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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in December 2008 in reply to its previous observations, as well as the labour court decisions attached. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including the statistics available on the activities of appeal bodies, examples of recent court decisions and more specifically, concerning the definition of real and serious grounds for termination.

Articles 8, paragraph 2, and 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Termination on economic grounds authorized by the labour inspectorate. The Government indicates that labour inspectors are public employees and that their decisions may be challenged. If a party feels aggrieved by a decision made by a labour inspector, the party may request the intervention of the supervisor and, as a last resort, file an appeal with the administrative courts. The Committee notes decisions rendered by the Labour Chamber of the Court of First Instance of Libreville, indicating that the authorization to terminate given by the labour inspectorate on economic grounds may be set aside by the labour court if it deems the termination to be irregular and wrongful. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide examples of court decisions concerning workers dismissed on economic grounds.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its 2007 observation, which read as follows:

Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2007 which reproduces the information already communicated in September 2005. The Committee regrets that the Government’s report does not contain any specific information in reply to its 2006 observation, which referred to the comments the Committee had been making for a number of years on the application of the Convention. The Committee recalls once again the importance of regularly providing new and relevant information on the application of the Convention so that it can assess the application of each of the provisions. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will finally contain information on the application of the Convention in practice, including examples of recent court decisions, particularly regarding the definition of “real and serious” grounds for termination.

Articles 8, paragraph 2, and 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Termination on economic grounds authorized by the labour inspector. The Committee notes that section 296 of the Labour Code, which refers to the dismissal of a staff delegate or his deputy, provides that the decision by the labour inspector may be challenged in the administrative courts. The Committee refers to its previous comments and once again asks the Government to indicate whether workers dismissed on economic grounds also have the right to challenge the labour inspector’s decision to authorize their individual or collective dismissal.

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

1. Parts IV and V of the report form. The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2007 which reproduces the information already communicated in September 2005. The Committee regrets that the Government’s report does not contain any specific information in reply to its 2006 observation, which referred to the comments the Committee had been making for a number of years on the application of the Convention. The Committee recalls once again the importance of regularly providing new and relevant information on the application of the Convention so that it can assess the application of each of the provisions. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will finally contain information on the application of the Convention in practice, including examples of recent court decisions, particularly regarding the definition of “real and serious” grounds for termination.

2. Articles 8, paragraph 2, and 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Termination on economic grounds authorized by the labour inspector. The Committee notes that section 296 of the Labour Code, which refers to the dismissal of a staff delegate or his deputy, provides that the decision by the labour inspector may be challenged in the administrative courts. The Committee refers to its previous comments and once again asks the Government to indicate whether workers dismissed on economic grounds also have the right to challenge the labour inspector’s decision to authorize their individual or collective dismissal.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s brief report received in September 2006, which contains no information in reply to its observation of 2005. The Committee once again refers to the comments it has been making for several years on the policy of the “gabonization” of jobs and compliance with the Convention in implementing it, particularly with Article 4. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of sending regularly up to date and relevant information on the application of the Convention so that the Committee can ascertain how each provision is applied. The Committee hopes that the Government’s next report will at last provide information on the application of the Convention in practice, including examples of recent court decisions, particularly regarding the definition of “real and serious” grounds for termination (Parts IV and V of the report form).

2. Termination on economic grounds authorized by the labour inspector. The Committee notes that any individual or collective termination for economic reasons requires authorization from the labour inspector (section 56 of the Labour Code). The Committee refers to its previous comments on the application of Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 9, paragraph 3, and requests the Government to indicate whether workers can challenge the labour inspector’s decision to authorize termination on economic grounds in accordance with Article 9, paragraph 3.

3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Committee notes that, under section 159 of the Labour Code, pay claims are subject to a time limit of five years. It requests the Government to indicate how, by applying section 159 of the Labour Code, it ensures the right to appeal against unfair dismissal within a reasonable period of time after termination, as required by Article 8, paragraph 3.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

1. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report received in September 2005 that application of the National Pact for Employment, concluded in June 2000, has not involved any mass lay-offs of foreign workers, the replacement of foreign workers by a process of "gabonization" being only one of many possibilities available to the public authorities for working towards full employment for Gabonese nationals. The Government also indicates that, in practice, employers and the public authorities often come to a compromise on this question.

