ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Comments > All Comments

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Kazakhstan (Ratification: 2001)

Display in: French - Spanish

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2024, Publication: 112nd ILC session (2024)

Written information provided by the Government

In accordance with the Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Ratification of the Convention concerning Labour Inspection in Industry and Commerce” (No. 81) and “On Ratification of the Convention concerning Labour Inspection in Agriculture” (No. 129), adopted in May 2001, labour inspection is mandated to be under the supervision and control of the central Government. Since 1993, a state labour inspectorate has been operational in Kazakhstan, in line with these Conventions’ provisions. As per section 191 of the Republic of Kazakhstan’s Labour Code, state labour inspectors are tasked with enforcing compliance with labour legislation. This enforcement takes the form of inspection and preventive control, involving visits to the control subjects, as stipulated by the Entrepreneurship Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The inspections are carried out through on-site visits to the inspected entity in accordance with the approved checklist, which contains 38 items and fully covers the requirements of the labour legislation.
In 2023, labour inspectors conducted 6,927 on-site inspections of compliance with the labour legislation. It should be noted that 173 inspections were carried out on a scheduling order and 6,754 inspections were carried out on the basis of applications received. As a result of these inspections, 10,370 violations of labour legislation were identified, 4,369 orders to eliminate the identified violations were issued, and 2,401 administrative fines were imposed for a total of 401 million tenge. At the same time, since 2023, control subjects have failed to comply with 82 orders of labour inspectors in due time, including 63 in 2023 and 19 in 2024. In accordance with section 462.3 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 31 administrative fines (2023) were imposed on control subjects for failure to comply with the instructions on the protocols of labour inspections by judicial authorities and 11 materials are under consideration in court (10 materials in 2024 and 1 material in 2023).
In the course of the performance of the duties imposed on state labour inspectors to comply with the labour legislation, there were facts of obstruction on the part of inspected entities in the conduct of inspection activities, expressed in the failure to provide the documents requested by inspectors. At the same time, in each case, the response measures stipulated by the legislation were taken, in the form of bringing the subject of control to administrative responsibility. Thus, in 2023, 56 cases of obstruction of state labour inspectors in the implementation of state control were identified. Administrative fines totalling 12.8 million tenge were imposed on these cases. In the first four months of 2024, 17 similar cases were identified, as a result of which employers were imposed administrative fines for the amount of 4 million tenge. Concurrently, since the beginning of 2023, there have been no cases of bringing state labour inspectors to disciplinary responsibility under section 50(12) of the Law on Civil Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Meanwhile, the moratorium on inspections of micro and small enterprises ended on 1 January 2024. Since then, state labour inspectors have conducted 2,366 inspections nationwide, uncovering 3,144 violations. These inspections led to 1,409 instructions issued to employers and 1,780 administrative fines totalling 178 million tenge. As of 1 April 2024, there are 276 units of state labour inspectors in the staff of local labour inspection bodies.
It should be noted that the experts of the ILO in 2018 conducted an audit of the labour inspection activities of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which resulted in recommendations to strengthen the role of labour inspection by transferring it to the subordination of the central executive body. In this regard, a draft Law on Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Improvement of Safe Labour Conditions and Protection of Labour Rights of Employees has been prepared within the framework of which the following issues are considered:
  • transfer of state inspection from local executive bodies to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population (MLSPP);
  • empowerment of state labour inspectors to conduct inspections without prior notice in the field of safety and labour protection at dangerous production facilities.
As of today, the proposal to transfer state labour inspection from local executive bodies to the Ministry has been approved by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The MLSPP is carrying out preparatory work to establish a separate state labour inspection committee with territorial subdivisions in the regions. A detailed action plan for the establishment of a state labour inspection committee in the Ministry has been developed and is being implemented.
In compliance with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129, the MLSPP is working on a comprehensive annual report on the work of labour inspection for 2023. This report will be submitted to the ILO as a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the Ministry regularly prepares the National Review of Occupational Safety and Health in the Republic of Kazakhstan in the framework of cooperation with the Subregional Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia of the ILO in accordance with the “Methodological Guidelines for Compilation of the National Review of Occupational Safety and Health”. The recent national review was published in 2023, which covers the years 2020–22, with statistical information. In addition to these efforts on an ongoing basis, the Ministry systematically publishes, in the media, information on the work of labour inspection in monitoring compliance with labour legislation.

