Safety in production and on assembly lines

For 2025 the National Labour Inspectorate recorded 7 511 registered accidents at work in Slovakia. Of these 24 were fatal, the same as the year before, 50 involved serious injury and 7 437 were others with more than three days of incapacity.5

Manufacturing accounted for 2 588 of them, that is 34,8 %. That is the highest share of any sector in the SK NACE classification. For accidents with serious injury the ratio is sharper still: 15 of 50 cases, or 30%.6

The number says little until it is set against employment. In the public statistics, around 496 500 people worked in manufacturing in 2025, which is 20.5% of employment in the Slovak Republic.12 So a sector with a fifth of the jobs carries more than a third of the accidents. Dividing one share by the other gives an above-average burden of roughly 1.7 times.

The industry itself describes how large the sector behind those figures is. According to the Automotive Industry Association of the Slovak Republic, the automotive industry accounts for more than 52% of industrial production and 42.6% of exports, and provides work directly or indirectly for more than 256 thousand people. In 2025, 1 070 000 cars were built in Slovakia.13 The duties described below apply in the same way to a large carmaker and to a supplier with a single line.

Vehicles added a further 644 accidents and lifting equipment with conveyors 202.5 Most accidents do not happen while operating a machine but while moving around the hall and handling material, which is exactly where footwear, gloves and goggles are worn.

The European comparison shows the same thing from another angle. According to Eurostat, Slovak manufacturing accounted for 2 961 non-fatal accidents at work in 2023, the highest absolute count of any sector. In 2024 the figure was 2 914.11 The sector's share of all non-fatal accidents reached 36.9% in Slovakia against a European Union average of 18.5%. Reporting levels differ widely between countries, so the incidence rates themselves cannot be compared. The structure can be, and it says that production carries twice the share of accidents here that it does in the union as a whole.

Occupational diseases come out much the same. In 2025, 154 cases were reported in manufacturing, half of all recognised occupational diseases in the Slovak Republic. The most common diagnosis, upper limb disorders from long-term repetitive strain, appeared in 184 cases, 59.7% of all those recognised.5

The basic rule for machines on a line is Government Regulation No. 392/2006 Coll. on minimum health and safety requirements for the use of work devices. It has applied since 1 July 2006 and has never been amended.1

The first duty concerns selection. A work device must be suitable for the job or adapted to it, and in choosing one the employer takes account of the particular working conditions, the kind of work and the hazards present at the workplace, under Section 3(1). The second duty, criticised far more often in practice, concerns inspections.

That sentence is easy to miss, even though it shifts responsibility. If no intervals exist anywhere for a particular machine, it does not mean the machine need not be inspected. It means the site itself has to set the scope and frequency and be able to evidence it.

On top of regular inspection there is a special inspection by an authorised person whenever exceptional circumstances arise, in particular a modification, a fault, an accident, a natural event or a longer break in use, under Section 5(2). The employer must keep the inspection records so that they are available to supervisory authorities at any time if needed. Where a device is used away from the workplace, the records of the last inspection must be at the place of use, under Section 5(4).

Three duties follow, and together they are the first thing an inspector looks for.

• Where the use of a device may particularly endanger safety, only an employee assigned by the employer may use it, and maintenance, repairs or modifications may be carried out only by an authorised person, under Section 6.
• The employer must be able to show that the employee was informed and instructed about how to use the device and, where necessary, given written operating instructions, under Section 8(1).
• Both the assigned operator and the authorised employee must be demonstrably trained in proportion to the dangers of their work, under Section 8(4).

Who may carry out the inspections is specified by the National Labour Inspectorate: an authorised legal person under Section 14(1)(d) of the health and safety act, or an accredited independent type A inspection body under STN EN ISO/IEC 17020 in the field of machinery.10

Forming machines still follow a standard from 1985

For forming machines the intervals and the method of inspection are set by clause 7.3 of STN 21 0700. The standard is listed as valid in the ÚNMS SR catalogue, with an edition dated 13 December 1985 and a last amendment from March 1997.810 So presses and forming machines are still governed by a document older than the regulation on work devices and older than the health and safety act.

Annex 2 to the regulation deals with layout and use. A device must be installed and used so that the danger to the operator and to others is reduced, for example by leaving enough room between moving parts and fixed or moving parts around them. Assembly and dismantling must be done in safe conditions and according to the manufacturer's instructions. A self-propelled mobile work device, a forklift truck included, may be operated only by an employee trained to operate it safely, and internal traffic rules must be issued for movement within the working area.1

Personal protective equipment is not the first line of protection but the last. It is provided where the danger cannot be eliminated or limited by technical means, by collective protection or by the organisation of work.4 In production that point is reached at practically every operation involving cutting, grinding, welding or handling sharp edges.

