Short answer. Yes. Article 160 of the Labor Code requires the physicians, dentists, and nurses an employer engages under this chapter to have "the necessary training in industrial medicine and occupational safety and health." A nurse hired for this role cannot simply be a general-practice nurse with no grounding in workplace health and safety.
What the law says
The physicians, dentists and nurses employed by employers pursuant to this Chapter shall have the necessary training in industrial medicine and occupational safety and health.
Labor Code, Article 160 — Qualifications Of Health Personnel. Read the full provision →
The training requirement in Article 160
Article 160 states that the physicians, dentists and nurses employed by employers pursuant to this Chapter shall have the necessary training in industrial medicine and occupational safety and health. This applies specifically to the health personnel an employer engages under the Labor Code's occupational health and safety chapter — the company doctors and nurses tasked with looking after the workforce, not health professionals engaged for unrelated purposes.
The words pursuant to this Chapter also mark the outer edge of the rule. Whether an employer must engage health personnel at all is settled elsewhere in the same Chapter, and turns on how many workers are employed and whether the work is hazardous. Where no such obligation arises, Article 160 has nothing to attach to; where it does arise, the training requirement comes with it automatically.
Why general medical or nursing credentials are not enough by themselves
The article distinguishes ordinary clinical competence from training specific to industrial medicine and occupational safety and health — the body of knowledge concerned with how work itself affects health: exposure risks, workplace hazards, ergonomics, and the standards that apply on a shop floor or in an industrial setting. A nurse who is licensed and competent in general practice does not automatically satisfy this requirement unless that additional training in occupational health is also present.
Who sets the detailed qualifications
The article assigns the task of fixing precise standards to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, who is to establish the qualifications, criteria and conditions of employment of such health personnel, doing so in consultation with industrial, medical, and occupational safety and health associations. Article 160 itself sets the baseline principle; the fully detailed qualifications are worked out through that regulatory process rather than spelled out article by article.
Two things follow from that. The operative standard is whatever the Secretary's issuances currently require, so the answer can change without the article itself changing a word. And the training sits on top of professional licensure rather than in place of it — a company nurse needs both a valid licence to practise nursing and the occupational grounding this article describes.
If you have concerns about your workplace's health personnel
If you believe the nurse or physician assigned to your workplace lacks the training this article calls for, document what you have observed — their role, how long they have served, and anything suggesting the required training is missing — and raise it through your workplace's own channels or with a lawyer who can advise on how this fits into your broader occupational safety concerns.
What Article 160 leaves to other rules
The article applies to health personnel employed by employers pursuant to this Chapter — it does not, by itself, say which employers are obligated to engage a nurse or physician in the first place, how many workers trigger that obligation, or what specific curriculum counts as sufficient training. It also does not spell out a penalty for engaging untrained health personnel; it states the qualification standard and hands the surrounding details — thresholds, criteria, conditions of employment — to the Secretary of Labor and Employment to define through consultation.