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I kindly invite the Government representative of Kazakhstan, ViceMinister of Labour and Social Protection of the Population, to take the floor.
Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – Allow me to express gratitude for having this opportunity to take the floor today on behalf of the Republic of Kazakhstan at this meeting of the Committee. Our Government attaches great importance to issues of application of labour standards, and we are of course grateful for the support and partnership that has been shown to us on an ongoing basis by the International Labour Organization (ILO). We acknowledge the importance of the ratified Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and we take note of the comments expressed by the Committee of Experts with regard to the current situation in Kazakhstan and the actions of the state labour inspectorate.
I would like to dwell first on the topics which are the subject of the current consideration. Firstly, with regard to the moratorium on state labour inspection activities, I should indicate at this point that the moratorium brought in by presidential decree on 1 January 2020 was aimed at improving the conditions of development of small businesses and only affected small businesses. This moratorium was extended until the end of 2022. I should indicate here that the state oversight system has three forms. General checks are one of them, preventive controls with visits are another, and this moratorium only affected this second form of inspection – namely preventive controls with visits. Accordingly, limitations were imposed on that type of preventive control in the micro and small enterprise arena. According to the statistics of 2023, over 6,000 checks were carried out and, of those, a little over 100 were to this type of business. Accordingly, the number of visits to small enterprises was clearly limited. All the other inspections at the request of the trade unions and workers themselves are aimed at protecting the health and life of workers, and there were no limits imposed on that form of inspection, so as to uphold the labour rights of our Kazakh workers. Over the period covered by the moratorium, 22,000 inspections were carried out and some 12,000 violations were found. Some 13,000 warnings were handed out, with a total sum of 1.2 million tenge in administrative fines imposed, meaning that the inspectorate was operational and carrying out its functions fully. At the current time, there are no longer any limitations on these two types of inspections. As of 1 January 2024, the moratorium has been fully lifted. This is the first issue I would like to address.
Secondly, regarding the regulatory backdrop for direct inspections, we currently have two oversight systems in place. The first is, of course, control in the form of an internal audit, and the second, what is known as public controls initiatives by trade unions. More than 18,000 such checks have taken place and more than 24,000 technical inspections are in operation. I turn now to the state labour inspectorate. As such, it discharges state functions, carrying out a significant number of inspections. This is ongoing. We are also working to enhance the operation of our labour inspectorate with the introduction of an automated system to identify dubious, suspect workplaces where violations could take place, with an IT system that enables us to decide where to undertake inspections with the data in hand. This enables us to react and take corrective measures if necessary. We take note of all the comments as to the need for a fuller mandate to be given to labour inspectors to undertake unscheduled inspections at their own free initiative. I will return to this when it comes to our regulatory framework. With regard to investigations of accidents, there are no limitations at all on them, with the relevant investigations being undertaken in specific cases. In terms of the number of preventive inspections, this is defined based on the degree of risk of workplaces, with measures to review this and to ensure more often that inspections are carried out at the relevant time and place. We are also planning to improve the risk assessment system such that labour inspectors are able to identify and prevent risks in the workplace, and to rapidly react. This would include conveying cases to the judicial and law enforcement bodies. With regard to direct oversight, the state labour inspectorate is being strengthened by all means possible from our part. In 2023, 1,505 cases were transmitted to the law enforcement authorities, and 150 criminal cases were launched as a result. With regard to bad faith employers who were not applying the rules, over 2,300 checks were carried out. In addition to that, numerous violations were uncovered with some 1,400 warnings issued and significant fines imposed, in addition to certain numbers of cases being transmitted to the law enforcement authorities. In addition, with the oversight system, measures are being taken to introduce the Vision Zero approach to accident prevention, and we have 580 enterprises now involved in this Vision Zero programme. More than 18,000 works councils haven been established and operate at enterprises. We have brought about changes to the Labour Code in order to ensure general coordination of work to apply and enforce labour standards in the workplace. At the same time, we have put in place vertical oversight on building sites. A total of 3,214 enterprises have committed to implementing special occupational safety and health standards, while also putting in place systems of risk assessment.
Employers also have access to an online labour consultancy system to enable all employers to undertake a self-check on compliance with labour legislation, with more than 13,000 employers already accessing the system and using it. With regard to the comprehensive analysis of labour inspection work and accountability under Conventions Nos 81 and 129, we have an annual report which is discussed in the tripartite commission under the Prime Minister, with information broadcast in the media and to global labour inspection bodies. With regard to legislation, I can tell you that the Parliament is currently debating relevant legislation, with social partners involved in this discussion. In addition, a number of changes are anticipated. The main one of these is the transfer of labour inspection powers from local authorities to a direct, vertical control structure deriving from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population, and in the coming months there will be a single body, a labour inspection system with local sections covering the entire territory, with the material and technological tools to make this change happen. For our labour inspectorate, we hope that this Bill has already been adopted by the Lower House of Parliament, and will also be approved by the Upper House and signed by the Head of State into law. In addition, as part of work to enhance our legislation, we are making efforts to define the relevant accountability and responsibility of the parties in the event of accidents, with clear-cut instructions for medical organization, labour inspection, the identification of accidents in the workplace and support for potential victims of accidents, also, probably, defining powers in the healthcare sphere, as well as guidelines for assessing the degree of injury of workers. All of those regulations are being considered by the Lower House of Parliament at the current time. In addition, all of those issues are subject to ongoing review with our social partners, and we would like to express our immense gratitude to the ILO for its support. I can tell you that in fact, today, we have signed with the ILO a road map on support for true decent work in the Republic of Kazakhstan. This has been signed by all our social partners, some of whom are here today. This includes five key areas of work, for joint work, and one of the key areas is a safe and healthy workplace, to be achieved through overcoming shortcomings in labour inspection. This is to be implemented in the coming years and we hope that we will be able to achieve notable results. As part of this, we will of course reassess our existing legislation and practice once again, ensuring that it comes into line with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. We trust that we will receive ongoing technical support from the ILO in order to improve and harmonize our domestic legislation on labour inspection with the Conventions. I should once again like to assure the Committee that the Government of Kazakhstan will take all steps to overcome the problems that have been identified and ensure that our legislation is in line with ILO standards. We will work in close cooperation with the ILO and all other interested parties in order to improve conditions of labour and to protect the rights of workers.
Worker members – Our Committee’s attention has often been focused on examining the Government of Kazakhstan’s compliance with Convention No. 87. The situation regarding respect for trade union freedoms in Kazakhstan has always been of concern to us all. Numerous initiatives are nevertheless under way to resolve the problems of compliance noted in this respect.
The situation of respect for trade union freedoms is certainly not unrelated to the situation of respect for Conventions Nos 81 and 129 in the country. An environment conducive to the exercise of freedom of association would certainly enable progress to be made in many areas of work, including labour inspection. Labour inspection plays a fundamental role in ensuring decent working conditions for workers. It is therefore essential to provide the inspection services with all the necessary means to function optimally and ensure the protection of workers. It has come to our attention that, in this regard, the capacities of labour inspection in Kazakhstan have been decreasing, with today only 225 labour inspectors for the whole country.
This is the first time that our Committee is examining the application of these Conventions in Kazakhstan. The Committee of Experts has made a number of observations which point to failures to comply with these Conventions.
The most troubling of these is the moratorium on inspection services in Kazakhstan, which was in force until 1 January 2024. The problem of a moratorium on inspection services, while apparent in the case of Kazakhstan, is nevertheless endemic to the region. We fear that this moratorium could be reintroduced at some point, as we have sadly already seen in another country of the region after examination of its case before our Committee.
However, the Committee of Experts’ 2019 general comment on Convention No. 81 recalls that any moratorium imposed on labour inspection is a serious violation of the Convention. Such a moratorium considerably weakens the inherent functioning of labour inspection, to the detriment of decent work and the protection of workers’ rights.
More specifically, the moratorium in Kazakhstan applied to labour inspection in private and public enterprises that fall into the categories of micro and small enterprises, with a few exceptions provided for in very restrictively enumerated cases. Furthermore, on the basis of the Entrepreneur Code, the Government is empowered to suspend state supervision and control of private commercial entities for a certain period.
It also appears that when the labour inspectorate receives complaints, its intervention is not in practice decisive in bringing about a rapid, effective and appropriate solution to the subject of the complaint. For example, the observations of the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex (TUWFEC) show that the labour inspectorate has only been able to help complainants formulate their complaints for submission to the court, and to write to employers about the need to comply with labour legislation, without this having any legal consequences as regards the infringements found.
In addition to this moratorium, labour inspectors suffer from other limitations and restrictions to their powers.
The first of these is the requirement for labour inspectors to register scheduled inspections 30 days in advance, and unannounced inspections 24 hours in advance, with the Public Prosecutor, who has the right to refuse registration. It is regrettable to note that the Government has given in to the Public Authority for Enterprises and employers’ representatives, who have refused to implement the measure to allow workplace inspections without prior warning, even though this measure was provided for in the Action Plan to guarantee safety at work.
Another important restriction on the power of labour inspectors is the strict definition of the frequency and types of inspection possible in the country. The maximum inspection frequency is determined according to the risk identified by the risk assessment and management system. Different risk-based categories of employers are defined on the basis of that system.
The minimum inspection frequency is also defined according to those risk-based categories. However, no minimum inspection frequency has been set for low-risk employers. Employers in this risk category are thus not subjected to scheduled monitoring and inspection activities.
Despite the revision of the Entrepreneur Code at the end of 2022, it still contains restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors, particularly as regards their ability to carry out inspection visits without prior warning, their free initiative and the scope of the inspections they can carry out. Only the conditions set out in the established checklist may be subject to verification and preventive control.
Another important restriction is that laid down in section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code, which allows employers to deny the inspection by officials from state control and supervision bodies. This right to deny is likely to render ineffective the provisions on penalties for obstructing the work of officials from the state inspectorate and other state supervisory and control bodies. Labour inspectors who take control initiatives that go beyond the strict framework of regulations governing the organization and conduct of inspections are liable to disciplinary action. Other provisions stipulate that inspections carried out without prior warning and without respecting the prescribed notice period are considered invalid.
It is also stipulated that labour inspectors may not impose immediate penalties if they discover infringements during preventive inspections. In such cases, they can only issue a warning. Similarly, rapid reaction measures can only be taken in cases identified by law and for violations of items on the inspection checklist.
However, the Conventions stipulate that, with certain exceptions, persons who violate or neglect to observe the legal provisions whose application is subject to the control of labour inspectors, are liable to immediate legal action, without prior warning, and that it is left to the discretion of labour inspectors to issue warnings or give advice rather than initiate or recommend prosecution, and that labour inspectors are authorized to take measures to eliminate defects in installations, fittings or working methods which they may have reasonable cause to consider a threat to the health or safety of workers. In that regard, we are of the view that labour inspection should have the capacity to act upon signals received from workers or their representatives about occupational hazards they are facing. If the labour inspectorate had been more responsive, many of the particularly serious accidents that have occurred recently in Kazakhstan could have been avoided.
We also note with concern that no annual report on the activity of the labour inspection services has been transmitted to the ILO since the ratification of the Conventions in 2001.
All these elements constitute serious breaches of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, and the Government of Kazakhstan will have to ensure that its legislation and practice comply with those Conventions.
Employer members – The Employer members have taken note of the information provided by the Government and would like to thank the distinguished representative for the explanation provided.
Kazakhstan ratified Convention No. 81 and Convention No. 129 in 2001. The Committee of Experts made observations on this case in 2015, 2021 and 2023. Today is the first time the Committee is examining the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 by Kazakhstan. From the outset, the Employer members want to highlight the importance of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, which are governance Conventions that have received 150 and 57 ratifications, respectively.
The case consists of five parts. The first is about the moratorium on labour inspections. The moratorium had been in place since January 2020 and applied to labour inspections for micro and small enterprises. It should be noted that practice had shown that the introduction of the moratorium did not affect large and medium-sized enterprises, where inspections have been carried out. Furthermore, the moratorium on inspections for micro and small enterprises is no longer in force. It ended on 1 January 2024.
Since then, according to information provided by the Government on 20 May 2024, state labour inspectors have conducted 2,366 inspections nationwide, uncovering 3,144 violations. These inspections led to 1,409 instructions issued to companies and 1,780 administrative fines. As of 1 April 2024, there are 276 units of state labour inspectors in local labour inspection bodies.
The second part is about other restrictions on inspection powers. The Committee of Experts noted in its recent report that restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors established by the Entrepreneur Code of 2015 are still in force. These limitations affect, inter alia, the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits without previous notice and the free initiative of labour inspectors.
The Committee also noted that labour inspectors are liable to disciplinary proceedings if they fail to respect the provisions in relation to prior notification of the inspection to the subject of control, or if the deadline for such notification is not respected.
In its recent written report from 20 May 2024, the Government informed the Committee that a draft Law on Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts on Improvement of Safe Labour Conditions and Protection of Labour Rights of Employees has been prepared. It would empower state labour inspectors to conduct inspections without prior notice in the field of safety and labour protection at dangerous production facilities. However, in this regard it should be noted that the proposal to transfer state labour inspection from local executive bodies to the Ministry has been approved. The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population is carrying out preparatory work to establish a separate state labour inspection committee with subdivisions in the regions.
A detailed action plan for the establishment of a state labour inspection committee in the Ministry has been developed and is being implemented. However, we ask the Government to provide further detailed information on restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors and to take the necessary initiatives to bring the laws into conformity with Article 12(1) of Convention No. 81.
The third part is about adequate penalties. The Committee of Experts noted limitations imposed by the Entrepreneur Code with respect to the powers of labour inspectors to ensure the effective application of legal provisions. In particular, the Committee noted that the Code provides that, in cases of violations identified in the course of preventive inspections, inspectors are obliged to issue a warning without the possibility of initiating proceedings. According to information provided by the Government on 20 May 2024, in 2023, labour inspectors conducted 6,927 on-site inspections. A total of 173 inspections were carried out on a scheduling order and 6,754 inspections were carried out on the basis of applications received. As a result of these inspections, 10,370 violations of labour legislation were identified, 4,369 orders to eliminate the identified violations were issued, and 2,401 administrative fines were imposed.
The Employer members ask the Government to provide further detailed information about limitations imposed on the power of labour inspectors with regard to penalties. Furthermore, we ask the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties.
The fourth part is about the right to deny the inspection. The Committee of Experts argued that the Entrepreneur Code includes a provision that provides for the right of companies to deny the inspection by officials from state control and supervision bodies. It requested the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties. The Employers’ group has taken note. We request the Government to provide detailed information on the issue and on the number of cases in which inspectors have been denied access to workplaces.
The fifth part of this case is about reporting. The Committee of Experts noted that since the ratification of the Conventions in 2001, the ILO has not received an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services. According to Article 20 of Convention No. 81, the central inspection authority shall publish an annual general report on the work of the inspection services under its control and copies of the annual reports shall be transmitted to the ILO within a reasonable period after their publication and in any case within three months. The Government announced that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population is working on a comprehensive annual report on labour inspection activities for 2023. They stated that this report will be submitted to the ILO. The Employers’ group welcomes this development. We ask the Government to walk the talk and to submit an annual report to the ILO in accordance with the respective time limits.
To conclude, the Employer members welcome the expressed willingness and shown commitment of the Government. We encourage and ask the Government to effectively consult with the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations concerning all measures and initiatives they take regarding the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129.
Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Kazakhstan – I am grateful to the ILO for ensuring that the issues relating to Convention No. 81 can be discussed today. The fact that we are on the short list gives us the opportunity to broaden horizons and exchange practices, learn best practices from other States, and take on board the methods of working mechanisms of the ILO.
I will dwell on the compensation model under the labour protection system and the occupational safety and health concept and, in addition, the centralization of labour inspection with a single state inspectorate and transfer paths from the local authority. Here it is important to note that this is in line with Convention No. 81 and to avoid any potential negative influence at the local level on labour inspection.
As of 1 January 2024, the moratorium on inspections of micro and small enterprises has been lifted. It is important to note that this will not affect the inspection system based on complaints. Further work will be ensured to assess the remit of inspectors, as promoted by the trade unions. That said, problems do remain in terms of the numbers of labour inspectors and the powers that they have, which are highly limited under the Entrepreneur Code.
There are currently only 245 inspectors, and this means that they do not have the possibility to fully discharge their functions. The requirements of the Entrepreneur Code curb their powers with a ban on registered inspections. These have to be registered with the authorities and the employers need to be informed. I trust that we will be able to work in the coming times on this issue, bringing about substantive changes to the legislation. This is important to us. We need to ensure that this will be done within the framework of social dialogue and partnership, bearing in mind the opinions of trade unions.
The Federation of Trade Unions will, as it has done before, continue to work to ensure safety in the workplace on the basis of specific assumptions. People should not be killed or injured at work. You should not die as a result of trying to earn a living in a workplace, and any improvement in occupational safety and health is something that we will of course always welcome. We look forward to future cooperation with the ILO and the necessary technical assistance to this end.
Interpretation from Russian: Employer member, Kazakhstan – I would like to first and foremost thank the ILO for its cooperation and support. We take note of the recommendations of the Committee in recent years and the steady progress made in social dialogue in Kazakhstan. I am a delegate of the employers of Kazakhstan, I represent their interests on behalf of the national Confederation of Employers. Our confederation has been recognized by the ILO as an independent employers’ organization. This independence is a core value of ours in our work. With our social partners we work at the practical level of social dialogue at the national and regional levels.
I would now like to move to a set of comments on the Committee of Experts’ remarks on the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. In order to enhance the development of micro and small enterprises, a moratorium was imposed as of 1 January 2020 on preventive controls with visits for this type of enterprise. Practice has shown that over this period the moratorium had no effect on large and medium-sized enterprises where periodic inspections continued. Of course we are guided by and welcome international labour standards and partnership with social partners and the ILO. We are making efforts to implement best practices, and this includes the standards covered in Conventions Nos 81 and 129 but at the same time, as an employers’ organization, we are always in favour of ensuring balance. As such, when it comes to taking important decisions, we should take into account all aspects including the willingness and ability of state bodies to implement standards under the Conventions. We consider that the limited powers of inspectors could lead to both positive and negative consequences. Statistics also indicate this.
During the period of the moratorium, we saw that there was a positive impact on the subjects being inspected. There was a more than twofold reduction in the number of inspections in 2023 compared to 2019, while there was almost a 70 per cent increase in numbers of small businesses in existence. With this in mind, I think we need to move towards a more effective way of implementing ratified Conventions. Results can be seen in this regard also, for example, as of 1 January 2024, when there was a full lifting of the moratorium, with no further restrictions currently in force on the work of labour inspectors.
Turning to the comments on the limited powers of labour inspectors when it comes to the Entrepreneur Code, I would like to say that, at the current time, preventing violations and the rationale for observance by businesses is set up by law, with priority attached to enforcement rather than compliance. This is a frequent trend in Kazakhstan but particularly in labour. We want to move towards a more preventive approach, but if there are repeated violations, fines may be applied as well as criminal proceedings if necessary. In line with the Entrepreneur Code, the labour inspectorate may undertake a preventive control, followed by an unscheduled visit with a further inspection, if necessary, but this may take place only with 24 hours warning in certain instances.
Pursuant to the law, inspections may not be refused. In addition, we have seen that ever more violations have been uncovered by inspections, with more than 10,000 in 2023. We, as Employer representatives, consider that things are going in the right direction and that there needs to be gradual change. If we want to radically expand the powers of state labour inspectors, then we need to think through the right system of checks and balances, since failing to do this properly could lead to a curb on entrepreneurial activity and an increase in the administrative burden.
There is a need to ensure, as we implement the Conventions, that the social partners are borne in mind. This has been seen, for example, in the transfer of powers from local to central level. We consider that this is another positive step forward. I would also like to note that, as part of the work between the ILO and the social partners, a road map was signed to promote decent work in the Republic of Kazakhstan. In this road map, there are five strategic areas: labour protection, social protection, employment, social dialogue and tripartism. We consider the joint work with the ILO on this road map will enable us to improve our position vis-à-vis the comments issued by the Committee of Experts.
In conclusion, I would underscore that in our work we are guided by the ideas of tripartism where all partners work together in harmony and in a responsible way. Only in this way will it be possible to ensure civilized dialogue to the interest of all. We, for our part as Employers, are committed to this and we will put all our efforts and resources into these endeavours.
Government member, Belgium – I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States. The candidate countries, Montenegro and North Macedonia, and the European Free Trade Association country Norway, member of the European Economic Area, align themselves with this statement.
The EU and its Member States are committed to the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights, including labour rights. We actively promote universal ratification and effective implementation of fundamental ILO Conventions and support the ILO in developing and promoting international labour standards and supervising their application.
The European Union and Kazakhstan signed an Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 2020, advancing and strengthening cooperation with the country in key policy areas such as trade and investment, sustainable development, economic cooperation and employment and social affairs.
We note with concern that the moratorium on labour inspections for private and state-owned micro and small enterprises introduced in January 2020 was further extended until January 2024. We deplore that, based on information from national trade unions, none of the complaints related to violations of labour rights in agriculture were inspected due to the moratorium. While we acknowledge that, according to the recently submitted information from the Government, the moratorium ended in January 2024 and that since then around 2,300 inspections have been conducted, we would be interested to know the reasons leading to the Government introducing this moratorium, which is a serious violation of the ratified labour inspections Conventions Nos 81 and 129. We also call on the Government to ensure that inspectors can conduct labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as necessary.
We note that the Entrepreneur Code prescribes prior registration of inspections with the Public Prosecutor’s office, which can refuse registrations. Moreover, the Entrepreneur Code contains provisions that limit the free initiative of inspectors and their ability to conduct inspections without prior notice. We echo the Committee of Experts’ call on the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that inspectors can undertake inspections without prior notice and conduct any examination they deem necessary. Moreover, following the revocation of section 197 of the Labour Code, we request the Government to indicate to the ILO whether inspectors are entitled to conduct inspections at any time of the day and night.
Concerning the frequency of labour inspections, we note that according to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), there is no minimum frequency of inspections established for low-risk employers, who are therefore not covered by scheduled monitoring activities. In line with the Committee of Experts, we urge the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that risk assessment criteria do not limit the powers of labour inspectors.
We remark that section 151 of the Entrepreneur Code stipulates that labour inspectors are not allowed to undertake inspections on elements that are not included in the inspection checklist, and that, according to section 156, inspections are considered invalid in the absence of a prior notification to the concerned workplaces. Based on information from the Government, a draft law on safe labour conditions that would permit unannounced inspections is under consideration. However, we note that this provision would only apply to dangerous production facilities. As requested by the Committee of Experts, we ask the Government to revise the above-mentioned sections in line with Conventions Nos 81 and 129.
We also note that according to the Entrepreneur Code, in cases where violations are detected during preventive inspections, labour inspectors are obliged to issue a warning and cannot initiate proceedings, and that rapid response measures can only be adopted in the cases identified by the law and for violations of items included in the inspection checklist. In line with the Committee of Experts, we request the Government to take the necessary measures to allow inspectors to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning and to provide information on the changes made on this matter.
Recalling that the Entrepreneur Code allows for employers to refuse inspections, we request the Government to take measures to ensure that the work of labour inspectors is not unduly obstructed.
We are concerned that no annual reports on the activities of the labour inspectorate have been received by the ILO since the ratification of both Conventions. We therefore welcome the Government’s indication that the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population is preparing a comprehensive annual report on the work undertaken by labour inspectors in 2023. We encourage the Government to make this a regular practice and to transmit the reports to the ILO.
The European Union stands ready to support Kazakhstan with the aim of strengthening the Government’s capacity to address the issues raised and meet its obligations under the ratified Conventions.