2. The Committee notes the importance the Government attaches to full employment for its nationals. In the Committee’s view, measures to promote full employment should allow the Government to create conditions that are conducive to the generation of productive and lasting employment in conditions that are socially adequate for all concerned.

3. For many years the Committee has been commenting on the policy of "gabonization" of jobs and the need for its implementation to be consistent with the provisions of the Convention. The Committee noted that, according to Article 2, the Convention applies to all employed persons and Articles 8 and 9 applies to foreigners as well as nationals. The Committee stressed that, in order for implementation of the "gabonization" policy to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 4, there must be a valid reason for termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.

4. The Committee points out that in the absence of any other valid reason, the "gabonization" of jobs may not be relied on as a valid reason for termination within the meaning of the Convention. The Government is asked to include practical information in its next report on the application of the provisions of the Convention, in particular the number of appeals against termination filed by foreign workers and national workers, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedies awarded and the average time taken for the appeals to be processed, and on the number of terminations, if any, connected to the implementation of the new employment policy (Part V of the report form).

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat the observation it made in 2002 which read as follows:

The Committee recalls that for many years it has been commenting on the policy of "gabonization" of jobs and its implementation in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. In its observation of 2001, the Committee noted the national pact on employment concluded in June 2000 between the Employers’ Confederation of Gabon (CPG), the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Free Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (CGSL), under which: enterprises operating in Gabon encourage the economic integration or reintegration of Gabonese jobseekers by systematically substituting them, wherever possible, for any foreign workers who are laid off, resign or reach the age of retirement; and for the purpose of "gabonization" all posts held by foreigners may be filled by Gabonese. The Committee recalled its previous comments to the effect that, by virtue of Article 2, the Convention applies to all salaried workers and that, although nationality is not mentioned in Article 5 among the factors which do not constitute valid grounds for dismissal, the protection afforded by the other Articles, particularly Articles 8 and 9, applies both to foreigners and to nationals. The Committee stressed the need for implementation of the gabonization policy to be consistent with the provisions of Article 4, which establish that grounds for dismissal must be valid and related to the worker’s capacity for the job or conduct, or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service.

In its report received in September 2002, the Government indicates that the policy of gabonization is implemented with discernment and encourages the occupational integration of nationals while settling at the time of hiring the conditions for the employment and departure of foreign workers, in compliance with section 2 of Decree No. 00663/PR/MTPS of 5 July 1972. As a result, very few complaints have been filed against dismissals of foreigners.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply. It still has concerns, however, as to whether at the implementation of the policy of gabonization of jobs is consistent with the provisions of the Convention. The guarantees cited by the Government may not be adequate to afford the protection of foreign workers required by Article 4 of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that, in the absence of any valid concerns mentioned in Article 4, the gabonization of a job may not be cited as a valid concern for dismissal within the meaning of the Convention.

The Committee will accordingly devote close attention to the next report of the Government in which it hopes to find practical information on the application of the provisions of the Convention, and particularly information on the number of complaints against dismissals of foreign and national workers, the results thereof, the nature of the redress granted and the average time needed for a ruling to be handed down and the number of dismissals, if any, linked to implementation of the National Employment Pact (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to report in detail to the present comments in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information provided in response to its previous observation.

1. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been commenting on the policy of "gabonization" of jobs and its implementation in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. In its observation of 2001, the Committee noted the national pact on employment concluded in June 2000 between the Employers’ Confederation of Gabon (CPG), the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Free Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (CGSL), under which: enterprises operating in Gabon encourage the economic integration or reintegration of Gabonese jobseekers by systematically substituting them, wherever possible, for any foreign workers who are laid off, resign or reach the age of retirement; and for the purpose of "gabonization" all posts held by foreigners may be filled by Gabonese. The Committee recalled its previous comments to the effect that, by virtue of Article 2, the Convention applies to all salaried workers and that, although nationality is not mentioned in Article 5 among the factors which do not constitute valid grounds for dismissal, the protection afforded by the other Articles, particularly Articles 8 and 9, applies both to foreigners and to nationals. The Committee stressed the need for implementation of the gabonization policy to be consistent with the provisions of Article 4, which establish that grounds for dismissal must be valid and related to the worker’s capacity for the job or conduct, or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service.

