in the supply chain.

But a suite of International Labour Organisation (ILO) annotations (amendments) and that were supported by unions to extend protections to workers and reflecting the lessons of Covid, were ignored by negotiators. These included recognising the binding fundamental rights of all workers, social protection for affected workers and consultation with unions and employers.

This neglect of occupational health had been anticipated - government negotiators on WHO’s International Negotiating Body (INB) and the World Health Assembly members who agreed the treaty are from health and not labour ministries. Unlike at the ILO, there is no trade union role in the governance process.

Top of the page

LIVING HELL?

Poisonous tobacco leaves? Beastly bugs? Bacteria, viruses, food dust, vermin or other creatures? No problem. Hazards editor Rory O’Neill says unions have just negotiated a stunning new ILO biological hazards law to protect workers worldwide from the occupational risks arising from plants, infections and animals or associated with other living things.