Interpretation from German: Worker member, Germany – I speak on behalf of the German Confederation of Trade Unions. In its Centenary Declaration of 2019, the ILO once again confirmed that labour inspection, as outlined in Conventions Nos 81 and 129, is a cornerstone of the ILO’s strategy for a people-friendly future of work. This approach focuses on the rights and needs of workers, their protection and their health. The Committee of Experts, in its 2019 general observation on these Conventions, established that several ILO Member States, particularly those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, have adopted laws and decrees that contradict Conventions Nos 81 and 129 and undermine the proper functioning of labour inspection systems. Unfortunately, the Government of Kazakhstan has also suspended comprehensive labour inspection by decree. This moratorium was in force from January 2020 until 2024 and affected micro and small enterprises.
We welcome the fact that the Kazakh Government has not extended the moratorium on labour inspection and has brought itself into line with the legal requirements of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 since then. However, in the past, we have seen examples of countries who have reintroduced such a moratorium. For example, Tajikistan, only months after its case was discussed here in the Committee, suspended labour inspection, against the recommendations. We call on the Government of Kazakhstan to refrain from any moratorium in the future and instead, in legal and administrative terms, ensure legal inspection and that inspectors can carry out their work to ensure that the occupational safety and health of all workers in Kazakhstan is guaranteed. Because, although the moratorium has expired, as was stated, there are other serious problems. As reported by the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex (TUWFEC), in many places there have been no consequences for enterprises responsible for occupational safety and health infringements. Moreover, in the area of agriculture, no inspections are carried out, although many complaints have been submitted to the labour inspection authorities. Furthermore, the powers of labour inspectors are restricted. The Kazakh Government must adapt its national law so as to ensure that inspectors can carry out their work as frequently as they so choose, and as thoroughly as is necessary, to ensure that the Conventions are upheld. We would like to emphasize the following: the hushing up of occupational accidents, wage arrears and labour disputes by enterprises must end. To this end, equipping the labour inspection authorities is essential. According to our information, there are only 225 state inspectors for the entire country.
We call on the Government to take more steps to improve labour inspection. Firstly, this means preparing a draft law, ensuring that the unions are involved in this; secondly, centralizing labour inspection; and thirdly, putting together an action plan. We call on the Government to continue these positive steps and to send reports to the ILO. At the same time, we call on the Kazakh employers to support these positive developments as well. The aforementioned Action Plan to Ensure Safe Work has not received support from the Employer representative. For us it is very clear: there should be no lobbying against occupational safety and health. The desire for profit must not take precedence over occupational safety and health.
Government member, Azerbaijan – The Azerbaijani delegation would like to thank the Government representative for providing replies to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts on the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. We welcome the progress made by the Government in responding to the recommendations made by this Committee. We appreciate the process initiated to amend labour legislation in order to ensure the protection of workers. Kazakhstan is party to the international legal instruments on labour inspection and duly fulfils its international obligations in good faith. It should be noted that, through their work in providing guidance and information by conducting inspections, the labour inspection services monitor the situation of fundamental rights in respect of labour relations and work conditions and consequently play an important role in the enforcement of those rights.
My delegation welcomes the relevant information provided by the Government representative in the context of the efforts to ensure effective labour inspection and to ensure that workplaces are inspected as frequently and as thoroughly as necessary, particularly in relation to occupational safety and health. We welcome the decision taken by the Government to transfer state inspection powers from local executive bodies to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population, as well as the initiative to empower state labour inspectors to conduct inspections without prior notice in the field of safety and labour protection at dangerous production facilities. The measures outlined by the Government representative demonstrate Kazakhstan’s efforts to give full effect to Conventions Nos 81 and 129. We appreciate the Government’s provision of detailed information and statistics on labour inspections under various laws and regulations regarding working life. We also take note that the Government is working closely with the ILO to ensure that the legislative reforms are consistent with ILO Conventions, and we note the openness to addressing the comments of the supervisory bodies. We encourage the Government to continue working closely with the ILO to follow up on the Committee of Experts’ recommendations. Finally, my country believes that issues relating to the general improvement of working conditions should be addressed as part of constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue with all actors, including representatives of employers and trade union organizations. The Azerbaijani delegation commends Kazakhstan on the results obtained to date and encourages the Government to continue working to strengthen the capacity and resources of the labour inspection services, in line with the national legal system and the international labour instruments in force.
Interpretation from Russian: Worker member, Russian Federation – The Workers’ delegation of the Russian Federation thanks the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan for the information provided. The Committee of Experts’ report notes significant problems in the practical implementation of Convention No. 81. One of the main factors hindering the preventive role of the labour inspectorate in Kazakhstan is, of course, the highly limited set of powers of the inspectors. The remit for inspections after action is agreed is subject to agreement by the Public Prosecutor in the event of direct complaints, and this leads to the refusal of inspections and ineffective work. The number of labour inspectors in Kazakhstan stands at 225; bearing in mind that there are more than 9 million people in the labour market, this is a twofold deficit in comparison with what is provided for in Article 10 of Convention No. 81. In addition, the labour inspection services are based in the main urban areas, and this gives rise to problems in the major industrial and agricultural areas of the country, particularly the more remote ones, as inspectors cannot react rapidly. In addition to this, they are subject to the powers of local authorities in violation of the Convention. The financing of inspection comes from local budgets. This can lead to a dependent relationship as well as influence from local authorities or employers, which we have seen, for example, in the numerous unfounded refusals to register trade union sections in the oil and energy complex, making it difficult for workers, effectively, to realize freedom of association due to refused registrations, and this has led to a very negative result. There is a need, as we have seen, for reforms through legislation broadening the powers of the labour inspectorate such that it covers, and has a real impact on, all areas of life of work, including trade union rights. We should note that an effective state policy on labour inspection and protection directly depends on the implementation of the rights of workers, including independent trade union membership, as well as the establishment of collective bargaining. As such, we hope that the Government will continue its work to define the next steps for the proper implementation of the conclusions of the Committee on Freedom of Association and will ensure that proper oversight and enforcement of labour rights will take place.
Government member, Kyrgyzstan – The Kyrgyz delegation expresses its gratitude to the Government of Kazakhstan, employers and trade unions for providing comprehensive information on the efforts and measures taken to comply with international labour obligations.
We commend Kazakhstan for adopting the “Concept of Safe Labour for 2024–30”, which aims to enhance the safety and well-being of workers. A key component of this concept is to bolster worker protection by improving the activities of the state labour inspectorate. To increase the effectiveness of control and monitoring in labour protection, preventive inspections by the state labour inspectorate will be conducted only at enterprises where there is an objective risk to workers’ life and health. This risk will be identified not manually, based on previous inspections and the type of activity of the enterprise, as it is currently done, but through the application of digital technologies. To facilitate this, a unified automated information system has been implemented to provide accurate data on occupational risks at workplaces. In conclusion, we sincerely thank Kazakhstan for its commitment to constructive dialogue with the ILO and encourage the continuation of active engagement with ILO bodies for the common good.
Government member, Turkmenistan – Turkmenistan welcomes the distinguished delegation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and expresses its gratitude for the detailed information on the current situation related to the implementation of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, as well as the related recommendations of the Commission of Experts. At the outset, we would like to note the efforts made by the Government of Kazakhstan to ensure decent working conditions through consistent scheduled and spot inspections on the basis of applications received.
At the same time, it is important to note that there are dozens of times more spot checks – based on appeals or complaints – than planned ones. This is a good indicator of the State’s response to these issues.
We also would like to highlight the measures taken by the Government of Kazakhstan to improve legislation, in particular concerning safe labour conditions and the protection of the labour rights of employees. It once again demonstrates the commitment of Kazakhstan to its obligations to promote decent work. We believe that the aforementioned state labour inspection committee planned to be established within the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population will give an additional impetus.
In conclusion, Turkmenistan wishes the Government of Kazakhstan a successful discussion.
Interpretation from Russian: Government member, Belarus – We thank the delegation of Kazakhstan for the detailed information on the question under consideration. We welcome the progress achieved by Kazakhstan in implementing the recommendations of the Committee of Experts, as well as the Kazakh Government’s commitment to partnership with the International Labour Organization.
We note the efforts of the Government of Kazakhstan to ensure the functioning of the state labour inspectorate, which monitors compliance with workers’ fundamental rights and working conditions. The information provided on the number of checks carried out in 2023, as well as the violations uncovered, speaks to the effectiveness of the work of this institution. In line with ILO recommendations, a decision has been made to transfer the functions of labour inspection from local bodies to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population. In addition, the state labour inspectorate has been given powers to undertake unannounced inspections at potentially dangerous facilities. This will serve to further improve the general effectiveness of the oversight system and enforce the legislation in practice.
We believe that employers’ and workers’ organizations should, guided by tripartism, provide assistance to the Government in its efforts to improve working conditions both in industry and in agriculture. We call upon the ILO to continue to provide technical assistance to the Government of Kazakhstan in order to ensure further progress in protecting the rights and interests of workers.
Government member, Türkiye – We welcome the Kazakh Government’s initiative to establish a more effective and coordinated, as well as separate, labour inspection system under the relevant Articles of Conventions Nos 81 and 129.
We appreciate the process initiated to amend labour legislation, especially the empowerment of state labour inspectors to conduct inspections without prior notice to ensure the protection of workers at dangerous production facilities. We are confident that the Kazakh Parliament will enact the necessary amendments in this respect as soon as possible.
It is worth noting that the visionary conceptual framework document, which covers the next seven years, will lay the groundwork for a more institutionalized and effective functioning of the Kazakh labour inspection system and will serve to increase the level of protection of workers using a proactive approach.
The implementation of a unified automated information system by the Kazakh Government, which will ensure its operation in the light of stable and up-to-date information, should be considered a very important development by the Committee of Experts.
The measures outlined by the Kazakh Government within the constructive and mutually beneficial dialogue with all stakeholders demonstrate Kazakhstan’s efforts to give full effect to Conventions Nos 81 and 129. We encourage the Government to continue working closely with the ILO to follow up on the Committee’s recommendations.
Interpretation from Arabic: Government member, Saudi Arabia – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia welcomes the progress achieved by the Republic of Kazakhstan in response to the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts. We welcome the relevant information provided by the Government in the context of its efforts to ensure regular, comprehensive and effective inspection of workplaces, especially in relation to occupational health and safety.
We note that the Government is working closely with the ILO in order to make sure that its legislative reforms are consistent with ILO Conventions, and that it is open to address the recommendations and observations of the supervisory bodies. We affirm that all measures related to ensuring good conditions at work should be addressed through constructive and effective dialogue with all stakeholders.
In conclusion, we commend the results achieved so far and we encourage the Government to continue its efforts to strengthen the capacities and resources of the labour inspection services in line with the national legal system and applicable ILO instruments.
Government member, China – We appreciated the detailed presentations by the representative of the Government of Kazakhstan. We have carefully reviewed the report by the Committee of Experts as well as the supplementary materials submitted by the Government to this Committee.
The Government is taking steps to move the national labour inspection functions from regional to national institutions. They are planning to establish a specific road map and to set up a national labour inspection committee within the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population. The Parliament of Kazakhstan is also drafting relevant legal amendments. In 2023, labour inspectors conducted nearly 7,000 on-site inspections under labour laws, including around 200 routine inspections and over 6,700 inspections upon request. These inspections uncovered over 10,000 violations of labour laws resulting in enforcement actions and other administrative fines.
It is commendable that the Government has issued the “Concept of Safe Labour for 2024– 30”, continuously strengthening the implementation of labour inspections and enhancing worker protection. The Government is also leveraging digital technologies, alongside traditional methods, to effectively identify subjects for inspection based on past inspection records and on the nature of business operations. To achieve these goals, Kazakhstan is implementing unified automated information systems to promptly capture occupational risk data in workplaces. These efforts, measures and achievements should be acknowledged and encouraged by the Committee.
We support the ILO Secretariat and its regular supervisory mechanism in strengthening communication and exchanges with the Government, continuously promoting mutual understanding and cooperation. We also support the provision of relevant and technical assistance to the Government as needed to help them improve their compliance capacity and further promote their economic and social development.
Government member, Pakistan – We recognize the Republic of Kazakhstan for its comprehensive response to the questions raised by the Committee of Experts on the application of the Conventions. We acknowledge the progress made by Kazakhstan in addressing the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and welcome the initiative to amend labour legislation to further enhance the protection of workers. Pakistan welcomes the decision to transfer state inspection to the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population and empower inspectors to make unannounced inspections in high-risk workplaces. These measures demonstrate Kazakhstan’s commitment to effectively implement the Conventions. We acknowledge the ongoing collaboration with the ILO to ensure that legislative reforms align with international standards, and the openness to address concerns raised by the supervisory bodies. We encourage this continued partnership to further address the Committee’s recommendations. We believe that continuous and constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including employers and trade union representatives, is crucial for further improving working conditions.
Government member, United States of America – We thank the Government of Kazakhstan for providing additional information to this Committee in response to the recent observations of the Committee of Experts. We welcome the fact that the moratorium on labour inspections at small and medium-sized enterprises was allowed to expire on 1 January 2024. We note with concern, however, that restrictions on unannounced workplace inspections remain in place. These restrictions may leave violations and abuses of workers’ rights undetected.
We note in particular that the Entrepreneur Code limits inspectors’ ability to undertake inspections without prior notice; to conduct self-initiated inspections, and to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary. Unannounced inspections are crucial to ensure employers cannot conceal labour rights abuses, change usual working conditions, prevent a witness from being present, or make it impossible to carry out an inspection. Limitations on self-initiated inspections and on the frequency of inspections undermine an effective risk-based inspection framework by preventing inspectors from effectively targeting enforcement efforts or monitoring the compliance of recidivist employers. While Kazakhstan’s Administrative Offences Code provides for monetary penalties for enterprises that impede the work of inspectors, as of January 2023, the statutory maximum of these penalties was insufficiently dissuasive.
The stakes of labour law compliance can be life and death, as seen in the tragic loss of 46 workers’ lives at a mining company on 28 October 2023. In the 30 years prior to this tragedy, at least 180 workers lost their lives in the same company’s facilities in Kazakhstan, despite complaints from workers to the labour inspectorate that went unresolved. Government restrictions on labour inspections impeded inspectors’ ability to properly ascertain and address dangerous conditions, prevented a follow-up inspection for at least one year, and imposed nominal penalties for labour rights abuses that failed to result in meaningful corrective action. We also note that restrictions on freedom of association in Kazakhstan have limited workers’ ability to effectively address severe safety concerns in the workplace, especially in the mining and extractive sectors.
We urge the Government to take measures to ensure that penalties for labour rights abuses are sufficiently dissuasive and enable labour inspectors to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as necessary.
We note with interest the Government’s draft law that, among other things, empowers state labour inspectors to conduct inspections at dangerous production facilities without prior notice. We hope this change, if and when passed, will help effectuate inspections in practice.
We join the Committee of Experts in urging the Government to bring its laws into alignment with the Conventions.
The United States remains committed to engaging with the Government to advance worker rights in Kazakhstan.
Observer, Building and Wood Workers’ International (BWI) – As representatives of workers in the construction industry, one of the most hazardous sectors, we are deeply troubled by the constraints imposed on the labour inspectorate through the Entrepreneur Code as amended in 2022. These limitations directly impact the safety and well-being of our workers.
Kazakhstan witnesses over 2,600 workplace accidents annually, with more than 240 resulting in fatalities. Among the various sectors of the economy, after the mining sector, the construction industry has the highest number of casualties, representing 10 per cent of these fatalities. A robust labour inspectorate is not just a necessity, but a life-saving mission for workers. It is, therefore, imperative that Kazakhstan’s national legislation aligns with the provisions of the Conventions we are discussing here today.
The role of labour inspections in monitoring and improving the application of occupational health and safety regulations, among other things, is not just important, it is instrumental in addressing the high level of fatalities and acting as a preventive function. Unfortunately, as the report by the Committee of Experts presents, the labour inspections do not have the liberty or the capacity to fulfil these functions in Kazakhstan today.
Most concerning for us are the limitations set on the labour inspectors’ ability to act in conformance with national health and safety laws. It is instrumental for labour inspectors to take immediate action on findings, ensuring that they, rather than only acting as an instrument to help complainants prepare statements of claims to the court, instead are empowered to take measures with immediate executory force and initiate legal proceedings without previous warning.
Finally, we are seriously concerned about the reports of cases where employers deny inspectors access to workplaces and about local government interference in labour inspectors’ reports. Hence, we want to emphasize the importance of the Government taking the necessary measures, including protections, to ensure that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties.
In conclusion, we reiterate the Committee of Experts’ recommendation for the Government to urgently initiate reforms, to support the inherent functioning of labour inspection systems and to protect workers’ fundamental right to a safe and healthy working environment.
Chairperson – I can see no more requests for the floor, so I now invite the Government representative of Kazakhstan, the Vice-Minister, to take the floor for his final remarks.
Interpretation from Russian: Government representative – First of all, allow me to express my gratitude to our social partners and to all of those who offered recommendations aimed at bolstering the labour inspection system in the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as enhancing the role of our social partners in that endeavour.
I will take all of these remarks in no particular order. We have heard from our social partners and certain countries that Kazakhstan is a country that has faced shortcomings. I think people are well informed about this, but that said, and in view of the tragedies that took place in some workplaces last year, there have been checks carried out and the necessary response has been given by the Government. I should underscore, therefore, that the general trend in terms of workplace accident and injury is positive. The related decisions have been taken, and the Government has adopted and implemented the “Concept of Safe Labour for 2024–30”, on which we will now work in more detail with our social partners.
With regards to specific recommendations, in addition to what I said in my opening statement, we have in place a unified labour inspection system in Kazakhstan. We have heard that the inspectorate is limited in its remit. However, the labour inspectorate has a full mandate to uncover violations and to ensure the accountability of employers who are not doing what they should be. If such violation is found, a warning may be issued. This is a state document issued in the event of a violation. If that warning is not heeded, the employer may be subject to administrative responsibility and a fine may be issued. When it comes to administrative responsibility, we have essentially two avenues. The first is a warning. This is for a first violation, and is part of the system of administrative responsibility. The second is a fine. These are administrative fines, applied by the labour inspectorate.
We are currently undertaking an analysis of the application of our legislation. The penalties that currently exist in our regulations do not always necessarily have a preventive effect among employers who are not respecting the law. However, we are actively working with specialized committees and legal commissions in this regard, in order to update our legislation. We hope to strengthen administrative penalties, make them more severe and ensure that those found responsible for administrative offences can be issued a warning first and then a sensible fine. State officials who may be influenced may also be subject to administrative responsibility. Section 4 of the Administrative Offences Code covers occupational safety and health, and we intend to broaden its scope, with further penalties for such administrative offences, such as failure to comply with measures to protect the life and health of workers. All of these proposals are currently being considered by specialist commissions within the Ministry of Justice, and we hope that the relevant decisions will soon be agreed upon and the relevant actions taken by the Government. With regard to the limited remit of the state labour inspectorate, there are certain limitations that do need to be observed in view of the legislation. Hindrance of the work of inspectors has been reported. There were around 50 cases reported last year, and when they were uncovered, relevant administrative actions were taken. So far this year, 17 similar cases have been uncovered and all relevant administrative actions have been taken. I once again underscore the fact that a review of the national occupational safety and health standards is taking place with the social partners. It will be published and will cover the work of the state inspectors, and will result from the work of the relevant tripartite committee. We will, of course, be delighted to convey the outcomes of the work of this tripartite committee to the ILO, this reporting being on an ongoing basis, as per our obligations under the Conventions.
Overall, we intend to further systematize our work. This began in December last year with the inclusion of key definitions. This includes our national labour inspectorate, with proper monitoring of its work and of the operation of certain branches of industry, which have not always been fully covered by labour inspections, including agriculture. In terms of action to be taken in the coming years, we intend to introduce a new labour protection model with an integrated assessment of labour conditions in specific workplaces. This is something we have already started to do in relation to certain specific enterprises, in order to compile a full set of information on the risks associated with those workplaces.
Furthermore, all enterprises that have been subject to assessment in terms of working conditions will receive accreditation from the relevant inspection. This is something that we intend to work on together with our social partners. We also want to develop a systematic approach to the collective and personal protection of workers, to be worked on with our specialist labour protection institutions.
These measures are part of our work to digitally map our workplace landscape and assess the risks that may exist in specific workplaces and with regard to specific workers in each of our country’s enterprises.
In addition, we intend to make it more economically viable for employers to increase the level of labour protection through various changes to be made to accident insurance. We will fully redesign our training system for labour inspectors under the aegis of the Ministry, including technical labour protection inspectors, with the establishment of a single training centre responsible for umbrella coordination and skills development and training for the inspection services.
We are currently working with the National Office of Statistics to review our statistics gathering and reporting system. The remaining challenge concerns gathering reliable statistics, in terms of internal checks undertaken by employers, trade unions and the national labour inspectorate.
Over the next two years, we plan to take into account a comprehensive range of information that will enable us to improve the situation in terms of occupational safety and health for workers, while also improving financial conditions for employers and strengthening working conditions and entrepreneurship, for the purposes of the social and economic development of our country. I wish to assure you once again that Kazakhstan will make every effort to ensure that it is operating in line with the Conventions.
Employer members – The Employer members would like to thank the Government and the various speakers who took the floor for their interventions and information provided of which we fully have taken note.
We reiterate the importance of both these governance Conventions. We welcome signs of the Government’s willingness and expressed commitment to improve the situation concerning the application of the Conventions.
We recommend that the national authorities effectively consult the representative employers’ and workers’ organizations. Specifically, we recommend the following:
  • First, the Government should provide further detailed information on restrictions and limitations on the powers of labour inspectors.
  • Second, the Government should take the necessary initiatives to bring the laws into conformity with Article 12(1) of Convention No. 81 and take measures so that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties.
  • Third, the Government should provide detailed information on the number of cases in which inspectors are denied access to workplaces and the grounds for such denial.
  • Fourth, the Government should submit an annual report to the ILO in accordance with the time limits of the Conventions.
  • Finally, the Government should provide information to the Committee of Experts before its next meeting on the issues discussed and measures taken.
Worker members – We would like to thank the Government for the written and oral information it provided, and the participants for their contributions.
As we have already had occasion to say in our introductory remarks, labour inspection plays a fundamental role in the practical realization of decent working conditions for workers, including the realization of their right to freedom of association and to a safe and healthy working environment. It is therefore essential to provide inspection services with all the resources they need to function optimally and to ensure the protection of workers.
To function optimally, labour inspection services obviously need human and material resources, but they also need a legal framework that enables them to carry out their functions in the best possible conditions. It is of outmost importance that the Government of Kazakhstan engages in social dialogue with the social partners in order to improve the functioning of the labour inspectorate.
We highlighted the insufficient number of labour inspectors in Kazakhstan and urge the Government to recruit a sufficient number of labour inspectors and to provide them with sufficient material, financial and operational resources, such as training and skills development, taking into account the specific needs of the country, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the labour inspectorate.
We also took note of the audit of the activities of the labour inspectorate of Kazakhstan conducted by the Committee of Experts in 2018. We would recommend strengthening the role of labour inspection by transferring it to the subordination of the central executive body, which will be provided with sufficient resources, including human resources, and providing information to the Committee of Experts on the measures taken in this regard. We welcome the information provided about the draft law to address some of the issues in focus that would also recentralize and reintegrate labour inspection under the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population. We expect this will be followed by the necessary practical steps in close cooperation with the social partners.
During the discussion, we noted that the legal framework applicable to labour inspection services in Kazakhstan is far too restrictive, depriving labour inspectors of the powers they need to fully carry out their duties. The Government of Kazakhstan should lift these restrictions as soon as possible.