In its report received in September 2002, the Government indicates that the policy of gabonization is implemented with discernment and encourages the occupational integration of nationals while settling at the time of hiring the conditions for the employment and departure of foreign workers, in compliance with section 2 of Decree No. 00663/PR/MTPS of 5 July 1972. As a result, very few complaints have been filed against dismissals of foreigners.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply. It still has concerns, however, as to whether at the implementation of the policy of gabonization of jobs is consistent with the provisions of the Convention. The guarantees cited by the Government may not be adequate to afford the protection of foreign workers required by Article 4 of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that, in the absence of any valid concerns mentioned in Article 4, the gabonization of a job may not be cited as a valid concern for dismissal within the meaning of the Convention.

The Committee will accordingly devote close attention to the next report of the Government in which it hopes to find practical information on the application of the provisions of the Convention, and particularly information on the number of complaints against dismissals of foreign and national workers, the results thereof, the nature of the redress granted and the average time needed for a ruling to be handed down and the number of dismissals, if any, linked to implementation of the National Employment Pact (Part V of the report form).

2. Article 8, paragraph 2. With reference to the provisions of sections 296-298 of the Labour Code under which a decision by the labour inspectorate to allow dismissal of a staff delegate may be challenged in the administrative courts, the Committee notes the Government’s reply that there seems to be no obstacle to the impugning of a decision by the labour inspectorate to authorize individual or collective dismissals on economic grounds.

3. Article 9, paragraph 3. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to an order of 27 June 1988 of the Libreville court of appeal and states that the labour tribunal has the authority to ascertain whether decisions by the labour inspector to authorize individual or collective dismissals on economic grounds are well founded.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending September 2001. It also understands that the Government, the Employers’ Confederation of Gabon (CPG), the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Free Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (CGSL) have concluded a National Pact for Employment on 1 June 2000. The Pact provides in particular that enterprises operating in Gabon give priority in hiring or rehiring Gabonese jobseekers to systematically replace, whenever possible, all foreign workers who are laid off, resign, or retire, and that all posts occupied by foreigners should be filled by Gabonese. Under earlier arrangements, public and private employers conducted an annual inventory of posts to be filled and their characteristics. In previous comments, the Committee had expressed its concern in respect of the provisions of the Convention over the policy of "gabonization" of jobs. By virtue of Article 2, the Convention is, in effect, applicable to all salaried workers. Even though nationality is not mentioned in Article 5 among the list of grounds which may not constitute a valid reason for termination of employment, the safeguards listed in the other Articles, notably Articles 8 and 9, are applicable to nationals and foreigners alike. Any dismissal of a foreign worker that is based on an invalid ground is contrary to the provision of Article 4 which requires a valid reason for dismissal related to the capacity or conduct of the worker, or the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to provide a detailed report which includes practical information on the application of the provisions of the Convention (number of appeals against unjustified termination, the outcome of such appeals, the nature of the remedy awarded and the average time taken for an appeal to be decided) and the number of dismissals possibly resulting from the implementation of the Pact (Part V of the report form). The Committee recalls that in the absence of any other valid reason, the "gabonization" of jobs cannot be invoked as a valid reason for dismissal as defined in the Convention.

2. Article 8, paragraph 2. The Government refers in its report to the provisions of articles 295, 296 and 297 of the Labour Code and indicates that the decision of the labour inspector may be appealed. The Committee again asks the Government to specify whether articles 296-298 of the Labour Code, which provide that the labour inspector’s decision to authorize dismissal of a staff representative may be appealed to an administrative body, also applies to the decision of the labour inspector to authorize an individual or collective dismissal for economic reasons.

3. Article 9, paragraph 3. Please specify if the labour tribunal is empowered to examine the reasons for any decision by the labour inspector to authorize an individual or collective dismissal for economic reasons.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2002].