The starting point is not a supplier's catalogue but your own list. Government Regulation No. 395/2006 Coll., in the wording in force since 20 November 2021, requires in Section 5(1) that the employer provide PPE according to its own list drawn up from the risk assessment, and that the list specify particular types of equipment for each kind of work. The list is reviewed after every assessment of suitability.

Annex 3 to the regulation contains three tables of work by physical, chemical and biological hazards. These rows matter for a production hall.4

The annex also names sectors for each row. For gloves, vibration and aerosols it expressly mentions manufacturing and the metalworking, woodworking and automotive industries; for noise, metallurgy and processing. The list of work is not exhaustive, though. The National Labour Inspectorate adds that other work may also require the employer to provide PPE, which is why hazards and risks have to be analysed carefully.9

The same source explains why lists fail on inspection. Naming a category is not enough; the type has to be named for the particular job. The inspectorate illustrates this with footwear: protective footwear with a puncture and cut resistant sole for work with concrete elements, anti-slip footwear for work on a slippery floor, and antistatic footwear for work spent mostly standing. Those are three different items, not one.9

One more point from the same source is worth quoting during tenders.

Section 3(1) of the regulation further requires the equipment to meet ergonomic requirements, to suit the employee's state of health and, after any small adjustment needed, to fit their body. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work points out that a poor fit makes people less willing to wear the equipment, and that simply scaling the pattern down does not solve it, because different shapes are needed, not only different sizes.7 A range of sizes is therefore not a comfort question but a compliance one.

Section 6(1) of the regulation also requires the employer to set the conditions of use, in particular how long equipment is used for. The German trade rule DGUV Regel 112-195 on protective gloves shows how far that can be spelled out: the operating instruction must state both the wearing time and a glove replacement plan.14 It is not binding in Slovakia, but it shows what established European practice understands by setting a period of use. And a replacement plan only means something when a spare pair is available at the workplace when the employee needs it.

It makes sense to give the specific type in the list together with the standard the equipment is certified to. This is exactly where an out-of-date reference slips into documentation most easily.

Standard STN EN 166 for eye protection was withdrawn on 30 April 2025. It was replaced by STN EN ISO 16321-1 and STN EN ISO 16321-3.8 If your PPE list or enquiry sheet still refers to EN 166, it refers to a document the catalogue of Slovak technical standards no longer lists as valid.

For welding workplaces there is a separate part, STN EN ISO 16321-2, which is also valid. With safety footwear, note that the older edition based on ISO 20345:2011 was withdrawn as of 31 March 2023, so a reference to the 2012 version is now as out of date as a reference to EN 166.8

Besides harmonised standards, the equipment must meet product legislation. According to the National Labour Inspectorate that is Regulation (EU) 2016/425 of the European Parliament and of the Council on personal protective equipment, which replaced Directive 89/686/EEC.9 When taking delivery that means CE marking and a declaration of conformity, not just a delivery note.

Act No. 124/2006 Coll. on health and safety, in the wording in force since 1 July 2025, joins provision and records in one sentence. They are not two separate duties where one could be met without the other.

Four rules come on top, and together they shape how issuing should work in production.

• The employer bears the cost and must not pass it to the employee, under Section 6(11) of the health and safety act. The inspectorate puts it more bluntly: an employer must not sell PPE to employees, deduct its price from their wages, or recover its value in any similar way.9
• Where the same item is used by several employees, it must be available to the employee whenever it is needed under Section 3(3)(b) of the PPE regulation. In three-shift operation that means at night and at weekends too.4
• The prescribed documentation, records and registers have to be kept for five years from the last entry, under Section 6(1)(n) of the health and safety act.
• The employer must check continuously that PPE, guards and other protective measures are properly used, under Section 9(1)(d), and put right whatever is found wanting.

Neither the act nor the PPE regulation prescribes the form of the records. What is required is that they are kept, that they capture provision to a named employee, and that they are available for five years. A paper card and an electronic record are equal in that respect; they differ only in how reliably they hold up under shift work and staff turnover.

Instruction deserves attention of its own. It is repeated at least once every three years, but the employer must also give it on hiring, on transfer to another workplace, and on the introduction of new technology, a new working procedure or a new work device under Section 7(3). Every change on the line is therefore a reason to instruct, not just the passing of the three year period.

The 2025 report on the state of occupational safety names the problem unusually directly. It is not primarily that protective equipment is missing.

The statistics on causes show the same. In 2025, missing, inadequate or unsuitable PPE was recorded as the cause of 8 cases, while failure to use the PPE prescribed and issued accounted for 84 cases. Over the eleven years from 2015 to 2025 the ratio is 914 to 145, roughly six to one.5

Both numbers are small against the total, because 78.15% of accidents end up in the catch-all category of shortcomings in personal fitness for the work. What they say lies in the ratio between them. If for every accident caused by missing equipment there are ten caused by not using what was issued, holding more stock in the store solves the smaller part of the problem.