We therefore recommend that the Government of Kazakhstan repeal all legal provisions permitting the introduction of a moratorium on labour inspections by presidential decree and take no steps in the future to reinstate a moratorium on inspection services.
The Government will ensure that labour inspectors can carry out labour inspections as often and as carefully as is necessary to ensure the effective application of legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129. To this end, the Government shall:
  • take the necessary legislative measures to give labour inspectors the power to visit workplaces without prior warning, and to carry out any examinations, tests or investigations they deem necessary;
  • indicate whether inspectors are now empowered to carry out inspection visits at any time of the day or night, following the repeal of section 197 of the Labour Code and section 147(2) of the Entrepreneur Code;
  • take the necessary steps to revise section 141 of the Entrepreneur Code, which provides for the frequency and types of inspections that are permitted depending on the degree of risk determined by the risk assessment and management system, so that labour inspectors can carry out labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of the relevant legal provisions;
  • take the necessary steps to ensure that risk-assessment criteria do not restrict the powers of labour inspectors or the performance of labour inspections;
  • revise sections 151 and 156 of the Entrepreneur Code and section 50(12) of the Law on Civil Service to ensure that investigations carried out by labour inspectors are not limited in scope or invalidated, and that no penalties are imposed on labour inspectors who exercise more extensive control than is permitted by law;
  • take the necessary steps, including the revision of legislation, to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to take immediately enforceable measures and are able to initiate legal proceedings without prior warning;
  • take the necessary measures to ensure that no acts of undue obstruction are committed against labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, including the repeal of section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code, which still provides for the right of employers to refuse inspection by officials of state supervisory and control bodies;
  • take the necessary steps to draw up and publish an annual report on the activities of the inspection services and forward it to the ILO.
The Government will ensure that it provides all the information requested by the Committee of Experts in its observation and that it also provides all the information on the measures taken to implement the recommendations to be made by our Committee by 1 September 2024.
We also recommend that the Government of Kazakhstan accept the visit of a technical advisory mission before the next session of the International Labour Conference.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the written and oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.
The Committee noted with concern various issues relating to the effective functioning of the labour inspection system in the country due to numerous restrictions to the powers of labour inspectors such as prior authorizations needed to conduct an inspection, limitations on the number of inspections to be conducted, limitations to the measures labour inspectors can take when confronted with hazardous working conditions and limitations to the scope of the inspections.
Taking into account the discussion, the Committee urged the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to:
  • recruit a sufficient number of labour inspectors and provide them with sufficient material, financial and operational resources in order to ensure the proper functioning of the labour inspectorate;
  • strengthen the role of labour inspection by transferring them to the subordination of the central executive body as recommended by ILO experts in 2018;
  • ensure that labour inspectors can carry out labour inspections as often and as carefully as is necessary to ensure the effective application of legal provisions, in line with the Conventions;
  • amend sections 144(3) and (4), 156 (2), 144(13), 144–1, 144–2, 145, 146, 143(3) and 151 of the Entrepreneur Code in order to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to make visits to workplaces without previous notice, and to carry out any examination, test or enquiry which they may consider necessary;
  • indicate whether inspectors are now empowered to undertake inspection visits at any time of the day and night following the repealing of section 197 of the Labour Code and section 147(2) of the Entrepreneur Code, in line with the Convention;
  • amend section 141 of the Entrepreneur Code in order to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as is necessary to ensure the effective application in line with the Conventions;
  • revise section 50(12) of the Law on Civil Service and sections 151 and 156 of the Entrepreneur Code in order to ensure that investigations carried out by labour inspectors are not limited in scope or invalidated, and that no penalties are imposed on labour inspectors authorized by law;
  • amend sections 136, 144-1 and 144-2 of the Entrepreneur Code to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to take measures with immediate executory force and are able to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning, where required;
  • ensure that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties, including by amending section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code; and
  • ensure the establishment and publication of an annual report on the work of the inspection services containing all the subjects listed under Article 21 of Convention No. 81 and Article 27 of Convention No. 129 and to transmit it to the ILO.
The Committee requested the Government to report to the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2024 on the measures taken to implement the Committee’s recommendations and to provide all outstanding information requested by the Committee of Experts.
Government representative – Our Government attaches great importance to the issue of the application of labour standards, and we are grateful for the support and partnership that has been shown to us on an ongoing basis by the ILO. We respect the system and the ILO supervisory bodies.
We reaffirm our commitment to ensure full implementation of ratified Conventions Nos 81 and 129, and we are grateful for the opportunity to share the information on the progress made with regard to the implementation of these Conventions.
We have taken note of all the conclusions and the Government will take all steps to address the issues that have been identified. We will work in close cooperation with the ILO and the social partners in order to improve conditions of work and protect the rights of workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.
The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex (TUWFEC), received on 26 August 2022 and the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 of September 2022, on the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).
Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No. 129. Preventive functions of labour inspection and other forms of state control. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that in accordance with section 191(5) of the Labour Code and section 137(1) of the Entrepreneur Code, state monitoring of compliance with the labour legislation is carried out in the form of inspections and preventive monitoring. No other forms of control are currently provided for by law. The Government also indicates that, section 197 of the Labour Code, which provided for other forms of state control, is repealed by Act No. 156-VI of 24 May 2018. The Committee takes notes of this information which addresses its previous request.
Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129.Supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Committee for Labour and Social Protection (CLSP) of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection organizes the state monitoring of compliance with labour legislation. It supervises and coordinates the activities of local labour inspection bodies by sending instructions and requests, while local labour inspection bodies present their work to the CLSP by regular periodic reports. Moreover, the CLSP provides methodological support to local labour inspection bodies and clarifies legal matters upon request. The Committee also notes sections 16 and 17 of the Labour Code provide for the competences of the central labour authority and local labour inspection bodies. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.
Articles 5(a) and 17 of Convention No.81 and Articles 12(1) and 22 of Convention No. 129. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s information, according to which, trainings on the application and enforcement of labour legislation for labour inspectors are planned for the year of 2023, with members of the judiciary and the prosecutor’s office invited as lecturers. Labour inspectors forwarded 1,088 cases to law enforcement agencies on breaches of OSH requirements, and 127 criminal proceedings were initiated as a result. Moreover, 75 cases were sent to the court for administrative prosecution of employers. The Government refers to section 193(11) of the Labour Code, which provides that labour inspectors have the right to send to the relevant law enforcement agencies and courts, information, statement of claims and other materials on violations of labour legislation and non-fulfilment by employers of orders of labour inspectors. While noting this information, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number of cases submitted to judicial bodies, as well as the nature and results of such cases, including specific information on any civil or criminal sanctions imposed against employers.
Articles 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 9(1) and (2) of Convention No.129. Status and conditions of service. Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. The Committee notes that, in reply to its previous comment, the Government refers to the Law on Civil Service, indicating that labour inspectors belong to corps “B” civil service positions, for which the following recruitment steps shall apply: (1) testing in the manner determined by the authorized body; (2) assessment of personal qualification with submission of an opinion to the authorized body; and (3) general competition for corps “B” civil service positions. The Government reiterates that candidates for the post of state labour inspector are required to have high legal, economic or technical education qualifications. The Committee also notes sections 27–29 of the Civil Services Act which provide for detailed procedures of competitions for taking up a corps “B” civil service position. In addition, section 17(4) provides that qualification requirements to corps “B” civil service positions are developed with account of main activities and official powers of the relevant state body and its structural units, on the basis of standard qualification requirements approved by the authorized body. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.
Articles 10 and 11(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 14 and 15(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 129. Human resources and material means of the labour inspectorate. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government, according to which, as of 1 August 2022, 258 state labour inspectors are working throughout the country (increased from 242 in 2021), with 38 official vehicles (increased from 33 in 2021). The Government also indicates that provision is made for reimbursement of business travel expenses in case of a need to visit enterprises in other areas. Two or three official vehicles are provided to each territorial subdivision.
In its observation ITUC reiterates that the actual number of state labour inspectors is not sufficient for adequate oversight of the observance of labour rights and does not allow for performing preventive activities on a larger scale. In addition, according to TUWFEC, inspectors are mostly based in administrative centres and large cities and there are no local labour inspection bureaus in rural areas. This complicates the work of the inspectorate in these areas since inspectors cannot respond promptly to workers’ appeals. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the resources allocated to the labour inspection service, including the number of local labour inspection bureaus and the budget for labour inspection functions at the local levels, as well as the number of inspection staff, the transport facilities and office space available to labour inspectors. It also requests the Government to provide its comments with respect to ITUC’s and TUWFEC’s observations.
Articles 12(1)(a) and 15(c) of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16(1)(a) and 20(c) of Convention No. 129. Inspections without previous notice. Duty of confidentiality in relation to complaints. The Committee notes that the Government refers to section 144(4) and (5) of the Entrepreneur Code, which provide that unscheduled inspections can be undertaken on specific grounds such as: (i) when there is a complaint from individuals and legal entities regarding specific violations of the requirements of the legislation which, if not addressed, would entail harm to human life and health; (ii) instructions from the prosecutor’s office concerning specific cases entailing or threatening to cause harm to human life and health, the environment, or the legitimate interests of individuals, legal entities, or the State; and (iii) communications from state bodies concerning specific cases of harm to human life and health, the environment, or the legitimate interests of individuals, legal entities, or the State, and also specific violations of the requirements of the legislation, which, if not addressed, would entail harm to human life and health. The Government indicates that in 2021, 4,727 inspections were carried out on the basis of complaints from individuals. More than 10,000 breaches were identified, while 3,300 orders were issued to remedy these breaches. It indicates that, compared to 2020, the number of inspections following complaints increased by 9 per cent. The Committee recalls the importance of undertaking a sufficient number of inspections that are unannounced to ensure that when inspections are conducted as a result of a complaint without prior notice, the fact of the complaint is kept confidential. With regard to confidentiality of complaints, the Committee notes that according to section 10(10) and (11) of the Civil Service Act, civil servants are obliged to keep confidential state classified information and other secrets protected by law and not to disclose information received in the course of exercising official powers, which affects the privacy, honour and dignity of citizens. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted in order to ensure that labour inspectors treat as absolutely confidential the source of any complaint and that no intimation is given to the employer or his representative that a visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the source of any complaints indicating a defect or breach of legal provisions falls into the scope of application of section 10(10) and (11) of the Civil Service Act.
Article 15(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 20(a) of Convention No. 129. Ethical principles of labour inspection. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 51 of the Law on Civil Service, which prohibits a civil servant from exercising official authority if there is a conflict of interest. The Committee takes note of this information which addresses its previous request.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Articles 6(1) and (2) and 18 of Convention No. 129. Activities of the labour inspection services in occupational safety and health in agricultural undertakings. The Committee notes that according to TUWFEC national legislation does not provide labour inspectors with advisory or enforcement functions with reference to legal regulations relating to the living conditions of workers and their families. According to the same trade union and ITUC, the labour inspectorate monitors only formalized labour relations in agriculture, which does not allow it to cover situations where a violation is related to the failure of documentation of various legal requirements. In addition, according to TUWFEC, agriculture in the Akmola region in 2021 had the highest number of occupational accidents, exceeding even the mining and metallurgy industries which are considered as dangerous industries by the Ministry of Labour. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the activities of labour inspectors in relation to agricultural undertakings, particularly on acts of supervision and prevention with a view to ensuring the protection of workers exposed to risks inherent to the use of chemicals, plant or complex machinery. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the number of measures with immediate executory force, such as suspension measures, adopted by labour inspectors in the agricultural sector. It also requests the Government to provide comments with respect to ITUC’s and TUWFEC’s observations.
Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Training for labour inspectors in agriculture. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that in 2022 training of state labour inspectors in the social and labour sphere has been carried out at the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection’s National Research Institute for Occupational Safety. The Government indicates that a training programme has been developed on applying labour legislation and carrying out state monitoring. While taking note of this information, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on training sessions intended specifically for labour inspectors performing their functions in the agricultural sector, on the number of labour inspectors receiving such training at each session, the subjects covered, and the duration of such sessions.
[ The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.
The Committee notes the observations of the Trade Union of Workers in the Fuel and Energy Complex (TUWFEC), as well as the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) received on 1 September 2022, on the Conventions).
Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Limitations and restrictions of labour inspections. Powers of labour inspectors. 1. Moratorium on labour inspections. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes with deep concern that the application period of the Presidential Decree No. 229 of 26 December 2019 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on Inspections and Preventive Monitoring and Oversight with Visits in the Republic of Kazakhstan” has been extended to 1 January 2024 by Presidential Decree No. 44, of 7 December 2022. The moratorium, which has been in force since 1 January 2020, applies to labour inspections for private and state-owned enterprises belonging to the categories of small and micro-enterprises. The Committee notes that the exceptions to this moratorium are: (i) inspections aimed at the prevention or elimination of violations that potentially bear a major threat to human life and health, to the environment, to law and public order, or a direct or indirect threat to the constitutional order and national security; and (ii) inspections performed on the grounds specified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 4 July 2003 on the Governmental Regulation, Control and Oversight of Financial Market and Financial Organizations. The Committee notes that Presidential Decree No. 44 of December 2022 adds unscheduled inspections conducted in accordance with the Entrepreneur Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (No. 375-V ZRK of 29 October 2015, hereafter the Entrepreneur Code) as possible exceptions to the moratorium. The Committee also notes that section 144(12) of the Entrepreneur Code, as amended by Law No. 95-VII of 20 December 2022, retains the provision stipulating the possibility to suspend with a Government decision the state control and supervision over private business entities for a certain period of time.
The Government indicates in its report that inspections are carried out based on a decision by the head of the central state body or local authority. For this purpose, a model algorithm has been approved, which establishes a uniform procedure for assigning inspections to small and micro enterprises for compliance by local authorities. The Government also states that unscheduled inspections are initiated in cases of collective complaints from (three or more) workers on issues of non-payment of wages and other entitlements, wholesale dismissals and staff cuts, as well as violation of labour rights in the area of occupational safety and health. From 2020 to 2022, state labour inspectors carried out 196 inspections in small and micro enterprises where serious violations were found. However, the Committee notes that according to the observations of the TUWFEC, in response to complaints about violations of labor rights received from employees of small businesses, the labor inspectorate could only help complainants in preparing statements of claim to the court and in sending letters to employers about the necessity to follow labour laws, without any legal consequences for violations. In addition, none of the complaints to the labour inspectorate about violations of labour rights in agriculture were inspected due to the moratorium. The trade union also indicates that the necessity of inspections is confirmed by reports of numerous rights violations and accidents in workplaces during the moratorium.
In this respect, the Committee once again recalls its General Observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, expressing concern at reforms that substantially undermine the inherent functioning of labour inspection systems, including moratoria on labour inspections, and urging governments to remove these restrictions, with a view to achieving conformity with the Conventions. Recalling that a moratorium placed on labour inspection is a serious violation of the Conventions, the Committee expresses deep concern at the Government’s decision to extend the moratorium, and urges in the strongest possible terms the Government to act promptly to eliminate the temporary ban on inspections and to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions, in compliance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.
2. Other restrictions on inspection powers. Following its previous comment on extensive restrictions on inspection and the frequency of inspection visits, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the proposal for labour inspectors to visit workplaces without prior notice was considered as part of the implementation of the Action Plan to Ensure Safe Work through to 2025. However, the Government indicates that this proposal was not supported by the State Enterprise Authority and employers’ representatives.
The Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004. On this matter, the Committee notes that Order No. 162 of 25 December 2020 on the implementation of section 146(2) of the Entrepreneur Code, provides for the prior registration of inspections with the Public Prosecutor’s office, who has the power to refuse such registration. The Committee also notes the observation of the ITUC that applicable law requires provision of advance notice of all inspections to the organization being inspected, including written notice 30 days in advance for scheduled inspections and 24 hours’ notice in advance for unscheduled inspections.
The Committee further notes with concern that the Entrepreneur Code, as amended by Law No. 95-VII of 30 December 2022, still contains limitations to inspection powers, including with regard to: (i) the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits without previous notice (sections 144(3) and (4) and 156 (2)); and (ii) the free initiative of labour inspectors (sections 144(13), 144–1, 144–2, 145, and 146). In addition, the Committee notes that, according to sections 143(3) and 151 of the Entrepreneur Code, only the requirements set out in the established inspection checklist are subject to verification and preventive control. The Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to make visits to workplaces without previous notice, and to carry out any examination, test or enquiry which they may consider necessary, in conformity with Article 12(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 129. Noting that section 197 of the Labour Code and section 147(2) of the Entrepreneur Code have been repealed, the Committee also requests the Government to indicate whether inspectors are now empowered to undertake inspection visits at any time of the day and night, as provided for in Article 12(1)(a) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) of Convention No. 129.
3. Frequency of labour inspections. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes that section 141 of the Entrepreneur Code as amended in 2022, provides for the frequency and types of inspections permitted in accordance with the degree of risk determined by the risk assessment and management system, regulated by Joint Order of the Minister of Health and Social Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 25, 2015 No. 1022 and the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated December 28, 2015 No. 801 (hereafter Joint Order of 2015). Accordingly, the frequency of inspection shall be no more than once a year for entities classified as high risk, no more than once every two years for those of medium risk and no more than once every three years for those of low risk. The Committee notes that according to ITUC, there is no minimum frequency of inspections established for low-risk employers, meaning that employers classified under such risk category are not covered with scheduled monitoring oversight activities.
Referring to its general observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to revise the Entrepreneur Code, to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of relevant legal provisions. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that risk assessment criteria do not limit the powers of labour inspectors or the undertaking of labour inspections. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on inspections in practice, indicating the total number of workplaces liable to inspection, the number of scheduled and unscheduled inspections, specifying on-site inspection or inspection without a visit to the workplace, as well as the number of inspections conducted in response to a complaint, and the results of all such inspections.
Article 6 of Convention No. 81 and Article 8 of Convention No.129. Disciplinary sanctions. The Committee notes that, according to section 50(12) of the Law on Civil Service, gross violations of the requirements for the organization and conduct of inspections in respect of business entities set forth in subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4) and (7) of section 151, and subparagraphs (2), (6) and (8) of section 156 of the Entrepreneur Code shall be considered as disciplinary offences. The Committee notes that section 151(1) provides that labour inspectors are not allowed to conduct inspections on elements that are not included in the inspection checklist. According to section 156(2) inspections are to be considered invalid in the absence of a prior notification to the subject of control or if the deadline for such notification is not respected. Therefore, the Committee notes that these provisions of national legislation involve restrictions on labour inspectors’ power which are not in conformity with the Conventions. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to revise sections 151 and 156 of the Entrepreneur Code, and to provide information on the number of disciplinary sanctions imposed on labour inspectors in accordance with section 50(12) of the Law on Civil Service.
Articles 13 and 17 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 18 and 22 of Convention No. 129.Powers of labour inspectors to ensure the effective application of legal provisions concerning conditions of work and the protection of workers. Prompt legal proceeding. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 193 of the Labour Code, which provides for the power of labour inspectors to impose suspension measures in case of OSH related legislation and to forward cases to relevant law enforcement agencies and courts. The Government adds that the suspension measures adopted by labour inspectors are for a period of no more than five working days.
The Committee notes that sections 144–1 and 144–2 of the Entrepreneur Code, indicate that in case of violations identified in the course of preventive inspections, the inspectors are obliged to issue a warning without the possibility of initiating proceedings. Moreover, section 136 of the same Code provides that rapid response measures, which can be adopted by inspectors if the activities or goods pose a direct threat to the constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, human life and health, the environment, and national security, can only be adopted in cases identified by the law and for violations of items included in the inspection checklist.
The Committee recalls that in accordance with Article 13 of Convention No. 81 and Article 18 of Convention No. 129, labour inspectors shall be empowered to take steps with a view to remedying defects observed in plant, layout or working methods which they may have reasonable cause to believe constitute a threat to the health or safety of the workers. The Committee also recalls once again that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions, persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or provide advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including the revision of the legislation, to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to take measures with immediate executory force and are able to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning, where required, in conformity with Articles 13 and 17 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 18 and 22 of Convention No. 129. It requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard.
Article 18 of Convention No. 81 and Article 24 of Convention No. 129. Adequate penalties. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s reference to section 462 of the Administrative Offences Code which provides for penalties on acts impeding civil servants of the state inspections office and other bodies of state control and supervision in performing their official duties. It notes that, however, section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code still provides for the right of employers to deny the inspection by officials of state control and supervision bodies. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that labour inspectors do not encounter undue obstruction while performing their duties. It also requests the Government to provide information on the number of cases in which inspectors are denied access to workplaces by employers and the grounds of such denial, and on the number of cases in which penalties are imposed on employers who obstruct labour inspectors in performing their duties and the nature of such penalties.
Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that since the ratification of the Conventions in 2001, no annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has been received by the Office. The Committee also notes that in its report the Government provides the following statistics for the year of 2021: 4,727 inspections were carried out, more than 10,000 breaches of labour law were identified, 3,300 orders were issued to remedy the violations identified and 1,323 fines were imposed in the amount of Kazakh Tenge (KZT) 324 million. Regarding agriculture, in 2021, 62 inspections were carried out, with 216 violations detected, 64 corrective orders and 23 administrative fines issued, amounting to KZT 4,562,180. In addition, the Committee notes that the Report on the review of the activities of labour inspectorates of the member States of the Euro-Asian Regional Alliance of Labour Inspections for the year 2022, contains information on the number of inspection visits, violations detected and penalties imposed and statistics on industrial accidents. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the establishment and publication of an annual report on the work of the inspection services and to transmit it to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129, and to ensure that it contains all the subjects listed under Article 21 of Convention No. 81 and Article 27 of Convention No. 129.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[ The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2024.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), received on 1 September 2021.
In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.
Legislation. The Committee notes the adoption of the Labour Code No. 414-V ZRK of 2015.
Articles 3(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No.81 and Articles 6(1)(a) and (b) of Convention No.129. Preventive functions of labour inspection. The Committee previously noted the Government’s indication that the Labour Code was amended to provide for state control “in other forms” based on criteria jointly approved by the labour inspectorate and a body representing employers. In this regard, the Committee notes that the Government does not clarify whether “other forms of control” refers to preventive inspection visits. The Committee notes that section 191(5) of the Labour Code provides that state control over compliance with labour legislation is carried out in the form of inspection and other forms of control.