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with regret 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:

  Article 4 of the Convention.  The Committee recalls its concern that the policy of "Gabonization" of jobs should be implemented in compliance with Article 4 of the Convention, which stipulates that there should be a valid reason for termination of employment connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker, or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. It notes in this regard that the Supreme Court in its ruling of 27 June 1983 stated that Gabonization of a post did not constitute a valid reason for the premature termination of a fixed-term contract. The Committee also notes that under the terms of the Labour Code, which, as the Government confirms in its report, applies without distinction to Gabon nationals and to foreigners, employment can only be terminated for a valid reason connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker concerned, or for economic reasons. In this context, the Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that, in the absence of any other valid reason for dismissal, Gabonization of a post may not be cited as a valid reason for termination.

  Article 8, paragraph 2.  The Committee notes with interest the provisions of sections 296-298 of the Labour Code which stipulate that a decision by a labour inspector to authorize termination of employment of a staff representative may be appealed against under an administrative dispute procedure. The Government is asked to indicate whether such an appeal is also possible against a decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

  Article 9, paragraph 3.  The Government is asked to indicate whether the labour tribunal is empowered to examine the reasons for any decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

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:

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its concern that the policy of "Gabonization" of jobs should be implemented in compliance with Article 4 of the Convention, which stipulates that there should be a valid reason for termination of employment connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker, or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. It notes in this regard that the Supreme Court in its ruling of 27 June 1983 stated that Gabonization of a post did not constitute a valid reason for the premature termination of a fixed-term contract. The Committee also notes that under the terms of the Labour Code, which, as the Government confirms in its report, applies without distinction to Gabon nationals and to foreigners, employment can only be terminated for a valid reason connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker concerned, or for economic reasons. In this context, the Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that, in the absence of any other valid reason for dismissal, Gabonization of a post may not be cited as a valid reason for termination.

Article 8, paragraph 2. The Committee notes with interest the provisions of sections 296-298 of the Labour Code which stipulate that a decision by a labour inspector to authorize termination of employment of a staff representative may be appealed against under an administrative dispute procedure. The Government is asked to indicate whether such an appeal is also possible against a decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

Article 9, paragraph 3. The Government is asked to indicate whether the labour tribunal is empowered to examine the reasons for any decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Referring to its observation and earlier requests, the Committee would be grateful if the Government in its next report would provide additional information on the following points.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee recalls its concern that the policy of "Gabonization" of jobs should be implemented in compliance with Article 4 of the Convention, which stipulates that there should be a valid reason for termination of employment connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker, or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service. It notes in this regard that the Supreme Court in its ruling of 27 June 1983 stated that Gabonization of a post did not constitute a valid reason for the premature termination of a fixed-term contract. The Committee also notes that under the terms of the Labour Code, which, as the Government confirms in its report, applies without distinction to Gabon nationals and to foreigners, employment can only be terminated for a valid reason connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker concerned, or for economic reasons. In this context, the Committee trusts that the Government will ensure that, in the absence of any other valid reason for dismissal, Gabonization of a post may not be cited as a valid reason for termination.

Article 8, paragraph 2. The Committee notes with interest the provisions of sections 296-298 of the Labour Code which stipulate that a decision by a labour inspector to authorize termination of employment of a staff representative may be appealed against under an administrative dispute procedure. The Government is asked to indicate whether such an appeal is also possible against a decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

Article 9, paragraph 3. The Government is asked to indicate whether the labour tribunal is empowered to examine the reasons for any decision by a labour inspector to authorize individual or collective terminations for economic reasons.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Referring to its earlier direct requests to the Government, the Committee notes with interest the relevant provisions of Act No. 3/94 of 21 November 1994 (Labour Code). The Committee in particular notes with satisfaction the provisions that give effect to Article 7 of the Convention, by providing for an interview procedure in cases of termination of employment related to a worker's conduct or performance (section 51 of the Code), and to Article 5(c) of the Convention, by making it unlawful to terminate employment on the ground that a worker has filed a complaint, or participated in proceedings against an employer for alleged violation of legislation, or has had recourse to competent administrative authorities (section 74 of the Code).

