Too hot at work? For the unions, there's only one solution.

Summer heat poses a real threat to many outdoor jobs. Not only do workers in construction and on building sites, or in agriculture, on roads, or even those who work in hot indoor environments (e.g., bakers or warehouse workers), but postal workers are also at risk of health problems.

The news recently caused quite a stir, reported by the CGIL (Italian General Confederation of Labour) that a fifty-year-old postman working in the Veneto region ended up in the emergency room due to sunstroke he suffered while delivering mail.

INAIL classified the event as a workplace accident due to heat stress , but, more importantly, the unions took the opportunity to highlight the issue of heat during working hours, calling for the territorial ordinances published in recent days to be extended and applied to tasks other than those most at risk, such as work in the fields or on scaffolding.

Let's take a closer look at the situation and try to understand what the actual impact of the requests put forward by the CGIL could be.

Sunstroke, the doctor's prognosis, and the back-and-forth between the union and Poste Italiane

In the case in question, after work hours, the postman had become so unwell that he was forced to go to an emergency room in Verona . Upon examining him, the doctor prescribed a three-day prognosis for problems caused by excessive contact with the sun's rays. But what is particularly important here is that—thanks also to the union's mediation—INAIL classified the event as a heat stress injury. Indeed, the heat-related problem occurred at work, was caused by an external, traumatic factor, and resulted in an identifiable physical injury (the sunburn).

With a three-day prognosis—and resulting absence from work (paid by the company) without the need to use vacation or leave —the union's attention immediately shifted to the employer's behavior. Indeed, the CGIL (Italian General Confederation of Labour) highlighted the employer's clear responsibility for failing to adopt all necessary measures to mitigate the microclimate risk, as indicated by INAIL (National Institute for the Prevention of Illnesses) guidelines —such as rescheduling work hours or introducing extra breaks to avoid the hottest hours.

Poste Italiane, however, defended itself on this point in a written statement issued a few days ago. In the document, the company explains that it has indeed adopted a series of heat protection measures for some time, such as staff training courses, use of the Worklimate portal, heat risk localization, mandatory and extraordinary breaks (in shaded or air-conditioned environments) during working hours, and thermos flasks for those who deliver parcels and letters.

In this exchange with the unions, the company also clarified that—on high-risk days—employees classified as "highly susceptible" and—regardless of their health—those over 60 are not required to engage in outdoor activities. Essentially, Poste Italiane has thus characterized the postman's accident as a sort of exceptional event, for which it has adopted a package of ad hoc measures.

CGIL's requests aim to extend the scope of anti-heat ordinances

The CGIL ( Italian General Confederation of Labour) seized the opportunity to raise the issue at a more general level. While the union expressed satisfaction with INAIL's classification of the workplace accident as heat stress-related, it also emphasized that greater institutional commitment and impetus was needed.

Essentially, the ordinances recently issued by the regions should have and guarantee a broader scope, applying not only to those working in the fields or construction, but also to all employees who—in various ways—find themselves working while exposed to the effects of the thermometer. Indeed, it is precisely the recognition of workplace injuries that justifies the desired extension, in the name of full protection for all workers potentially at risk.

In other words, there are still gaps in the safety system that need to be addressed, while the Veneto region's ordinance prohibiting work in conditions of prolonged exposure to the sun from 12:30 pm to 4:00 pm—which applies to farmers and bricklayers and therefore not across the board—is just one piece of a safety puzzle, which should be completed with comprehensive rules.

What changes

Upon closer inspection, this case sets an important precedent for prevention purposes. In fact, the formal recognition of a heat stress injury by INAIL always requires—or should always require—the employer to carefully assess the heat stress risk in the DVR (Risk Assessment Document), modify schedules, shifts, or tasks in the event of high temperatures, always provide adequate equipment (water, headwear, breaks in the shade), and, no less importantly, avoid recurrence of the risk, to avoid incurring sanctions.

There's no shortage of examples of the potential extension of the ordinances' effects. Consider those who work in logistics or urban distribution, or those involved in waste collection and sanitation services, or even those who work in enclosed but non-air-conditioned environments (such as workshops, bakeries, or warehouses).

High temperatures , it should be emphasized, are not only a risk outdoors (and due to the resulting drought ). In fact, many non-air-conditioned indoor environments reach temperatures much higher than those outside, posing a real risk to employees' health. Local ordinances could therefore establish critical ambient temperature thresholds, beyond which activities must be suspended or rescheduled, as well as requiring the provision of microclimate monitoring tools and personal protective equipment.

Ultimately, the union's goal is clear: to transform the emergency logic into structured and inclusive legislation, capable of effectively preventing situations that pose a risk to workers' health, regardless of the sector or specific job description. The case of the Veneto postman is just one of many, but it demonstrates that the road to fully protecting workers from the heat is still long.