The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, following a raft of initiatives taken by governmental bodies and employers over the past five years (2016-2020) in relation to occupational safety and health (OSH), a positive trend in the creation of safe working conditions has been established insofar as the number of industrial accidents has decreased by 10 per cent (from 1,683 to 1,503) and the number of related deaths by 16 per cent (from 248 to 208). Furthermore, it indicates that since 2019, proactive and preventive inspection visits have been routinely conducted at enterprises with the aim of preventing violations of labour legislation, including in relation to OSH. According to the Government, these visits take place in sectors more likely to generate injuries, namely mining and quarrying, construction, electricity generation, transmission and distribution, water supply, sewerage and waste management, farming, forestry and fishing, manufacturing industry, transport and warehousing. The Committee notes that in 2020, State labour inspectors carried out 113 preventive inspections. The Committee requests once again that the Government clarify the meaning of “other forms” of state control; it also requests the Government to continue providing information on actions taken to augment the creation of safe working conditions.
Article 4 of Convention No.81 and Article 7 of Convention No.129. Supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that under Law No. 102 – VRK of 2003 on the division of power between state bodies, the functions of the State labour inspectorate were transferred to executive bodies at the local level.
The Committee notes that, in relation to its request on the organization and functioning of the labour inspection system following the transfer of labour inspection functions to the executive bodies at the local level in accordance with the Law No. 102 – VRK of 2013, the Government refers to section 16 of the Labour Code. According to this section, the authorized state body for labour organizes the public supervision of compliance with national labour legislation and also coordinates the work of local labour inspection services. In addition, the Government indicates that the overall leadership of the Labour Inspectorate activities is exercised by the Chief State labour inspectors, who sit on the Committee for Labour, Social Protection and Migration of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection (the Committee). The Committee’s Chief State labour inspectors provide guidance and coordinate the activities of the local executive authorities to regulate labour relations by requesting information on labour relations from local labour inspectorates, coordinate the activity of State bodies to develop technical regulations on OSH, and coordinate and cooperate on OSH with other State agencies and representatives of workers and employers. Recalling that Article 4 of Convention No. 81 requires that labour inspection be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority, the Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the manner in which the work of the inspection services in local authorities is monitored, supervised, and effectively controlled by the central authority for labour inspection.
Articles 5(a) and 17 of Convention No.81 and Articles 12(1) and 22 of Convention No. 129. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that the number of proceedings instituted appeared to be low in relation to the number of cases reported, and that the Government had not provided the requested information in relation to cooperation with the judicial authorities. The Committee notes the Government’s information that in 2020 labour inspectors conducted 4,439 inspections, in the course of which 7,260 violations were found, of which 5,001 concerned labour relations, 2,096 OSH, and 163 public employment issues. Employers were issued with 2,614 orders and 1,090 fines. In addition, a total of 496 accident investigation files were sent to the law enforcement authorities, resulting in 56 criminal proceedings. However, the Committee notes that the Government still does not provide information in relation to cooperation with the judicial authorities as requested. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to enhance effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the judicial authorities (which could include joint meetings to discuss practical aspects of cooperation, joint trainings on the procedural and material aspects of labour law and inspection procedures, the establishment of a system for the recording of judicial decisions accessible to labour inspectors, etc.). The Committee further requests the Government to continue to provide statistical information on the number and nature of offences reported, the number of penalties imposed, the amounts of fines imposed and collected, and information on criminal prosecutions, if any.
Articles 6 and 7(1) and (2) of Convention No.81 and Articles 8 and 9(1) and (2) of Convention No.129. Status and conditions of service. Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. Following its previous comment, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the selection and appointment of candidates for the post of State labour inspector take place in accordance with the Civil Service Act, under competitive conditions and subject to qualification requirements. The Government states that candidates for the post of State labour inspector are required to have a higher legal, economic or technical education. In addition, the Government indicates that the staff of the State labour inspectorate are public officials who work within local authorities and other public bodies and that, in the performance of their duties, State labour inspectors are protected by law and guided by the Constitution and other statutory instruments. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the text setting out the conditions for the recruitment of labour inspectors.
Articles 10 and 11(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No.81 and Articles 14 and 15(1)(b) and (2) of Convention No. 129. Human resources and material means of the labour inspectorate. Following its previous comments, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties. However, it notes the Government’s indication that, as of 1 August 2021, there were 242 State labour inspectors active in the country, equipped with 33 mobile units. The Committee also notes ITUC’s indication that the actual number of state labour inspectors is not sufficient for adequate oversight of the observance of labour rights and does not allow for performing preventive activities on a larger scale. ITUC indicates that according to official data, about 1.3 million small and medium-size businesses and over 2,400 large businesses operate in Kazakhstan. Therefore, according to ITUC the number of labour inspectors is insufficient to ensure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the resources allocated to the labour inspection service, i.e. the budget for labour inspection functions at the local levels, as well as the number of inspection staff, the transport facilities and office space available to labour inspectors. The Committee further requests the Government once again to indicate the legal provisions and the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties. Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in respect to ITUC’s observation.
Article 15(a) and (c) of Convention No.81 and Article 20(a) and (c) of Convention No.129. Ethical principles of labour inspection. Noting that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to its previous request on this matter, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide further information on the effect given to Article 15(a) and (c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 20 (a) and (c) of Convention No. 129, and to send copies of the relevant legal provisions.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Article 6(1)(a) and (b) and 2 of Convention No. 129. Activities of the labour inspection services in occupational safety and health in agricultural undertakings. Noting the absence of a reply from the Government in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the activities of labour inspectors in relation to agricultural undertakings, particularly on acts of supervision and prevention with a view to ensuring the protection of workers exposed to risks inherent to the use of chemicals, plant or complex machinery.
Recalling that Article 6(2) provides that national laws or regulations may give labour inspectors in agriculture advisory or enforcement functions regarding legal provisions relating to conditions of life of workers and their families, the Committee also once again requests the Government to provide information in relation to the application of this provision.
Article 9(3) of Convention No. 129. Training for labour inspectors in agriculture. Noting the absence of a reply from the Government in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information on the content, duration, and dates of the training sessions intended specifically for labour inspectors performing their functions in the agricultural sector and the number of labour inspectors receiving such training at each session.
[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of the issues relating to the application of the ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.
The Committee notes the observations of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) on Conventions Nos 81 and 129, received on 1 September 2021.
Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Limitations and restrictions of labour inspections. Powers of labour inspectors. 1. Moratorium on labour inspections. The Committee notes with deep concern that the Presidential Decree No. 229 “On Introduction of a Moratorium on Inspections and Preventive Monitoring and Oversight with Visits in the Republic of Kazakhstan” of 26 December 2019, introduces a three year moratorium on labour inspection, which applies to private and state-owned enterprises belonging to the categories of small and micro-enterprises, starting from 1 January 2020. According to the Decree, the only exceptions allowing for inspections shall be inspections aimed at the prevention or elimination of violations that potentially bear a major threat to human life and health, to the environment, to law and public order; or a direct or indirect threat to the constitutional order and national security, in addition to inspections performed on the grounds specified by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 4 July 2003 “On the Governmental Regulation, Control and Oversight of Financial Market and Financial Organisations”. According to the observations submitted by the ITUC: (i) this moratorium is also valid for unscheduled inspections performed by the State Labour Inspectorate following complaints of employees about various labour violations by employers; (ii) between January and September 2020, the provisions on exceptions provided in the Decree were used by state inspectors only three times (in Kostanay Region, East Kazakhstan Region and in the city of Nur-Sultan); and (iii) according to information from the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection, as many as 16,330 complaints were submitted to the State Labour Inspectorate in the first 8 months of 2020. The Committee further notes that section 140(6) of the Entrepreneur Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan of 2015 (No. 375-V ZRK) provides for the possibility of suspending inspections of private business entities for a specific period after a decision by the Government, in coordination with the Administration of the President of the Republic. In this respect, the Committee recalls its General Observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, expressing concern at reforms that substantially undermine the inherent functioning of labour inspection systems, including moratoria on labour inspections, and urging governments to remove these restrictions, with a view to achieving conformity with the Conventions. Recalling that a moratorium placed on labour inspection is a serious violation of the Conventions, the Committee urges the Government to act promptly to eliminate the temporary ban on inspections and to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions, in compliance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.
The Committee previously noted that there appeared to be extensive legal and practical restrictions in relation to scheduled inspections concerning inspectors’ access to workplaces and the frequency of inspection visits, resulting in a reduced effectiveness and scope of inspections.
The Committee notes that the Government does not provide in its report information in relation to its previous request on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, and whether the restrictions introduced by the latter Order, especially the prior registration of inspections at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have been lifted.
In addition, the Committee notes with concern that the Labour Code and the Entrepreneur Code of 2015 contain various limitations on labour inspectors’ powers, including with regard to: (i) the ability of labour inspectors to enter freely any workplace liable to inspection (section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code); (ii) the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits at any hour of the day or night (sections 197(5) of the Labour Code and 147(2) of the Entrepreneur Code); (iii) the ability of labour inspectors to undertake inspection visits without previous notice (section 147(1) of the Entrepreneur Code); (iv) the free initiative of labour inspectors (section 197(2)(2) of the Labour Code and section 144(10) of the Entrepreneur Code); and (v) the scope of inspections, particularly in terms of the issues that can be examined in the course of inspections (section 151 of the Entrepreneur Code).
The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary legislative measures to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to make visits to workplaces without previous notice at any hour of the day or night, and to carry out any examination, test or enquiry which they may consider necessary, in conformity with Article 12(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 81 and Article 16(1)(a) and (c) of Convention No. 129. In addition, the Committee requests once again the Government to provide information on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, and whether the restrictions introduced by the latter Order, especially the prior registration of inspections at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, have been lifted.
2. Frequency of labour inspections. The Committee previously noted with concern that the number of inspections undertaken had decreased, owing to the discontinuation of inspections of small and medium-sized enterprises starting from 2 April 2014 until 1 January 2015, pursuant to the Presidential Decree on Cardinal Measures to Improve the Conditions for Entrepreneurship in Kazakhstan (Decree No. 757).
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that: (i) the risk management system is currently the main tool for determining the frequency of inspections; (ii) the joint Decree of the Ministry of Health and Social Development (No. 1022 of 25 December 2015) and the Ministry for the National Economy (No. 801 of 28 December 2015) established the risk assessment and checklist criteria for inspecting compliance with national labour legislation; and (iii) the risk management system has made it possible to regulate the controls carried out by state labour inspection bodies, to reduce the administrative pressure on employers in the context of their due diligence, and to improve the quality of the work performed by state labour inspectors. According to the ITUC: (i) the risk management system determines the frequency of scheduled inspections depending on the risk category assigned to the employer; (ii) in these conditions, no frequency of inspections is established for low-risk employers, meaning that the employers classified under such risk category are not covered by any scheduled monitoring activities; (iii) the procedure for the assessment of the risk category assigned to the employer depends, among other criteria, on the number of employees, with higher risk categories being assigned to enterprises with a greater numbers of employees; (iv) there is a decreasing probability of inspections of small and medium-sized businesses that carry a significant risk of abuses by employers; and (v) during scheduled inspections, an inspector is limited to the number of questions included in the checklists.
The Committee notes with concern that the Labour Code, as well as the Entrepreneur Code of 2015, which uses risk assessment criteria for classifying inspections and their frequency, contain various limitations on the frequency and duration of labour inspections (sections 140(8), 141, 148 and 151(6) of the Entrepreneur Code and section 197(6) of the Labour Code). Referring to its general observation of 2019 on the labour inspection Conventions, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures, including the revision of the Entrepreneur Code and the Labour Code, to ensure that labour inspectors are able to undertake labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of relevant legal provisions. In addition, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that risk assessment criteria do not limit the powers of labour inspectors or the undertaking of labour inspections. The Committee also requests the Government to continue to provide information on the undertaking of inspections in practice, indicating the number of scheduled and unscheduled inspections, as well as the total number of workplaces liable to inspection. With regard to inspections conducted without prior notice, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of such inspections, whether they are conducted on-site or without a visit to the workplace, as well as the number of inspections conducted in response to a complaint, and the results of all such inspections.
Articles 13, 17 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 18, 22 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Powers of labour inspectors to ensure the effective application of legal provisions concerning conditions of work and the protection of workers. Further to its previous request, the Committee notes that the Government does not provide information on the penalties imposed for violating labour legislation and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern, that section 12 of the Entrepreneur Code of 2015 provides that enterprises may deny the inspection by officials of state control and supervision bodies in cases where they fail to comply with the requirements for inspections established by the Code.
The Committee notes that various legal provisions, such as sections 136 and 153 of the Entrepreneur Code of 2015, appear to limit the powers of labour inspectors to take steps with a view to remedying defects observed in plant, layout or working methods and to order measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers.
The Committee further notes the Government’s indication, in reply to its previous request, that in order to prevent violations of labour law, section 197 of the Labour Code provides for a new form of monitoring of preventive visits to enterprises, following which the state labour inspector issues the employer with an improvement notice only, with no imposition of administrative penalties.
The Committee recalls that Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129 provide that, with certain exceptions, persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors shall be liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning, and that it must be left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give a warning or provide advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures, including the revision of the Entrepreneur Code and the Labour Code, to ensure that labour inspectors are able to initiate legal proceedings without previous warning, where required, in conformity with Article 17 of Convention No. 81 and Article 22 of Convention No. 129. The Committee further requests the Government to take the necessary measures to empower labour inspectors to take steps with a view to remedying defects observed in plant layout or working methods, or to order measures with immediate executory force in the event of imminent danger to the health or safety of the workers. In addition, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the penalties for violations of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors, and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, to provide a copy of the relevant provisions, and to indicate how often such penalties have been assessed, as well as the amounts of sanctions imposed and collected.
Articles 20 and 21 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 26 and 27 of Convention No. 129. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that since the ratification of the Conventions in 2001, an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has never been received by the Office. However, the Committee notes that the Government provides statistics on the number of inspectors, the number of inspections carried out, the number of industrial workplaces inspected, the number of industrial accidents, the number of accidents investigated, and the number of violations detected and penalties imposed. The Committee notes that the statistics sent by the Government on the activities of the labour inspectorate do not identify the specific data relating to the agricultural sector, so as to allow the Committee to assess the level of application of Convention No. 129. The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the establishment and publication of an annual report on the work of the inspection services and to transmit it to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20 of Convention No. 81 and Article 26 of Convention No. 129, and to ensure that it contains the subjects listed under Article 21 of Convention No. 81, including in particular Article 21(a), (c) and (g). It also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports contain information specific to the agricultural sector, as required by Article 27 of Convention No. 129.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.
[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2022.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Legislative reforms. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that supervision and control are carried out in accordance with Law No. 378 IV ZRK of 6 January 2011 on state control and supervision (Law on State Control). The Committee notes from information available on the Internet that this Law has recently been amended by Law No. 269-V of 29 December 2014 on issues of fundamental improvement of the conditions for entrepreneurial activity, and that these amendments provide for major modifications to the system of labour inspection. It further notes that the Government requested ILO technical assistance in the form of legislative comments on the 2015 draft Labour Code and that the Office transmitted its comments to the Government in September 2015. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the Law on State Control as amended, if possible in one of the ILO working languages. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to avail itself of the technical assistance of the Office in the current review of the Labour Code, and requests it to ensure that full effect is given to the Convention. Please also communicate a copy of the Labour Code, once adopted, if possible in one of the working languages of the ILO.
Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 17 and 18 of the Convention. Preventive and enforcement functions of labour inspection. The Committee previously noted that a risk management system was developed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to enable the labour inspectorate to plan inspections, while focusing on its preventive and advisory functions. The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to its previous request made in this regard.
The Committee further notes the Government’s indications that the Labour Code was amended to provide for state control “in other forms” based on criteria jointly approved by the labour inspectorate and a body representing employers which the Committee understands are solely preventive in nature. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed information on the implementation and functioning in practice of the abovementioned risk management system, including a copy of the applicable legal provisions.
It requests the Government to: (i) indicate the provisions in the Labour Code providing for “other forms” of state control; (ii) specify whether labour inspectors are free to institute or recommend proceedings when deemed necessary to ensure the application of the legal provisions; and (iii) to provide, where applicable, a copy of any internal instructions provided to labour inspectors in this regard.
Article 4. Supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority. The Committee notes from the Government’s indications that, under Law No. 102 – VRK on the division of power between state bodies of 13 June 2013, the functions of the state labour inspectorate have been transferred to the executive bodies at the local level. In this regard, the Committee would like to refer to its observations made in paragraph 140 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection according to which, attaching the labour inspectorate to a central authority facilitates the establishment and application of a single policy throughout the territory covered, and makes it possible to use available resources in a rational way by, for example, eliminating duplication of effort. In this regard, the Committee also considered that, in order to comply with the requirements of the Convention, the decentralization of labour inspection should be accompanied by the obligation placed on decentralized regional or local administrative authorities, to introduce a system for its functioning and to assign sufficient budgetary resources to it. The Committee requests the Government to describe, with reference to the applicable legal provisions, the organization and functioning of the labour inspection system following the transfer of labour inspection functions to the executive bodies at the local level, and to indicate the central authority exercising supervision and control over this system. Please also provide information on the resource situation throughout the services of labour inspection, i.e. the budget allocated for labour inspection functions at the local levels, as well as the number of inspection staff, the transport facilities and office space available to labour inspectors.
Articles 5(a) and 17. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee notes from the information provided by the Government that in 2013, on the basis of 13,152 inspections carried out, 2,089 cases were referred to the law enforcement authorities and 155 criminal proceedings were instituted against persons who had committed serious breaches of labour legislation. The Committee notes that the number of proceedings instituted appears to be low in relation to the number of cases reported, and that the Government has not provided the requested information in relation to cooperation with the judicial authorities. The Committee also notes the Government’s indications concerning the reporting obligation of the state labour inspectorate to the competent public prosecutor’s offices. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to enhance effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the judicial authorities (such as joint meetings to discuss practical aspects of cooperation, joint trainings on the procedural and material aspects of labour law and inspection procedures, the establishment of a system for the recording of judicial decisions accessible to labour inspectors, etc.). Please provide any explanations for the low number of proceedings instituted in relation to the cases reported, and any measures taken to overcome them, including in the framework of cooperation with the judicial authorities.
Articles 6 and 11(1)(b) and (2). Transport facilities available to labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the Government’s report once again does not contain any information in reply to its previous comments relating to the lack of adequate transport facilities for long journeys of labour inspectors, who were often reduced to depending on enterprises for this purpose. Recalling the Government’s previous statement that efforts were being made to rectify this situation, the Committee once again requests it to describe the labour inspectorate’s own transport facilities in the regions concerned and the measures taken to strengthen these facilities so that labour inspectors maintain their freedom of action and in particular avoid being exposed to improper influences. The Government is also requested once again, to indicate the legal provisions and the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties.
Article 7(1) and (2). Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests the Government to state the level of education, qualifications and skills required of candidates in competitions for the post of labour inspector.
Articles 12(1)(a) and (b) and 16. Right of inspectors to freely enter workplaces liable to inspection, and coverage of workplaces by labour inspections. The Committee previously noted that there appeared to be extensive legal and practical restrictions in relation to scheduled inspections concerning inspectors’ access to workplaces and the frequency of inspection visits, resulting in a reduced effectiveness and scope of inspections. In this regard, the Committee noted that: (i) section 330(1) of the Labour Code does not specify whether visits can take place at any hour of the day or night as required by Article 12(1)(a); (ii) Order No. 12 of March 2004 provides for the prior registration of the inspection at the Public Prosecutor’s Office which raises issues in relation to Article 12(1)(a) and (b); and (iii) section 334(2) of the Labour Code provides that labour inspectors cannot conduct more than one planned inspection per year with respect to the same natural or legal person, and no more than one planned inspection every three years in small businesses which is incompatible with Article 16.
While the Government has not provided specific information in reply to the questions raised, the Committee notes from the information in the Government’s report that: (i) the Labour Code was amended to enhance state control; (ii) Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 on the procedure for scheduled inspections in private enterprises was issued; and (iii) the number of labour inspections decreased from 23,060 inspections in 2008 to 13,152 in 2013. The Committee also notes the Government’s statement under the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), that the number of inspections undertaken has decreased, owing to the discontinuation of inspections of small and medium-sized businesses since 1 April 2014, pursuant to Presidential Decree on Cardinal Measures to Improve the Conditions for Entrepreneurship in Kazakhstan (Decree No. 757). The Committee notes with concern the Government’s indication regarding a decrease in the number of inspection visits and the cessation of such inspections in small and medium-sized enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to amend the Labour Code so as to bring it into compliance with the requirements of the Articles 12(1)(a) and 16 of the Convention (i.e. to provide for the free entry to workplaces at any hour of the day or night, and the lifting of any restrictions to carrying out of inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions). The Committee also asks the Government to provide information on whether Order No. 55-p of 16 February 2011 repeals Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, and whether the restrictions introduced by the latter Order, especially the prior registration at the Public Prosecutor’s Office have been lifted.
Article 15. Ethical principles of labour inspection. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the main obligations of labour inspectors are regulated by the Civil Service Act, and that labour inspectors are bound not to reveal any commercial secrets or other confidential issues under the law which may come to their knowledge in the course of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the effect given to Article 15(a) and (c) and to send copies of the relevant legal provisions, if possible in one of the ILO working languages.
Article 18. Penalties for labour law violations and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that, under the new Administrative and Criminal Code that entered into force in January 2015, the penalties for violating labour legislation have been strengthened. Noting that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to its previous demand in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and specify the relevant provisions.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that since the ratification of the Convention in 2001, an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services has never been received by the Office. However, the Committee notes that the Government’s report contains the statistics as required under Article 21 (d)–(g) (i.e. the number of labour inspections carried out, number of violations detected and penalties imposed, number of industrial accidents and number of occupational diseases). The Committee also recalls that the Government previously provided statistics on the number of inspectors, the workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein (as required by Article 21(b) and (c)). With reference to its general observations of 2009 and 2010 on the importance of availability of a register of enterprises and an annual report on the work of the labour inspection services as required under the Convention, and in view of the data already available, the Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the central inspection authority discharges its obligation to publish an annual report on the work of the labour inspection services under its control and communicate it to the ILO, in conformity with Article 20 and to ensure that it contains the subjects listed in Article 21.
The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, which was received on 23 September 2009, and the detailed statistical information that it contains, as well as the statistical information provided on 27 May 2010.