The Committee is also addressing a direct request on certain points to the Government.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

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:

1. The Committee recalls the comments of the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Gabon Employers' Confederation (CPG). COSYGA considered that the policy of "Gabonization" of jobs was open to abuse. It stated that workers had no right of appeal as required under Article 8 of the Convention; and that inspectors had no means of carrying out the examination referred to in Article 9. The CPG noted that the courts regarded termination for "Gabonization" as legitimate when it involved an indefinite contract but not a contract for a fixed-term.

2. The Government states that termination for "Gabonization" is not discriminatory but is intended to favour the career development and social progress of Gabon workers. It states that labour inspectors work efficiently to inquire into the situation before taking a decision.

3. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2, the Convention applies to all employed persons. This means that, while nationality is not one of the factors mentioned in Article 5 as not constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the protections provided for in other Articles, including Articles 8 and 9, do apply to nationals and non-nationals alike. It also means that any termination of a non-national which is in fact based on an invalid reason will none the less infringe Article 4. The Committee would therefore be grateful if in its next report the Government would provide information as to the practical application of the Convention in the light of the comments of COSYGA and the CPG, including details of relevant decisions of the courts.

4. The Committee notes the Government's view that the new Labour Code answers all the Committee's earlier points. It intends to examine at its next session the effect of the Code on the application of the Convention as a whole.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee recalls the comments of the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Gabon Employers' Confederation (CPG). COSYGA considered that the policy of "Gabonization" of jobs was open to abuse. It stated that workers had no right of appeal as required under Article 8 of the Convention; and that inspectors had no means of carrying out the examination referred to in Article 9. The CPG noted that the courts regarded termination for "Gabonization" as legitimate when it involved an indefinite contract but not a contract for a fixed-term.

2. The Government states that termination for "Gabonization" is not discriminatory but is intended to favour the career development and social progress of Gabon workers. It states that labour inspectors work efficiently to inquire into the situation before taking a decision.

3. The Committee recalls that, under Article 2, the Convention applies to all employed persons. This means that, while nationality is not one of the factors mentioned in Article 5 as not constituting a valid reason for dismissal, the protections provided for in other Articles, including Articles 8 and 9, do apply to nationals and non-nationals alike. It also means that any termination of a non-national which is in fact based on an invalid reason will none the less infringe Article 4. The Committee would therefore be grateful if in its next report the Government would provide information as to the practical application of the Convention in the light of the comments of COSYGA and the CPG, including details of relevant decisions of the courts.

4. The Committee notes the Government's view that the new Labour Code answers all the Committee's earlier points. It intends to examine at its next session the effect of the Code on the application of the Convention as a whole.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received.

In its previous direct request it noted the observations on the application of the Convention received in September 1993 from the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA), a copy of which this organization had communicated to the Government. The Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain such comments as might be judged appropriate on the observations of the above-mentioned organization, as well as full information on the matters raised in the Committee's previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes with interest the Government's first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points in its next report:

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 1 of the Labour Code, persons appointed to permanent managerial posts in public departments are not subject to the provisions of the Labour Code. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the machinery whereby each Article of the Convention is applied to this category of employees. If those employees are excluded from the application of this Convention under paragraphs 4 to 6 of this Article, please supply the information requested in the report form, indicating in particular the special arrangements which as a whole provide protection that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded under the Convention.

Article 4. The Committee notes the examples provided by the Government of court decisions concerning the definition of "genuine and serious" reasons for terminating employment. Please continue to provide examples of such court decisions. The Committee also notes that certain courts have taken the view that termination on grounds of "Gabonization" of a job, in the absence of any other reason, does not constitute abuse. The Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 111 and asks the Government to state how account is taken of the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention in the implementation of its policy of the Gabonization of jobs.

Article 5(c). Please provide information on how it is ensured that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 6, paragraph 1. Please provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that temporary absence from work because of illness or injury does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 7. The Committee notes the information to the effect that certain enterprises have adopted the practice of a prior interview. It asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that all workers are given the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations made before their employment is terminated.

Article 8, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether there are any specific means of redress for workers protected by the provisions of section 197 of the Labour Code or who lose their jobs by reason of dismissal for economic reasons subject to prior authorization by the administration.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether, in the event of an appeal against dismissal for economic reasons, the labour tribunal is empowered to determine whether the labour inspectorate's decision to authorize the dismissal is valid.