On inspections the same group of shortcomings keeps coming up.5

• a list of PPE provided that is missing or inadequate against the risk assessment,
• difficulty in specifying the type of equipment for each work activity,
• records of PPE provided not kept, or kept wrongly,
• employees not told what dangers the equipment protects them from,
• no instruction on how to use the issued equipment correctly,
• no checks on whether PPE is properly used.

In numbers, 2025 looks good in this area. Inspectors recorded 598 PPE shortcomings, 27.78% fewer than the 828 in 2024. In manufacturing as a sector, though, the total number of findings rose by 12% to 7 733, putting the sector second only to transport and storage.5

That this is about management rather than paperwork is confirmed from outside state supervision as well. The International Social Security Association built its Vision Zero strategy on seven rules, in which the safety of machines, equipment and workplaces is rule five, raising qualifications rule six, and involving employees rule seven.15 Those are three separate jobs for company management. The Slovak inspectorate finds shortcomings in all three.

Act No. 125/2006 Coll. on labour inspection, in the wording in force since 7 June 2026, lists what counts as a serious breach of duty. On that list, failing to provide PPE sits on the same level as a missing guard on a machine.

Being classed as a serious breach has a direct effect on the rate and on whether the inspectorate has any discretion at all. For an ordinary breach the inspectorate "may impose" a penalty. For a serious breach it "imposes" one.

In setting the amount, Section 19(6) requires account to be taken, among other things, of whether the breach results from an ineffective safety management system or is an isolated occurrence, and of the same shortcoming being found repeatedly. Documentation of issuing and of checks is therefore part of what is assessed when the amount is set. A site that can evidence a working system argues from a different position than one that can only produce purchase invoices.

Liability does not stop at the company either. Managers and statutory bodies who breached the duties through their own fault can be fined up to four times their average monthly earnings, and the employer's liability for the same breach is unaffected. Penalty proceedings can be started within six months of the end of the inspection and no later than three years from the day of the breach.3

Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 of the European Parliament and of the Council on machinery has been in force since July 2023, but it only applies from 14 January 2027. Some articles apply earlier. Directive 2006/42/EC, on which current practice rests, is repealed on the same day.2 The date 20 January 2027 occasionally appears in professional discussion; it is not in the text of the regulation.

For a site that buys and uses machines, two things matter.

• Products placed on the market in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC before 14 January 2027 may continue to be made available on the market, and EC type-examination certificates remain valid until they expire. An existing, properly placed line therefore does not need recertifying.
• Anyone who carries out a substantial modificationon a machine is treated under Article 18 as its manufacturer and takes on the manufacturer's duties, including conformity assessment. The exception applies only to a non-professional user modifying a machine for their own use, so not to an industrial company.

The definition of a substantial modification is closer to everyday practice than people expect. It is a modification after the machine was placed on the market that the manufacturer did not foresee, that creates a new hazard or increases an existing risk, and that calls either for adding guards or devices with a change to the existing safety control system, or for further measures to ensure stability and mechanical strength.2

Boiled down into a brief, the previous sections leave a production site with four things to meet at once that look contradictory: have the equipment available on every shift, be able to show who received it and when, check that it is actually used, and not pass the cost to the employee.

That is exactly the job for controlled issuing at the workplace itself.

• The equipment is available at any hour, including on the night shift. That is precisely what Section 3(3)(b) of the PPE regulation asks for. The inspectorate adds that where an employee meets the conditions, the employer must provide the equipment automatically, without them having to ask for it.9
• Every issue is tied to a named employee by card or PIN. That produces the record of provision whose absence the inspectorate criticises again and again.
• Consumption is visible by workplace, by shift and by cost centre, so ordinary wear can be told apart from overuse without charging the employee anything. The law forbids passing the cost on.
• The walk to the store disappears. On a line where gloves are changed several times a shift, the length of that walk is the most common reason equipment does not get replaced in time.

Digital issuing is nothing foreign to Slovak sites. According to the ESENER 2024 survey, 63% of Slovak organisations use digital technologies routinely, the second highest figure in the European Union against an average of 42%.7

For issuing gloves, goggles, hearing protection and cutting material at the line itself, our range is most often used as spiral and lift machines, with a wider range in one place as carousel storage machines and, for bulky items, cabinet machines.

Ten questions every production site and assembly line should be able to answer.

Legislation is cited as in force on the date this guide was updated, and standards according to the ÚNMS SR catalogue as at 31 August 2026. Sources that are not Slovak legislation are marked in the list and are informative. This text is for information and does not replace legal advice or an assessment of a particular site.