Articles 3(1), 13 and 16 of the Convention. Preventive and advisory functions of labour inspection. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that, pursuant to the provisions of the Kazakhstan Private Enterprise Act, which is now in force, the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection has developed a risk management system which will be used to exercise State control of compliance with the legislation, with a view to engaging to a maximum extent in preventive and advisory work with employers and carrying out scheduled and unscheduled inspections based on risk assessments. The Committee requests the Government to communicate the text of the Kazakhstan Private Enterprise Act, describe its content with regard to the relevant provisions of the Convention and give details on the practical implementation of the risk management system developed by the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection.

Article 5(a). Cooperation in relation to labour inspection. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee notes that according to section 336 of the Labour Code of 2007, the State labour inspectorate shall carry out its activities in interaction with other state supervisory and control authorities, with workers’ representatives, public associations and other organizations and that the State authorities shall render assistance to the State labour inspectorate in the fulfilment of its tasks. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments in this regard, including the organization of a seminar held on the subject of child labour and occupational safety in Kazakhstan with the participation of ILO representatives, members of Parliament, heads of state agencies, the social partners and heads of the inspectorates of labour of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, the Committee notes that according to section 330 of the Labour Code, labour inspectors can, among other things, control the observance of labour legislation (subsection 1), participate in testing the knowledge of labour protection and labour safety requirements (subsection 11), verify the fulfilment of special conditions set for issuing permits to hire foreign manpower (subsection 12) and investigate industrial accidents (subsection 8) along with representatives of employers and workers and other authorities like, for instance, the authorities competent in the area of sanitary and epidemiological welfare (sections 324–326). The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of legal and practical measures adopted to promote cooperation in the above areas between the labour inspectorate and other government services, such as, for instance, the social security institutions, the tax authorities, training institutions, the immigration authorities and the authorities competent in the area of sanitary and epidemiological welfare.