Lastly, the Committee notes from a subsequent report of the Government that a draft Labour Code is being debated in the National Assembly. It hopes that the provisions of the new Code on termination of employment will be in conformity with those of the Convention and asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It also notes the observations on the application of the Convention received in September 1993 from the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA), a copy of which this organization has communicated to the Government. The Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain such comments as might be judged appropriate on the observations of the above-mentioned organization, as well as full information on the matters raised in the Committee's previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes with interest the Government's first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points in its next report:

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 1 of the Labour Code, persons appointed to permanent managerial posts in public departments are not subject to the provisions of the Labour Code. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the machinery whereby each Article of the Convention is applied to this category of employees. If those employees are excluded from the application of this Convention under paragraphs 4 to 6 of this Article, please supply the information requested in the report form, indicating in particular the special arrangements which as a whole provide protection that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded under the Convention.

Article 4. The Committee notes the examples provided by the Government of court decisions concerning the definition of "genuine and serious" reasons for terminating employment. Please continue to provide examples of such court decisions. The Committee also notes that certain courts have taken the view that termination on grounds of "Gabonization" of a job, in the absence of any other reason, does not constitute abuse. The Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 111 and asks the Government to state how account is taken of the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention in the implementation of its policy of the Gabonization of jobs.

Article 5(c). Please provide information on how it is ensured that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 6, paragraph 1. Please provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that temporary absence from work because of illness or injury does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 7. The Committee notes the information to the effect that certain enterprises have adopted the practice of a prior interview. It asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that all workers are given the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations made before their employment is terminated.

Article 8, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether there are any specific means of redress for workers protected by the provisions of section 197 of the Labour Code or who lose their jobs by reason of dismissal for economic reasons subject to prior authorization by the administration.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether, in the event of an appeal against dismissal for economic reasons, the labour tribunal is empowered to determine whether the labour inspectorate's decision to authorize the dismissal is valid.

Lastly, the Committee notes from a subsequent report of the Government that a draft Labour Code is being debated in the National Assembly. It hopes that the provisions of the new Code on termination of employment will be in conformity with those of the Convention and asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes with interest the Government's first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would provide additional information on the following points in its next report.

Article 2 of the Convention. The Committee notes that under section 1 of the Labour Code, persons appointed to permanent managerial posts in public departments are not subject to the provisions of the Labour Code. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the machinery whereby each Article of the Convention is applied to this category of employees. If those employees are excluded from the application of this Convention under paragraphs 4 to 6 of this Article, please supply the information requested in the report form, indicating in particular the special arrangements which as a whole provide protection that is at least equivalent to the protection afforded under the Convention.

Article 4. The Committee notes the examples provided by the Government of court decisions concerning the definition of "genuine and serious" reasons for terminating employment. Please continue to provide examples of such court decisions. The Committee also notes that certain courts have taken the view that termination on grounds of "Gabonization" of a job, in the absence of any other reason, does not constitute abuse. The Committee refers to its comments under Convention No. 111 and asks the Government to state how account is taken of the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention in the implementation of its policy of the Gabonization of jobs.

Article 5(c). Please provide information on how it is ensured that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 6, paragraph 1. Please provide information on the manner in which it is ensured that temporary absence from work because of illness or injury does not constitute a valid reason for termination.

Article 7. The Committee notes the information to the effect that certain enterprises have adopted the practice of a prior interview. It asks the Government to indicate the measures taken or under consideration to ensure that all workers are given the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations made before their employment is terminated.

Article 8, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether there are any specific means of redress for workers protected by the provisions of section 197 of the Labour Code or who lose their jobs by reason of dismissal for economic reasons subject to prior authorization by the administration.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether, in the event of an appeal against dismissal for economic reasons, the labour tribunal is empowered to determine whether the labour inspectorate's decision to authorize the dismissal is valid.

Lastly, the Committee notes from a subsequent report of the Government that a draft Labour Code is being debated in the National Assembly. It hopes that the provisions of the new Code on termination of employment will be in conformity with those of the Convention and asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any developments in this respect.