Articles 5(a) and 21(e). Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee takes note with interest of the detailed statistical information provided by the Government according to which, in 2008, on the basis of 23,060 inspections carried out, 1,459 cases were referred to the law enforcement authorities and 1,026 criminal proceedings were instituted against persons who had committed serious breaches of labour legislation. In the first half of 2009, on the basis of 11,776 inspections, 1,045 were cases referred to the law enforcement authorities. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide further information on the sectors of activity concerned, the legislative provisions which were the subject of violations and the outcome of the legal proceedings instituted before the courts. Referring also to its 2007 general observation on effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether a system for the recording of judicial decisions is accessible to the labour inspectorate or measures are envisaged for its establishment, and more generally, whether any measures are envisaged to enhance the cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system.

Article 5(b). Collaboration with the social partners. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that the Labour Code provides in Chapter 39, that the employer has the obligation to take various measures so as to carry out internal control over labour protection and safety, while Chapter 40 empowers an elected workers’ representative to exercise “public control” over the observance of the labour legislation by the employer. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would describe the forms of concrete cooperation between the labour inspectorate and the social partners, and specify the impact of such cooperation on the achievement of the objective assigned to the labour inspectorate, namely improving conditions of work and the level of protection of workers while engaged in their work.

Articles 6 and 11(1)(b) and (2). Transport facilities available to labour inspectors. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not contain any information in reply to its previous comments relating to the lack of adequate transport facilities for long journeys of labour inspectors, who were often reduced to depending on enterprises for this purpose. Recalling the Government’s previous declaration that efforts were being made to rectify this situation, the Committee once again requests it to describe the labour inspectorate’s own transport facilities in the regions concerned and the measures taken to strengthen these facilities so that labour inspectors maintain their freedom of action and in particular avoid being exposed to improper influences. The Government is also requested once again, to indicate the legal provisions and the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs covered in advance by inspectors in the performance of their duties.

Article 7(1) and (2). Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests the Government to state the level of education, qualifications and skills required of candidates in competitions for the post of labour inspector.

Articles 10 and 21(b) and (c).  Distribution of labour inspectors in relation to needs. The Committee takes due note of the detailed information for 2008 and 2009 (first half) sent by the Government concerning the geographical distribution of labour inspectors by region and city, as well as the number of workplaces inspected and the number of workers employed therein. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply further information on these subjects broken down by sector of economic activity.

Article 12(1)(a). Right of inspectors to enter freely workplaces liable to inspection. The Committee notes that section 330(1) of the Labour Code provides that labour inspectors have the right to carry out unhindered visits to organizations and enterprises for the purpose of controlling the observance of the labour legislation. However, it does not specify whether such visits can take place at any hour of the day or night. In its previous comments the Committee referred to the conclusions of the 2004 audit by an ILO group of experts at the request of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which pointed out the extensive legal and practical restrictions on inspectors’ access to workplaces in relation to planned inspections (Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004, providing for the prior registration of the inspection at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, preparation of numerous documents, etc.) and the reduced effectiveness and scope of inspections as a result of these restrictions. The Committee recalls in this regard that, according to Article 12(1)(a) of the Convention, labour inspectors should be authorized to enter freely and without previous notice at any hour of the day or night, any workplace liable to inspection.

Noting that the recently adopted Labour Code does not appear to amend the restrictions introduced by Order No. 12 on inspectors’ access to workplaces, and referring to the Government’s commitment to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into full conformity with Article 12(1)(a) the Committee once again requests it to do so and to keep the ILO informed of any progress achieved.

Article 12(2). Notification of presence of labour inspectors. Noting that the Government’s report does not contain a reply to the Committee’s previous comments in this regard, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate whether the labour inspector is obliged to notify the employer or his representative of his presence on the occasion of an inspection visit, unless he/she considers that such a notification may be prejudicial to the effectiveness of the inspection. If not, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the measures taken to this end.

Articles 13 and 17. Remedial measures including legal proceedings. The Committee notes that according to section 333(1) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors can issue the following types of acts: (i) orders (on elimination of violations, on the carrying out of preventive work or on suspension of operation of production units, workshops, sites, etc.); (ii) reports on an administrative offence; (iii) resolutions on termination of proceedings in cases of administrative offence; and (iv) resolutions in cases of administrative offence. According to section 330(10) of the Labour Code, the state labour inspectors have the right to submit to the law enforcement authorities and the courts, information, statements of claim and other materials on violations of the labour legislation and failure by employers to fulfil the instructions of the state labour inspectors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify details on each of the acts issued by the labour inspectors and the conditions in which they are issued.

Article 15. Ethical principles of labour inspection. The Committee once again requests the Government to send all available information on how effect is given to Article 15(a), (b) and (c) and to send copies of all relevant texts, including with regard to penalties incurred by labour inspectors if they violate the ethical principles established by these provisions.

Articles 15(c) and 16. Criteria and objectives relating to the frequency of inspection visits. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that according to section 334(2) of the Labour Code, labour inspectors cannot conduct more than one planned inspection per year with respect to the same natural or legal person, and no more than one planned inspection every three years in small businesses. Unplanned visits can be conducted in cases where inspectors discover circumstances which constitute a threat to the lives or health of workers and require the immediate elimination of the causes of danger, in cases where they receive a complaint alleging violations of labour legislation, or as a result of their own investigations into industrial accidents (sections 334(3)) and 331(6)).

The Committee recalls that according to Article 16 of the Convention, workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. It therefore once again draws the Government’s attention to the need to allow labour inspectors to decide on the number of visits necessary in the same workplace and to ensure that this freedom is guaranteed by legislation. Indeed, it is essential that employers realize that an inspector may conduct a visit on a random basis and without prior notification, so that they have an incentive to execute as quickly as possible any orders imposed upon them and also so that they are not inclined to systematically associate any unplanned visit with the existence of a complaint and seek to identify the author of the complaint. It is on this condition that inspectors can guarantee absolute confidentiality with regard to the source of complaints and regarding any connection between a complaint and an inspection visit, thereby preventing the workers concerned from being exposed to possible reprisals. In paragraph 266 of its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, the Committee considers that the different restrictions placed in law or in practice on inspectors’ right of entry into workplaces can only stand in the way of achieving the objectives of labour inspection as set out in the instrument. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take necessary measures aimed at amending section 334(2) of the Labour Code in such a way as to ensure that labour inspectors have the freedom to assess how frequently visits to the same workplace are required, in conformity with Article 16 and supply in its next report detailed information on the progress made in this regard.

Article 18. Penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that penalties for violation of the provisions of the labour legislation are set out in the Administrative Offences Code and the Criminal Code. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate in its next report the penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and specify the relevant provisions.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the inspection services. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to its 2009 general observation on the importance of statistics on workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers covered, as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of the labour inspection system and its needs. While taking note of the statistics provided by the Government on the number of inspectors, the workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein, the Committee once again reminds the Government that the information listed in Article 21 should appear in an annual report which, according to Article 20, should be published by the central authority on an annual basis and duly forwarded to the ILO within a reasonable time after its publication. As indicated in the Committee’s General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, the preparation of an annual report enables the authorities to have an overview of the working of the inspection system and its publication is intended to provide transparency on the resources, activities and results of the inspection services. Furthermore, the information provided should be broken down by sector of economic activity so as to specify which data relates to the activities performed in the industrial and commercial workplaces covered by the Convention. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the central inspection authority discharges its obligation to publish an annual report on the work of the labour inspection services under its control and forward it to the ILO, in conformity with Article 20 regarding its form and Article 21 regarding its content.

In addition, with reference to its previous comment, the Committee once again urges the Government to ensure that information on the work of the inspection services in the field of child labour and on the results thereof appear regularly in the annual report published by the central inspection authority.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports communicated in 2006 and 2007 and the detailed statistics that they contain. It also notes the adoption of the new Labour Code on 15 March 2007, certain provisions of which appear to cover matters raised in its previous comment and which it will examine in depth at its next session when a translation is available. However, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information in its next report on the content of the provisions of the new Code giving effect to the Convention and any implementing regulations. The information should cover the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. Duties of labour inspectors. In its previous comment, the Committee requested the Government to supply information on the “other duties” which were provided for by Decree No. 983 of 20 July 2001, the content of which was not stated. According to the Government, following the adoption of the new Labour Code, this Decree and Decree No. 1132 of 29 October 2004 on the work of labour inspectors have been repealed and the Code does not provide for any “other duties”. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify all the duties assigned to inspectors by the Labour Code and send copies, if applicable, of all implementing texts concerning the performance of these duties.

Article 5(a). Cooperation in relation to labour inspection. With reference to its previous comment, the Committee requests the Government once again to provide examples of all legal and practical measures adopted to promote cooperation between the labour inspectorate and other government services (for example, social insurance institutions, judicial bodies, tax authorities, immigration authorities, etc.).

Article 5(b). Collaboration with the social partners. In reply to the Committee’s previous comment concerning collaboration between the labour inspection services and employers, workers and their organizations, the Government points out that employers’ and workers’ representatives took part in inspections in the road transport and engineering industries, in the context of the inspection programme for 2006. Moreover, the Committee notes with interest the reference to an annual evaluation of the results of inspection activities by the National Tripartite Commission for Social Partnership and Labour Relations. It would be grateful if the Government would continue giving details of examples of cooperation between the inspectorate and the social partners, and also on their impact on the achievement of the objective assigned to the labour inspectorate, namely improving conditions of work and the level of protection of workers while engaged in their work.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2. Conditions for the recruitment of inspection staff. The Committee notes that inspectors are recruited and appointed by means of a competition, in accordance with the Public Service Act. It requests the Government to state the level of education, qualifications and skills required of candidates for these competitions.

Articles 10 and 21(c). Distribution of labour inspectors in relation to needs. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information for 2005 and 2006 sent by the Government concerning the geographical distribution of labour inspectors by to region and city, and on the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the number of workers employed therein. It would be grateful if the Government would continue supplying information on these subjects.

Articles 6 and 11, paragraphs 1(b) and 2. Transport facilities available to labour inspectors. According to the Government, the audit of the labour inspection system, which was conducted at the end of 2004 by an ILO group of experts at the request of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, underlined the fact that certain inspection services in the major regions lacked adequate transport facilities for long journeys and that inspectors were reduced to depending on enterprises for this purpose. Noting the Government’s declaration that efforts are being made to rectify this situation, the Committee requests it to describe the labour inspectorate’s own transport facilities in the regions concerned and the measures taken to strengthen these facilities so that labour inspectors maintain their freedom of action and in particular avoid being exposed to improper influences. The Government is also requested to indicate the legal provisions and the applicable procedure regarding the reimbursement of any travel costs covered in advance by inspectors in the performance of their duties.

Article 12, paragraph 1(a). Right of inspectors to enter freely workplaces liable to inspection. The Government refers to the conclusions of the 2004 audit highlighting extensive legal and practical restrictions on inspectors’ access to workplaces in relation to planned inspections (Order No. 12 of 1 March 2004 providing for the prior registration of the inspection at the Public Prosecutor’s Office, preparation of numerous documents, etc.) and the reduced effectiveness and scope of inspections as a result of these restrictions. Noting the Government’s statements that it is seeking to take the necessary steps to bring its legislation into conformity as regards the principle of free access of inspectors, without previous notice, to any workplace liable to inspection, the Committee requests the Government to do so as soon as possible and to keep the Office informed of all progress made in this respect.

Article 12, paragraph 2. Notification of presence. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the labour inspector is obliged to notify the employer or his representative of his presence on the occasion of an inspection visit, unless he considers that such a notification may be prejudicial to the effectiveness of the inspection. If not, it would be grateful if the Government would ensure that measures are taken to this end and keep the Office informed.

Article 15. Ethical principles of labour inspection. The Committee requests the Government to send all available information on how effect is given to Article 15(a), (b) and (c) and to send copies of all relevant texts, including with regard to penalties incurred by labour inspectors if they violate the ethical principles established by these provisions.

Articles 13, 15(c), 16 and 17. Criteria and objectives related to the frequency of inspection visits. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that labour inspectors were not authorized to conduct more than one visit per year in the same enterprise, which, in the Government’s own opinion, was insufficient to ensure the protection of workers. It therefore requested the Government to take the necessary steps to remove this limitation. In its 2007 report, the Government states that the Occupational Safety and Health Act and also the draft Labour Code also provide that planned inspections may not be carried out more than once a year with respect to natural and legal persons, and once every three years in small enterprises. Unplanned visits are also conducted in cases where inspectors discover circumstances which constitute a threat to the lives or health of workers and require the immediate elimination of the causes of danger, in cases where they receive a complaint alleging violations of labour legislation, or as a result of their own investigations into industrial accidents. According to the Government, these unplanned visits somewhat reduce the limitations on the number of inspections of enterprises. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to allow labour inspectors to decide on the number of visits necessary in the same workplace and to ensure that this freedom is guaranteed by legislation. Indeed, it is essential that employers realize that an inspector may conduct a visit on a random basis and without prior notification, so that they have an incentive to execute as quickly as possible any orders imposed upon them and also so that they are not inclined to systematically associate any unplanned visit with the existence of a complaint and to seek the author of the complaint. It is on this condition that inspectors can guarantee absolute confidentiality with regard to the source of complaints and regarding any connection between a complaint and an inspection visit, thereby preventing the workers concerned from being exposed to possible reprisals (Article 15(c)). In paragraph 266 of its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, the Committee considers that the different restrictions placed in law or in practice on inspectors’ right of entry into workplaces can only stand in the way of achieving the objectives of labour inspection as set out in the instrument. It therefore requests the Government once again to ensure that the law and practice are modified in such a way as to ensure that labour inspectors have the freedom to assess how frequently visits to the same workplace are required, in conformity with Article 16. It would be grateful if the Government would supply detailed information on all measures taken to this end and on their results.

Article 17, paragraph 2. Discretion of labour inspectors as to the action to be taken. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify:

–      whether the legislation provides that persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors are liable to prompt legal proceedings without previous warning;

–      if the legislation provides for cases in which a prior warning shall be given so that the situation can be rectified or preventive measures taken;

–      whether it is left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings.

The Government is requested to provide copies of all relevant texts and state the content thereof.

Article 18. Penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the provisions establishing the penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and to indicate the content thereof.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the inspection services. The Committee notes the detailed statistics supplied by the Government in its report on each of the subjects covered by Article 21 of the Convention. The Government also indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security submits information annually on compliance with the labour legislation and on industrial accidents, and that it prepares a quarterly information sheet for internal use on the work of the labour inspectorate, on the basis of quarterly reports supplied by the local inspection services. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that not only must the above data appear in an annual report but the latter must also be published by the central authority and duly forwarded to the ILO. In its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, it emphasizes that the preparation of an annual report is not an end in itself but enables the authorities to have an overview of the working of the inspection system and that the publication of such a report is intended to provide transparency on the resources, activities and results of the inspection services. The Committee therefore requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the central inspection authority discharges its obligation to publish an annual report and forward it to the ILO, in conformity with the requirements of Article 20 regarding its form and the requirements of Article 21 regarding its content. In addition, with reference to its previous comment, the Committee requests the Government once again to ensure that information on the work of the inspection services in the field of child labour and on the results thereof appear regularly in the annual report published by the central inspection authority.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the attached documentation. It would be grateful if the Government would supplement this documentation by providing the texts of the Act of 1993 on labour protection, Decree No. 1920 of 28 December 2000 establishing the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Labour and the Social Protection of the Population, the two Acts ratifying international Conventions Nos. 81 and 129 on labour inspection and the Code of Administrative Violations of 2001. The Government is also requested to provide any relevant information concerning the progress made with the Bill respecting occupational security and protection, the adoption of which was announced by the Government for 2003.

The Committee notes with interest that the level of administrative fines which may be imposed on persons violating the many legal provisions on working conditions is set out in the Code of Administrative Violations adopted in 2001 in terms of "monthly wage units". The Committee has already advocated in its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection (paragraph 263) that the methods for the determination of financial penalties should allow for them to be periodically reviewed so that they can retain their dissuasive effect, and that this objective cannot be achieved where the level of penalties is expressed in numerical form in the law.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide additional information on the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. The primary duties and further duties of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, at each hierarchical level of the state labour inspection structure, in addition to a number of set functions, inspectors discharge other duties (sections 5.12, 6.12, 11.8, 12.6 and 13.5 of Decree No. 983 of 20 July 2001 issuing the regulations on labour inspection). Emphasizing the need to ensure that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties, as determined in paragraph 1, or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the content of any duties which are not set out in the above regulations.

Articles 4, 19, 20 and 21. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures adopted to ensure that the central labour inspection authority publishes, on the basis of the periodic reports of inspection units, and communicates to the ILO within the time limits set out in Article 20, an annual inspection report containing the information required under each of the points of Article 21.

In this respect, with reference to the information provided by the Government in its report on the application of this Convention, as well as the report on the application of Convention No. 138, the Committee notes that structures have been established by the ministry responsible for labour to reinforce the enforcement of labour legislation, particularly with regard to the protection of young persons and occupational safety and health. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide clarifications on the geographical distribution of these structures and on the human and material resources available to them in relation to their assigned objectives.

The Government is also requested to take measures to ensure that information on the activities of the inspection services in the field of child labour, and their results, are regularly contained in the annual report produced by the central inspection authority.

Article 5(a) and (b). Noting the information of a general nature provided on the application of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide precise examples of collaboration between the inspection services and other government services, as well as detailed information on the nature and frequency of its collaboration with employers, workers and their organizations.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2. While noting with interest the many training activities undertaken for labour inspectors in 2002 on matters relating to labour legislation, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the criteria for the recruitment or appointment of labour inspectors.

Article 8. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the proportion of women in the inspection staff, disaggregated by region and by grade, and if it would provide information on the special duties assigned to them.

Article 9. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure the collaboration of duly qualified technical experts and specialists in the work of the inspectorate.

Articles 10 and 21(c). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the geographical distribution of labour inspectors, as well as the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the numbers of workers employed therein.

Article 11. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the logistical resources and transport facilities available to labour inspectors, and on the arrangements made to reimburse any travel expenses for professional duties.

Article 12, paragraph 1(c)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that labour inspectors are provided with the powers set out in these provisions on the occasion of inspections and to indicate, where appropriate, the relevant legal provisions.

Article 12, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether labour inspectors are obliged to notify the employer or her or his representative of their presence on the occasion of an inspection visit, unless they consider that such notification may be prejudicial to the effectiveness of the inspection. If such an obligation exists, please indicate the relevant provisions. If not, please take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision and inform the ILO accordingly.

Article 14. Please describe the manner in which industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease that are notified to the labour inspection services.

Article 15. The Committee notes that inspectors are bound to respect the confidentiality of state secrets and any professional or commercial secrets which may come to their knowledge in the course of their duties. It notes that, under section 8 of the Regulations on labour inspections, inspectors may be the subject of complaints to the hierarchical authority or the courts. The Committee reminds the Government that, subject to any exceptions set out in law, it should also be prohibited for labour inspectors to have any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision and that they should be subject to the obligation of absolute confidentiality as to the source of any complaint and any link between a complaint and an inspection visit. It therefore requests the Government to provide any available information on the manner in which effect is given to Article 15(a), (b) and (c) and to provide a copy of any relevant text, including any text relating to the penalties to which labour inspectors are liable in the event of any transgression on their part.

Article 16. In the view of the Government, the fact that it is not possible for inspectors, under the terms of an Order, to carry out more than one inspection a year in the same enterprise encourages grave violations of the labour legislation, particularly in relation to the statutory protection of workers in relation to recruitment, resulting in a substantial increase in the number of employment accidents at work. Emphasizing that under the terms of this Article of the Convention, workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, and with reference to paragraphs 235 to 252 of its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the above Order and, in any event, to take every measure as soon as possible to abolish the principle of the limitation on the number of inspections per enterprise. It would be grateful if it would inform the ILO of the progress achieved in this respect.

Article 17, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether it is left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending legal proceedings against persons who violate the legal provisions that they enforce.

Article 18. Please indicate the penalties envisaged for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and provide a copy of the relevant texts.

Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the content and frequency of the reports on their inspection activities due from inspectors at each of the levels of the labour inspection system.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes the Government’s first report and the attached documentation. It would be grateful if the Government would supplement this documentation by providing the texts of the Act of 1993 on labour protection, Decree No. 1920 of 28 December 2000 establishing the territorial bodies of the Ministry of Labour and the Social Protection of the Population, the two Acts ratifying international Conventions Nos. 81 and 129 on labour inspection and the Code of Administrative Violations of 2001. The Government is also requested to provide any relevant information concerning the progress made with the Bill respecting occupational security and protection, the adoption of which was announced by the Government for 2003.

The Committee notes with interest that the level of administrative fines which may be imposed on persons violating the many legal provisions on working conditions is set out in the Code of Administrative Violations adopted in 2001 in terms of "monthly wage units". The Committee has already advocated in its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection (paragraph 263) that the methods for the determination of financial penalties should allow for them to be periodically reviewed so that they can retain their dissuasive effect, and that this objective cannot be achieved where the level of penalties is expressed in numerical form in the law.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide additional information on the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. The primary duties and further duties of labour inspectors. The Committee notes that, at each hierarchical level of the state labour inspection structure, in addition to a number of set functions, inspectors discharge other duties (sections 5.12, 6.12, 11.8, 12.6 and 13.5 of Decree No. 983 of 20 July 2001 issuing the regulations on labour inspection). Emphasizing the need to ensure that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article of the Convention, any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties, as determined in paragraph 1, or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the content of any duties which are not set out in the above regulations.

Articles 4, 19, 20 and 21. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures adopted to ensure that the central labour inspection authority publishes, on the basis of the periodic reports of inspection units, and communicates to the ILO within the time limits set out in Article 20, an annual inspection report containing the information required under each of the points of Article 21.

In this respect, with reference to the information provided by the Government in its report on the application of this Convention, as well as the report on the application of Convention No. 138, the Committee notes that structures have been established by the ministry responsible for labour to reinforce the enforcement of labour legislation, particularly with regard to the protection of young persons and occupational safety and health. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide clarifications on the geographical distribution of these structures and on the human and material resources available to them in relation to their assigned objectives.

The Government is also requested to take measures to ensure that information on the activities of the inspection services in the field of child labour, and their results, are regularly contained in the annual report produced by the central inspection authority.

Article 5(a) and (b). Noting the information of a general nature provided on the application of these provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide precise examples of collaboration between the inspection services and other government services, as well as detailed information on the nature and frequency of its collaboration with employers, workers and their organizations.

Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2. While noting with interest the many training activities undertaken for labour inspectors in 2002 on matters relating to labour legislation, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the criteria for the recruitment or appointment of labour inspectors.

Article 8. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the proportion of women in the inspection staff, disaggregated by region and by grade, and if it would provide information on the special duties assigned to them.

Article 9. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure the collaboration of duly qualified technical experts and specialists in the work of the inspectorate.

Articles 10 and 21(c). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the geographical distribution of labour inspectors, as well as the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the numbers of workers employed therein.

Article 11. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the logistical resources and transport facilities available to labour inspectors, and on the arrangements made to reimburse any travel expenses for professional duties.

Article 12, paragraph 1(c)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures adopted to ensure that labour inspectors are provided with the powers set out in these provisions on the occasion of inspections and to indicate, where appropriate, the relevant legal provisions.

Article 12, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether labour inspectors are obliged to notify the employer or her or his representative of their presence on the occasion of an inspection visit, unless they consider that such notification may be prejudicial to the effectiveness of the inspection. If such an obligation exists, please indicate the relevant provisions. If not, please take the necessary measures to give effect to this provision and inform the ILO accordingly.

Article 14. Please describe the manner in which industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease that are notified to the labour inspection services.

Article 15. The Committee notes that inspectors are bound to respect the confidentiality of state secrets and any professional or commercial secrets which may come to their knowledge in the course of their duties. It notes that, under section 8 of the Regulations on labour inspections, inspectors may be the subject of complaints to the hierarchical authority or the courts. The Committee reminds the Government that, subject to any exceptions set out in law, it should also be prohibited for labour inspectors to have any direct or indirect interest in the enterprises under their supervision and that they should be subject to the obligation of absolute confidentiality as to the source of any complaint and any link between a complaint and an inspection visit. It therefore requests the Government to provide any available information on the manner in which effect is given to Article 15(a), (b) and (c) and to provide a copy of any relevant text, including any text relating to the penalties to which labour inspectors are liable in the event of any transgression on their part.

Article 16. In the view of the Government, the fact that it is not possible for inspectors, under the terms of an Order, to carry out more than one inspection a year in the same enterprise encourages grave violations of the labour legislation, particularly in relation to the statutory protection of workers in relation to recruitment, resulting in a substantial increase in the number of employment accidents at work. Emphasizing that under the terms of this Article of the Convention, workplaces shall be inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, and with reference to paragraphs 235 to 252 of its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the above Order and, in any event, to take every measure as soon as possible to abolish the principle of the limitation on the number of inspections per enterprise. It would be grateful if it would inform the ILO of the progress achieved in this respect.

Article 17, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether it is left to the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning or advice instead of instituting or recommending legal proceedings against persons who violate the legal provisions that they enforce.

Article 18. Please indicate the penalties envisaged for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and provide a copy of the relevant texts.

Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the content and frequency of the reports on their inspection activities due from inspectors at each of the levels of the labour inspection system.

© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer