Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2008, Publication: 97th ILC session (2008)

A Government representative reaffirmed the commitment of his Government to fulfilling its obligations under the ILO Constitution. The Committee of Experts had observed a dismantling of the labour inspection system owing to the decentralization of labour administration, while the Convention required the Government to put in place a mechanism for labour inspection through legislative, administrative and policy mechanisms. The speaker stated that the decentralization of labour inspection could go against the letter and spirit of the Convention and expressed his Government's commitment to pursuing measures to establish a system of labour inspection in conformity with the Convention.

In the meantime, in compliance with article 40(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, the Government had enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 9 of 2006 and the Employment Act No. 6 of 2006. The former guaranteed the right to safe and healthy working conditions and the establishment of safety and health committees in workplaces, while the latter provided for the appointment of Labour Officers in every district. Furthermore, notwithstanding the principle of decentralization, under the Local Governments Act 1997, section 8 of the Employment Act, provided that the administration of the Act was the responsibility of the Directorate of Labour. The Government was of the view that the Directorate of Labour was a central authority within the meaning of the Convention. Moreover, sections 10 and 11 of the Employment Act empowered the Labour Officers, on behalf of, and under the supervision of, the central Government, to, among other things, carry out inspections. Under section 15 of the Employment Act it was an offence for any person to obstruct the performance of these functions. Thus, at the legislative level, there was sufficient protection within the terms, letter and spirit of the Convention.

At the policy and administrative levels, the total implementation of the Convention was an ongoing process embarked upon by the Government, together with the social partners. As resources were mobilized to give effect to the requirements of the Convention, the tripartite partners had been encouraged to embark on an active campaign of sensitization, awareness raising and training of all stakeholders to ensure that the values, principles and goals of the Convention were realized in full.

The tripartite delegation of Uganda had requested financial and technical assistance in the area of labour inspection in a meeting with the ILO Director-General during the current session of the International Labour Conference. The speaker reiterated this request, adding that it could possibly be provided under the country's Decent Work Country Programme. He added that to strengthen capacities further, the Government was seriously considering the re-establishment of a fully fledged Ministry of Labour, as this Ministry was for the moment, a mere department. The Government undertook to inform the ILO of all developments in this regard. In conclusion, the speaker reiterated his Government's commitment to compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

The Employer members recalled that this case had already been considered in 2001 and 2003, and emphasized that the Convention was an important priority instrument, as labour inspection was an essential function of labour administration and an integral part of the implementation of ratified ILO Conventions. They added that the Convention promoted laws and regulations which were adapted to the changing needs of the labour market and, without being prescriptive, set out a series of principles regarding the function and organization of the system of labour inspection which were essential for ensuring the protection of workers in a coordinated and effective manner.

The Committee of Experts raised two issues. First, it referred to the dismantling of the labour inspectorate owing to the decentralization of labour administration functions. They noted with concern, from the report of the Committee of Experts, that the very notion of a central labour inspection authority had become devoid of all substance, as the little authority that the Minister retained in law could not be exercised for want of the necessary structure and resources. The dismantling of the labour inspectorate had commenced with the decentralization of the labour inspection system in 1994, following which it had been left to the districts whether or not to establish an inspection system. An ILO mission carried out in Uganda in May 2005 had revealed that there were a total of 26 labour inspectors for 56 districts. However, the number of districts had since been increased to 81, although the number of inspectors had not increased proportionately: there were at the moment 30 inspectors covering the 81 districts. Moreover, they lacked training and there was still no central authority as prescribed by Article 4 of the Convention. The Government had enacted labour legislation in 2006 to provide for labour inspection in a manner which, in fact, went further than the Convention's requirements, but the legislation had not been put into practice. The country lacked the necessary infrastructure to achieve compliance with the Convention.

Second, the Committee of Experts had referred to the establishment of an inspection system suited to economic and social needs. The Employer members noted with concern the continued failure of the Government to produce an annual report on the work of the inspection services, pursuant to Article 20 of the Convention. This prevented any assessment of needs, either at the national or regional levels, and furthermore hindered the determination of priorities for action and the evaluation of resources required.

In conclusion, they accepted that the decentralization process had been carried out with the best of intentions, namely, to bring services closer to the people, and acknowledged that this process was unlikely to be reversed. However, its effect had been adverse to the labour inspection system, although this system was required in the interests of social protection and improved productivity. Recognizing that the performance of the labour inspection system had been badly affected by an unfavourable economic situation and lack of infrastructure, the Employer members suggested that consideration be given to ways to ensure that competence for labour inspection was shared between the central bodies of the labour administration and the decentralized authorities. They supported the Committee of Experts in calling for the Government to adopt, as soon as possible, all measures that were essential for the establishment and functioning of an inspection system which conformed to the requirements of the Convention. This included improved training, seeking the necessary funds and technical assistance, keeping the ILO informed and sending copies of the relevant legislative, regulatory and administrative texts. Finally, they encouraged the Government to supply the information required by the Convention report form and to communicate its report to the most representative employers' and workers' organizations.

The Worker members once again emphasized the crucial importance of the application of the Convention, which required labour inspectors in sufficient numbers to ensure the efficiency of their work, that they possessed the adequate proficiency and means to perform their visits of workplaces and, finally, that they were able to benefit from training programmes due to investments and the assistance of experts. This Convention also emphasized the need to place inspection services under the control of a central authority (Article 4), which must then publish an annual inspection report (Article 20).

The application of the Convention in Uganda raised great problems because a real Ministry of Labour did not exist, and because the organization of labour inspection was completely left up to districts, without central coordination or follow-up. The new law adopted in 2006 and referred to by the Government representative obliged each district to recruit at least one labour official. However, according to the information available to the Worker members, only one third of the districts had done so. Furthermore, due to the many tasks assumed by these officials, it was difficult to concur that the measures taken by the districts applied the Convention in a satisfactory manner.

Before this Committee, the Government, which declared itself aware of the problem and acknowledged that decentralized practices were not in conformity with the Convention, had committed itself to taking the necessary measures to establish a fully fledged Ministry of Labour. However, these promises had already been made in the 2001 and 2003 Conference sessions, yet nothing had been done to improve the situation since then. It was deplorable that the Conclusions of this Committee remained a dead letter. The Government's argument that the National Constitution provided for wide decentralization, could not overshadow the fact that a country's ratification of a Convention implied its application by central authorities. Furthermore, considering the competence of subrogation attributed by the Constitution to the central authority, this argument seemed to be merely a pretext.

Considering the effects of globalization on Uganda, this situation also presented a problem vis-à-vis competing countries for attracting foreign investments and entailed risks of social dumping for workers. In this context, a recent conference, which gathered the ministers of labour of the five Eastern African countries in Arusha, emphasized the need for Uganda to establish a fully fledged Ministry of Labour and a central labour inspection authority, as prescribed by the Convention. The Worker members urged the Government to take the necessary measures to apply the Convention and to commit itself to do so within the framework of a plan of action containing time frames for every measure and every step.

The Worker member of Uganda stated that although workers had been given the opportunity to dialogue with the Government - which had expressed its commitment to complying with the Convention - he wished that the Government would hasten the compliance process and commit to a time frame for doing so. The establishment of a fully fledged ministry of labour was long overdue, and its importance in securing compliance with the provisions of the Convention could not be overemphasized. Other countries within the eastern Africa region, he noted, all possessed fully fledged labour ministries. The centralization of labour inspection was of the utmost importance. While acknowledging the difficulty of facilitating the centralization process and establishing the mechanisms necessary for compliance with the Convention, he maintained that improvements to the present framework were necessary for the Convention's implementation. Enhancing the capacity of the existing labour inspectors through additional training and financing, for instance, would go a long way towards the improvement of working conditions. Additionally, the Government ought to recruit labour inspectors in districts lacking such services, particularly as those districts themselves lacked sufficient resources. He urged the Government to introduce the necessary legislative changes, and trusted that by next year it would be able to report satisfactory progress to the Committee.

The Government member of Kenya noted that the Ugandan Government had acknowledged the need for a strong labour administration system and a ministry of labour in order to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Convention. He thanked the Government for its openness and willingness to pursue a path of socio-economic development.

He remarked that labour inspection helped to promote the standards and principles safeguarding the welfare of workers. Conversely, violations of labour standards were likely to occur in regions that lacked labour inspection systems. The Government's desire to establish an effective labour inspectorate was therefore welcome. He noted that Kenya, as Uganda's neighbour, would certainly be adversely affected by Uganda's failure to ensure the enforcement of labour standards. He encouraged the Government to act with due haste to strengthen the labour inspection system and establish a fully fledged ministry of labour. He additionally urged the Office to provide the technical assistance the Government may require in its endeavours.

The Government representative of Uganda thanked the speakers for their contributions. He stated that although the will to effect the required reforms existed, the capacity to do so was lacking. Recent changes had occurred within the Government, in the area of policy as well as within the administration itself. Although no specific deadlines could be given, he assured the Committee that the necessary reform processes were underway and that a fully fledged labour ministry would be established in a year or so.

The Employer members thanked the Government for its candour and willingness to accept the Office's assistance. They accepted that the decentralization process was being carried out with the best of intentions, namely to bring services closer to the people, and acknowledged that it was unlikely to be reversed. However, decentralization had adversely affected the labour inspection system, a system necessary to ensure social protection and improved productivity. While recognizing that the performance of the labour inspectorate had been greatly affected by the unfavourable economic situation as well as the lack of infrastructure, they joined the Committee of Experts in calling upon the Government to adopt, as soon as possible, all measures necessary for the establishment and functioning of an inspection system that conformed to the Convention's requirements. These included improved capacity-building and training, seeking the necessary funds and technical assistance, and keeping the ILO informed by sending copies of the relevant legislative, regulatory and administrative texts. They concluded by requesting the Government to supply the information required by the Convention report form and to send its report to the social partners.

The Worker members expressed their deep regret that effect had not been given to the commitments made by the Government at the 2001 and 2003 sessions of the Conference and took note of the new commitment made by the Government that it would ensure compliance with the Convention in law and practice, and in particular establish a fully fledged Ministry of Labour, in conformity with the Declaration of Arusha of the Ministers of Labour of the Eastern African countries. However, since obscure commitments did not suffice, they requested the Government to elaborate a concrete plan of action with the collaboration of the representative workers' and employers' organizations and regretted that the Government could not yet give specific deadlines. The Worker members also invited the Government to use the technical assistance provided by the ILO through the Strengthening of Labour Administration and Labour Relations in East Africa (SLAREA) project.

Conclusions

The Committee noted the statement by the Government representative and the discussion that followed. It noted the Government's commitment to adopt measures for the establishment of an inspection system that met the requirements of the Convention. The Committee noted the announcement by the Government representative of the adoption of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, No. 9 of 2006, which provided for the establishment of workplace safety and health committees and the Employment Act, No. 6 of 2006, under which labour officers would be recruited in every district. It nevertheless noted with concern the indication by the Government representative of the absence of a Ministry of Labour, with the corresponding functions being entrusted to a fledgling department in a ministry with broader responsibilities.

The Committee drew attention with concern to its reiterated discussions of the case, first in 2001, then in 2003 and finally at the present session. It recalled that the Committee of Experts had been urging the Government for many years to take measures to reverse the phenomenon of the continued deterioration of the labour inspectorate, which had been aggravated following the decentralization of the inspection function to the district level in 1995. It also recalled that in 2001 and 2003 it had endorsed the conclusions of the Committee of Experts on the case calling for the establishment of an inspection system in accordance with the requirements of the Convention and adapted to changing economic and social conditions. It emphasized in particular the need for such systems to be under the responsibility of a central authority so as to ensure equal protection for workers in industrial and commercial establishments throughout the country.

The Committee observed that the absence of an annual report on the work of the inspection services, as required by Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, meant that it was not possible for the ILO supervisory bodies to assess the application of the legislation on labour inspection in practice, or the volume or quantity of inspections, in relation to the requirements of the Convention. It therefore requested the Government to adopt measures without delay to establish an effective labour administration with the resources and personnel necessary for its operation, as an essential prerequisite for the effective operation of an inspection system. Noting its request for specific technical assistance to enable it to meet its obligations deriving from the ratification of the Convention, particularly in the context of the Decent Work Country Programme, the Committee requested it to adopt all the necessary measures for this purpose. Finally, it requested the Government to provide the Office with information reporting positive developments in this respect for examination by the Committee of Experts at its session in November-December 2009.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2003, Publication: 91st ILC session (2003)

A Government representative noted the observation of the Committee of Experts and indicated that a review of the laws concerned was urgently required. In fact, such a review was currently underway including consultations with all stakeholders and social partners. The Government was applying a participatory approach, while respecting the legitimate interests of the parties involved. The Government representative stated that the laws cited by the Committee of Experts had been put in place at a time of political turmoil. These laws were undesirable and would be changed. In fact, they were among the legislation identified and subjected to action by the Uganda Law Reform Commission. However, the list of laws to be reformed was long and the need to address issues such as poverty and HIV/AIDS negatively affected the speed of this process. The Government representative urged the ILO to continue to provide technical assistance when called upon and expressed the Government's commitment that the situation would be improved before the Committee's next session.

The Worker members noted the information submitted by the Government representative on the measures taken to address socio-economic problems resulting from poverty and HIV/AIDS. They expressed the hope that the Government would demonstrate sufficient political will. While noting that this case reflected the economic situation of developing countries in general, they seized this opportunity to express their conviction that the Conference Committee was truly at the heart of the promotion of application of international labour Conventions and that peace was based on social justice. They equally underlined that the Committee of Experts, the membership of which included an Indian, a Pakistani, a Senegalese, a Brazilian and a citizen from the Dominican Republic, could not be accused of reflecting the exclusive perspective of a minority of developed countries, and that its conclusions could be considered as impartial by the Worker members, the Employer members and the Government members of the Conference. He further pointed out that the international labour standards, in an imperfect world, were aimed at improving the destiny of humanity as a whole. Their application required international action, under the aegis of the ILO, and thereby one could not claim that such action was only driven by a minority of member States.

Upon listening to the assurances of goodwill expressed by the Government representative of Uganda, the Worker members underlined that the Committee had already called on the Government to honour its obligations with regard to Convention No. 81 in 1989, 1990 and 2001. A joint ILO/UNDP mission had underlined in 1995 the insufficient resources allocated to labour inspection. The Government cited deficiencies in the infrastructure and resources of the country. The Worker members were of the view that it was incumbent on any government, on the basis of adequate legislation, to guarantee the efficiency, independence and objectivity of a labour inspection system which should report to a central authority accountable for its actions. The Worker members welcomed the acceptance of ILO technical assistance by the country.

The Employer members noted that Convention No. 81 was not one of the fundamental ILO Conventions. Nevertheless it was a very important instrument, as labour inspection was essential in order to gather accurate information on the situation in the country. Without such information governments had no basis for social policy measures, which appeared to have been the case in Uganda since 1982. He also recalled that an ILO/UNDP mission in 1995 had revealed several serious problems. From 1994 onwards the Government had decentralized the labour inspection system, leaving it to the districts whether or not to establish such a system. The districts were also not required to establish a labour inspection system in line with the Convention. As a result, in only 21 districts out of 45 a labour inspection system had been put in place, which meant that there was no effective national system in place, nor were national annual labour inspection reports available. Noting the explanation given by the Government representative that the problem was caused by a lack of resources, the Employer members referred to the recent economic growth mentioned in the Committee of Experts' observation. The central Government should therefore be able to become more active and to allocate the necessary resources. In conclusion, the Employer members noted that the Government had not fulfilled its obligation under Convention No. 81 for some time and urged it to take the necessary measures to ensure full application of the Convention.

The Employer member of Uganda associated herself fully with the statement made by the Employer members. In addition, she observed that the problems regarding the application of the Convention resulted from the Government's policy of decentralization of services to the districts. This resulted in a contravention of the provisions of the Convention which require a central body responsible for labour inspection the inspections and the annual labour inspection reports would provide motivation for employers to put in place best practices with regard to working conditions, including occupational safety and health. A labour inspection central body should be established with the support of the ILO.

The Worker member of Senegal noted the commitment of the Government before the Committee. He recalled that the same question had already been raised in 1989, 1990 and 2001, in view of the numerous gaps in action taken by the public authorities. As a result, labour inspection in Uganda became practically non-existent. He added that the health initiatives by the Government, especially those of a pedagogic nature, to overcome the HIV/AIDS epidemic, were worth noting. However, the protection of workers could not be conceived without the existence of an efficient labour inspection system, and that it was incumbent on the public authorities to allocate the necessary resources to those true soldiers who monitored social law, in order to assist them in realizing their tasks. In Uganda, the decentralization of institutions had disastrous repercussions on the organization of inspection services, which needed to be addressed. It was necessary for the authorities of the State to develop its action based on labour inspection, in order to evaluate the degree of application of labour legislation in the country. It was therefore of paramount importance that the Government deploy all efforts to observe its obligations with respect to the Convention.

The Government representative reiterated his Government's commitment to organize adequate labour inspection. However, this was contingent on the economic and budgetary situation. He therefore reiterated his call for ILO technical assistance.

The Worker members welcomed the willingness expressed by the Government to bring legislation concerning labour inspections into line with Convention No. 81. They acknowledged that ILO technical assistance would be necessary. Recalling the obligations arising from Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention, they emphasized that the protection of workers should not be dependent on a country's prosperity and called on the Government to put in place labour inspection services in accordance with Convention No. 81.

The Employer members noted the lack of resources committed by the Government to a labour inspection system. So it was unclear whether the Committee could expect much in the near future. The Government should at least consider obliging the district authorities to have a local labour inspection system. ILO technical assistance was no substitute for the allocation of adequate domestic resources for labour inspection.

The Committee noted the particulars submitted by the Government and the discussion which followed. The Committee noted that the Government had not provided the information requested. The Committee reminded the Government of its commitment made at its June 2001 session, to examine, together with all the social partners concerned and with the help of technical assistance, if needed, all aspects of the situation of labour inspection, on the one hand, and to initiate a review of decentralization measures on the other. The Committee once again expressed the hope that the Government would, without delay, provide the Committee with the required information as well as information which demonstrates compliance by the Government with its commitments in law, as well as in practice. The Committee noted that the Government requested the continuation of technical assistance and hoped, together with the workers' and employers' organizations, that it would put in place the required administrative and financial measures to ensure labour inspection in compliance with Convention No. 81.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2001, Publication: 89th ILC session (2001)

A Government representative stated that there were two counts of charges in respect of this case. The first was that the consequence of the decentralization of labour inspection had been to weaken labour inspection so that it was unable to protect the workers. In effect, this was in violation of Article 4 of Convention No. 81 which required labour inspection to be under the purview of the central Government. The second charge was that labour inspection in Uganda was inadequately facilitated. In particular, transport and transport facilities were very inadequate. The reason for this was the inadequate budget. Convention No. 81 required labour inspection institutions to be adequately facilitated. The consequence of this was that workers were inadequately protected. The speaker acknowledged that both charges were correct and legitimate. Hence, there was a need for a frank and candid discussion of the situation since there was no issue to challenge. He wished to report on what had happened. Uganda had undergone decentralization. The spirit of decentralization was to give power to the people and take services closer to them. The purpose was not to weaken labour administration and deprive the workers of their rights. The weakening of labour inspection had not been intended and was an unfortunate outcome. He further acknowledged that consultation prior to decentralization had been inadequate. He assured the Committee that a review of this situation would be undertaken. The review would involve all stakeholders and had to be comprehensive. The process would take some time and Uganda would, no doubt, need technical assistance.

The Worker members stated that in the case of Uganda's application of Convention No. 81, issues were raised of particular importance in the context that, on the one hand, it was a characteristic situation regarding the application of this Convention in African countries and, on the other hand, it raised the problem of the impact of the AIDS epidemic in the world of work. In this respect, the Committee of Experts had indicated that inadequate work inspection resources encouraged a general slackening on behalf of employers and their legal obligations relating to health and safety at work as well as in respect of other conditions in the workplace. The AIDS epidemic certainly had disastrous economic consequences but the experts' observations also showed that it was a problem involving organization. The economic situation of the country cannot always be invoked to justify the inertia of work inspection services resulting from a bad system of decentralization. It was therefore of the utmost importance that, as the Committee of Experts stated, measures be taken in order to ensure that the proportion of the national budget devoted to work inspection services be determined in accordance with the urgency of the objectives in question, which itself should be guided by the application of the terms of the Convention. The AIDS epidemic was a problem which must be considered in the context of the workplace. In this way, the work inspectors who were the primary critics of the labour legislation must be provided with the necessary practical and financial means to discern the problems at hand. Inertia in work inspection services would only increase tenfold the consequences of the epidemic which continued to claim its victims in the world of work. They requested that the Government take all necessary measures as quickly as possible to allow the work inspection services to achieve their objectives, measures which should be granted to them, in the application of the terms of the Convention.

The Employer members recalled that this case had already been discussed by this Committee ten years ago and the Committee of Experts had been making comments on it for a number of years. Convention No. 81 was of great importance since a functioning and well-established labour inspection system provided important information for all parties concerned, the authorities, the social partners and the ILO. The results of labour inspections were therefore a source of inspiration for further measures to be taken in order to ensure the application of national labour legislation. The Employer members noted that draft legislation had been prepared recently with ILO technical assistance in the context of a cooperation project with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Labour inspection duties would increase in importance, particularly against the background of the socio-economic impact of the epidemic of HIV infection. In this context, they noted the conclusions of a report by a joint ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission undertaken in 1995 on labour administration, indicating that the structures of the labour inspection system in the country were in a critical situation. The decentralization of the organization and of the management of services and personnel of the labour inspectorate was resulting in practice in serious shortcomings in supervising the application of legal provisions for which the labour inspectorate was responsible. In this regard, the Government had indicated the very rapid growth in the number of national and foreign private industrial enterprises. The Employer members welcomed this development, for the growth in the number of private enterprises was certainly an advantage regarding the further development of the country. However, it was important to have the necessary material and human resources at the disposal of the labour inspectorate. The lack of such resources constituted a serious obstacle to carrying out labour inspections efficiently. The Government representative had not tried to water down the situation of the inspection system in the country today. The Government representative had nevertheless indicated that the review of the decentralization process of the labour inspection system would require comprehensive consultations with all parties concerned and was therefore likely to take some time. However, the Employer members considered that the process needed to be accelerated since the problem had been ongoing for quite some time. While they welcomed the Government representative's request for technical assistance, they considered that the necessary resources to be placed at the disposal of the labour inspectorates had to be offered by the Government itself. In conclusion, the Government needed to strengthen its efforts to comply with the provisions of the Convention.

The Worker member of Côte d'Ivoire declared that the case was a problem in the operation of labour inspection as well as that of the repercussions of AIDS on the workplace. Labour inspection was the first legal authority encountered by the worker, especially when he was in conflict with his/her employer, or when the matter related to the interpretation and monitoring of regulatory and legislative provisions in the field. He added that, as a first controller of labour legislation, labour inspection should be objective and independent. In that context, he regretted that labour inspections lacked the material and financial means which had a direct impact on the objectivity and the independence which should prevail. He pointed out that labour inspectors received salaries which did not meet their basic family needs, thereby leading to corruption. He added that inspectors lacked also the material means in the exercise of their mandate, especially in relation to transport and communication. He criticized the current practice of developing countries which brandish the excuse of budgetary constraints in order to get out of their obligations aimed at improving safety and health at work. Labour inspection was the last concern by the majority of such countries which, in spite of their economic difficulties, succeeded in finding the necessary funds to pay for their armies. He noted that Uganda had ratified Convention No. 81 in 1963, and highlighted that the situation of labour inspection services could greatly improve if there were a true political will by the Government. In that context, it would be appropriate to ask the Committee to examine ways of strengthening Convention No. 81. He emphasized the damage caused by AIDS in the world of labour, and recalled the need for States, especially African ones, to guarantee a minimum salary in order to ensure a decent life.

The Worker member of France indicated that Uganda was one of the worst victims of the epidemic of AIDS which destroyed the country's lifeblood and led to the disorganization of the society and the economy. The situation was all the more aggravated by the lack of access to efficient therapies at reasonable prices by the large pharmaceutical laboratories, which imposed exorbitant prices. In Uganda, labour inspection services suffered even more as the Government did not provide them with the material and human means needed for their administration, nor did it fulfil its managerial and supervisory functions. He highlighted that Convention No. 81 was an extremely important Convention because labour inspection constituted the first level of a system of control governing the application of Conventions, and in general, of the right to work. He noted that, while bearing in mind the legislative drafts which were being prepared on the subject by the Government, with the technical assistance of the ILO, in the context of a cooperation project with the UNDP, it was important to recall the need to allocate, at the same time, the necessary budgetary means to enforce such legislation. He was of the view that no time should be wasted and that, with a measure of goodwill, it was possible to resolve expeditiously these problems by allocating the necessary budgetary requirements to ensure independence, and the sound operation of labour inspection services. He added that the Government should, with the help of international organizations and the ILO, give priority to labour inspection in order to ensure the protection of workers, in conformity with the social public order, and with Convention No. 81. He concluded that the matter related to a fundamental Convention whose observance was absolutely essential to workers.

The Government representative thanked the speakers who took the floor for their observations, especially with respect to the epidemic of HIV infection. While the incidence of HIV infection had moved downwards, there was a need to maintain this downward trend, if possible with continued international assistance. With regard to the weakness of labour administration, his Government would take steps to review decentralization measures. However, the speaker pointed out that Uganda was one of the poorest countries in the world.

The Worker members insisted on the necessity of the political will to provide the labour inspection services with the necessary and financial requirements. The Government recognized the importance of labour inspection in a society suffering from the repercussions of the AIDS epidemic in the workplace. The Government had already received assistance from various international bodies, including the ILO, and confirmed its will to improve the situation. They insisted that the Government continue to intensify its efforts to align its legislation and national practices with the Convention and allow labour inspection services the necessary means to function.

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government representative and the subsequent discussion. The Committee noted with concern that for some 40 years, the Committee of Experts had been commenting on the serious violations of the principles contained in the Convention, and the failure to apply its fundamental provisions. It noted that the recent measures to decentralize labour inspection powers to district authorities had resulted in a further deterioration in the conditions of service and status of labour inspectors. The labour inspection services lacked the necessary means to fulfil their functions. Furthermore, and contrary to the provisions of the Convention, labour inspectors did not enjoy any security of employment, so that they did not have the authority necessary to carry out their functions. Conscious as it was of the serious socio-economic and health problems facing the country for many past years, in particular due to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the Committee could but hope that solutions might be found through the necessary efforts of the Government supported by technical cooperation. The Committee recalled the importance of labour inspection and of respect for the Convention. The Committee urged the Government rapidly to take the necessary measures to return the labour inspection system to the control of a central authority. The Committee recalled that the powers of the central authority should extend not only to defining the conditions of recruitment and career development of labour inspectors but also the provision of the human and material resources (including transport) essential to the exercise of the functions of the inspectorate, as defined by the Convention, in order to monitor the application of legislation on working conditions and worker protection. It trusted that measures would be taken to ensure that the proportion of the national budget allocated to labour inspection would be determined as a function of the priority nature of the objectives which should be assigned in accordance with the Convention. It also recalled the conclusions adopted by the Meeting of Experts on Labour Inspection and Child Labour held in September-October 1999.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

The Government has communicated the following information:

As regards Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, the Government observes that the country and the Government are facing severe economic difficulties in respect of the application of these requirements of the Convention, due in particular to the difficulties encountered in collecting reliable basic data for the report, in providing transport for inspections, in the printing of forms needed for inspection and data collection, and due to poor communication facilities. These difficulties were the subject of constructive discussions with the regional adviser on international labour standards during his visit in May 1990, with a view to resolving them.

In view of the time which has lapsed between the last published labour inspection report and the present, it was decided that attention would be focused on producing an annual report for the year 1989. Drafts of the 1979 and 1980 reports have been completed and will be supplied to the Committee of Experts as soon as they are published. The Government is hopeful that the ILO will soon be able to offer technical assistance to strengthen the Ministry of Labour's structure and functions (including those relating to labour inspection and data collection) conforming to the sugggested programme of the multidisciplinary ILO/JASPA advisory mission which visited the country in October-November 1988. The Government will keep the Committee informed of developments in this area.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1989, Publication: 76th ILC session (1989)

A Government representative stated that his Government regretted its failure to comply with the requirements of Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. However, it should be pointed out that Uganda was faced with enormous administrative and material difficulties, due to prolonged civil strife and economic problems. These factors had made organisation of the publication of the inspection reports difficult. Everything possible would nevertheless be done to fulfil in the future the obligations under the Constitution and the Convention. In this regard the speaker informed the present Committee that the inspection reports for 1979 and 1980 have been compiled.

The Employers' members indicated that the reports on inspection services which should have been sent were not just pieces of paper. There was more involved here because these reports, if drawn up correctly, contained valuable information which reflected the present situation of a country. Every member who undertook the obligation of sending such information by ratifying the Convention should comply with this obligation. The reports gave account of the functioning and the effects of inspection services. This was an obligation whose importance went far beyond a purely formal obligation. The Employers' members understood the administrative difficulties which existed in a number of developing countries. Consequently, it was necessary to insist on the importance of this obligation so that member States would make all efforts to comply with their obligations. Taking into account the technical difficulties in understanding certain questions, it would be advisable for the Government resort to the technical assistance of the Office.

The Workers' members recalled that the present Committee had already emphasised on a number of occasions that labour inspection must be sufficient and competent in order for social legislation to be applied. Moreover, reports were indispensable for giving an idea of the difficulties encountered by a country. Labour inspection reports must be sent in the twelve months following the year in question. In this case, the last report, which was received in 1985, contained information concerning the years 1977 and 1978. Thus it was not enough to send a report. It was also important that the information be supplied in a timely manner. In this regard, ILO assistance could be extremely useful.

The Government representative declared that his country has received an ILO technical assistance mission in November-December 1988 and that its recommendations would be taken into consideration as soon as they had been transmitted.

The Committee took note of the information provided by the Government representative, in particular with regard to the difficulties that it had described concerning that elaboration and publication of inspection reports.

The Committee noted that no annual report on the activities of labour inspection services had been supplied since 1979.

The Committee requested the Government to take all the necessary measures, if necessary with the assistance of the Office, to ensure application of the Convention as concerns the regular publication and transmittal of annual labour inspection reports.

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

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

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2018, published 108th ILC session (2019)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

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

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

The Committee notes that the Government has not sent the report requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards concerning the measures taken to follow up its conclusions adopted at its session in May–June 2008. However, it notes the information received by the ILO on 11 November 2008 concerning the adoption in 2006 of Employment Act No. 6 and Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 9, and the views expressed by the Central Organization of Free Trade Unions (COFTU) and the National Organization of Trade Unions in Uganda (NOTU) at a tripartite workshop on the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that, as recommended by the Conference Committee in 2001, 2003 and 2008, an ILO technical assistance mission was received from 13 to 17 July 2009 and that, together with the Government and the social partners and various public bodies, it examined the reasons for the deterioration in the labour inspection system since the 1990s, with a view to remedying it.

Need to establish a labour inspection system that meets
the requirements of the Convention

The ILO technical assistance mission noted that the dismantling of the labour inspection system that followed its decentralization observed by an earlier ILO mission in 1995, has progressively worsened. The many interviews it had with staff of the labour administration and other public departments and with the social partners provided the mission with information betraying a level of distress that demands the urgent re-establishment of a labour inspection system able to ensure the supervision of the legal provisions related to conditions of work and the protection of workers, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention and to provide both employers and workers in industrial and commercial workplaces with useful information for their implementation, as required by Article 3(1)(b).

The field visits proposed to the mission were limited to two very large foreign-owned agro-food companies located in areas of very intense industrial activity (Kampala and Jinja) and the mission regretted that it had not been in a position in which it could assess working conditions in small and medium-sized Ugandan establishments. However, the gradual deterioration in the labour inspection situation can be discerned from the information contained in the annual inspection reports received at the ILO in 1994 and 1996. According to the report covering 1994, the Labour Department had 83 employees, of whom 62 worked in the districts. Despite limited resources, the inspection staff managed to carry out 280 fully fledged visits, 292 visits to monitor implementation and 436 visits for other purposes. As prescribed by Article 3(1)(a) of the Convention, these inspections focused on application of the provisions on working conditions (general conditions and occupational safety and health) and the protection of workers. Of the many complaints from workers that had reached it, the labour inspectorate was able to deal with 1,252 and refer 32 to the courts. The annual inspection report for 1994, as well as providing detailed information on the work of the inspectorate, supplied statistical data together with relevant analyses and comments, including on occupational accidents, placing special emphasis on the lack of general safety and health standards in small and medium-sized establishments.

In 1995, an ILO technical assistance mission found that the labour administration was only represented in 20 of the country’s 39 districts and had lost over 75 per cent of its human resources. For example, of the 67 posts planned for the occupational safety and health department, only two existed, one in Jinja, the other in Mbala, notwithstanding the significant number of establishments covered by the 1964 Factories Act and the fact that they were located throughout the country.

The annual inspection report for 1996 referred to 17 collective labour disputes concerning trade union rights, the refusal by employers to pay wage arrears and retirement benefits, and unfair dismissals of unionized workers. With the restructuring of the country’s administration, unemployment was compounded by the dismissals of public employees. During the period covered, supervision of working conditions appears to have been marginalized in relation to employment policy and to no longer have been a matter of concern for the Government. The central labour administration’s resources had been so reduced that no vehicles were left for travel outside the capital to supervise the operation of district services, some of which were unattainable by telephone. During the year covered by the above report, only 13 of the 21 district labour services were able to communicate information on their work: in all, 1,151 inspection visits were carried out, for some of which transport was provided by the employers. In total, there were 19 occupational safety and health inspection staff. Out of the 104 occupational accidents notified, only eight were investigated. Records showed that 25 per cent of the accidents were in construction and 33 per cent in government services and private security bodies. The 26–30 age group accounted for 34.61 per cent of the accidents, but no legal proceedings had been initiated during the period covered. The industrial court nonetheless apparently played an important role in pacifying and harmonizing industrial relations and, in most of its decisions it found for the workers. Its impact was attributed to its functional and financial independence.

In the observations it made in the years that followed, the Committee repeatedly noted that the Convention was not applied and reminded the Government of the obligations arising out of ratification, asking it to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of the labour inspection services. Such measures involve, in particular, placing the inspection services under the supervision and control of a central authority and recruiting qualified and properly trained personnel. Financial, material and logistical resources are also essential for the control of the industrial and commercial establishments covered by the Convention and of the relevant national legislation (suitably equipped offices, provision of appropriate technical equipment for inspections and transport facilities and repayment of duty travel expenses). The diversity and complexity of the labour inspection functions defined in the Convention also require labour inspectors to devote most of their time to these duties, in their capacity as public officials who are assured of stability of employment and are independent of improper external influences.

Nevertheless, due to the decentralization of the labour administration as a whole, the Ministry of Labour as such soon disappeared and its component parts were absorbed by a succession of ministries. The labour administration is now a department in the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD). Its resources have been significantly reduced, as has its authority over the decentralized services. While decentralization was designed as a response to the demands of a policy to encourage investment, both national and international, in the interests of developing the national economy and creating jobs, its implementation has become increasingly detrimental to workers because it has overlooked issues relating to conditions of work, which is in violation of the Convention.

The Local Governments Act, No. 1 of 1997, transferred labour issues to the districts, together with services and activities for social rehabilitation, probation and well-being of street children and orphans, the role of women in development, community development, youth, culture and information services. With this transfer of authority, the districts are now exercising powers formerly held by central government, such as formulating development plans on the basis of priorities defined at the local level including raising, levying, managing and assigning resources through separate budgets, and establishing or abolishing public service bodies. As labour administration issues were no longer given priority, district labour departments were consequently reduced to rudimentary structures, and in some instances disappeared altogether. Furthermore, the number of districts increased from 56 to 75 in 2005 and to 80 in 2009, and is likely to increase further in the near future. Only the district of Kampala, which has a special status, is administered by the country’s central authorities. COFTU and NOTU have expressed concern at the fragmentation of the country’s administration at a time of drastic reductions in labour administration personnel and have called for amendment of the Constitution so that labour inspection can be placed back under the control and supervision of a central authority in a fully fledged ministry of labour endowed with the necessary capacities to fulfil its functions effectively. Although a similar view was expressed by nearly all the political and administrative officials and other stakeholders it met, the mission concluded that there is no such prospect on the agenda.

On 15 September 2008, the Local Governments Act was again amended with a view to the further decentralization of the administration taking account of a distinction between rural and urban entities. In accordance with section 77 of the Act, local governments will have the right and duty to formulate, approve and execute their budgets and plans subject to compulsory budgetary equilibrium (paragraph 1). Subject to the obligation to give priority to the objectives set out in national programmes (paragraph 2), urban governments are given financial independence, provided that their plan is incorporated into the district plan (section 79). The Committee notes that, according to section 83 (paragraph 2), central Government allocates to local governments to finance the operation of decentralized services, an unconditional minimum amount calculated in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Constitution, equal in value to the amount of the previous tax year for the same item.

In its report received in November 2008, the Government stated that it was seeking funds within the framework of the Decent Work Country Programme adopted in May 2007, while pointing out that the enhancement of labour inspection is a key element of a strategy for improvement of industrial relations through the promotion of rights at work. It undertakes to address all the issues raised by the Committee in the report due in 2009, taking into account the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008. However, the Government has not sent the report as announced, but documented information gathered by the ILO mission of July 2009 shows that, while the MGLSD received an additional budgetary allocation in the course of the year, the labour inspectorate had no place in the MGLSD’s budgetary allocations for the current fiscal year and that, moreover, labour administration issues in general are not included in any of the projects or strategies developed for the short and medium term by the Ministry in charge of local governments.

The Committee nevertheless hopes that, as soon as possible, the labour inspectorate will be given a key role in the country’s social and economic development strategy, in particular through the process for revising the Decent Work Country Programme adopted in 2007, through the enactment of the above new legislation on employment and occupational safety and health, and to ILO technical assistance in fulfilling the objectives of the Convention. The Committee recalls that labour inspection is a function of the public administration that needs its own operating budget allowing the recruitment of suitable personnel and adequate resources to be made available. It is for the ministry responsible for labour to define requirements for this purpose and to raise awareness among governmental authorities and the social partners, particularly employers, of the positive impact of efficient labour inspection on a country’s economic development and enterprise financial results.

The Committee notes the re-establishment of an Industrial Court financed by the state budget. In accordance with Act No. 8 of 2006 on labour disputes (arbitration and settlement), the court hears disputes that the labour inspector has been unable to settle or appeals by one of the parties where there has been no decision within 90 days. However, if the Industrial Court is to play its role fully, it would be advisable for the legislation on the functioning and powers of the labour inspectorate to be revised so as to adapt it to developments in the world of work, and for the legislation on conditions of work to be supplemented by regulations to give it practical effect under the supervision of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes the indication to the technical assistance mission that a parliamentary process is under way for this purpose. The Committee notes that the Employment Act, No. 6 of 2006, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, No. 9 of 2006, contain provisions that are largely consistent with the Convention, and requests the Government to take measures promptly to give effect to them in practice. In particular, it requests it to ensure that effect is given in the near future to section 3(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (No. 9) and section 9 of the Employment Act (No. 6), concerning the recruitment of the necessary inspection staff to ensure the implementation of these Acts, and that the number of inspectors will be determined in each district on the basis of the technical and geographical criteria referred to in Article 10 of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the necessary conditions are created to establish effective cooperation between the labour administration and the other public services and private institutions that possess useful data (such as the ministries of finance, justice, tourism, commerce and industry, the Bureau of Statistics, the Investment Authority and the National Social Security Fund (NSSF)) for the establishment of a companies register providing the labour inspectorate with the necessary information to develop an inspection programme that takes into account the branches of activity in which workers are the most vulnerable in view of the general conditions of work and the risks for their safety and health.

The Committee notes that, in accordance with section 20 of the Employment Act (No. 6), an annual report containing information on labour inspection must be published by the labour commissioner at the ministry responsible for labour, which seems at least to suggest a return to the idea of a central labour inspection authority within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention to supervise and control the work done by the district inspection services. An annual report, prepared in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, will also enable the national authorities concerned, as well as the social partners and the ILO’s supervisory bodies, to gain a sufficiently clear idea of the way the labour inspection system functions and hence to envisage or propose, as the case may be, the necessary means of improving it.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in pursuit of the above objectives, together with any relevant documents. It would be grateful in particular for information on the manner in which it plans to give effect to Article 4 of the Convention in terms of organizing and running the labour inspection system in practice in the context of the application of the current version of the Local Governments Act. The Committee finally requests the Government to ensure that an annual inspection report, containing the information available on the subjects listed at Article 21 of the Convention and reflecting both progress made and the shortcomings of the labour inspection system, will be published and that a copy will be sent to the ILO.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

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

The Committee notes that the Government has not sent the report requested by the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards concerning the measures taken to follow up its conclusions adopted at its session in May–June 2008. However, it notes the information received by the ILO on 11 November 2008 concerning the adoption in 2006 of Employment Act No. 6 and Occupational Safety and Health Act No. 9, and the views expressed by the Central Organization of Free Trade Unions (COFTU) and the National Organization of Trade Unions in Uganda (NOTU) at a tripartite workshop on the application of the Convention. The Committee also notes that, as recommended by the Conference Committee in 2001, 2003 and 2008, an ILO technical assistance mission was received from 13 to 17 July 2009 and that, together with the Government and the social partners and various public bodies, it examined the reasons for the deterioration in the labour inspection system since the 1990s, with a view to remedying it.

Need to establish a labour inspection system that meets
the requirements of the Convention

The ILO technical assistance mission noted that the dismantling of the labour inspection system that followed its decentralization observed by an earlier ILO mission in 1995, has progressively worsened. The many interviews it had with staff of the labour administration and other public departments and with the social partners provided the mission with information betraying a level of distress that demands the urgent re-establishment of a labour inspection system able to ensure the supervision of the legal provisions related to conditions of work and the protection of workers, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention and to provide both employers and workers in industrial and commercial workplaces with useful information for their implementation, as required by Article 3(1)(b).

The field visits proposed to the mission were limited to two very large foreign-owned agro-food companies located in areas of very intense industrial activity (Kampala and Jinja) and the mission regretted that it had not been in a position in which it could assess working conditions in small and medium-sized Ugandan establishments. However, the gradual deterioration in the labour inspection situation can be discerned from the information contained in the annual inspection reports received at the ILO in 1994 and 1996. According to the report covering 1994, the Labour Department had 83 employees, of whom 62 worked in the districts. Despite limited resources, the inspection staff managed to carry out 280 fully fledged visits, 292 visits to monitor implementation and 436 visits for other purposes. As prescribed by Article 3(1)(a) of the Convention, these inspections focused on application of the provisions on working conditions (general conditions and occupational safety and health) and the protection of workers. Of the many complaints from workers that had reached it, the labour inspectorate was able to deal with 1,252 and refer 32 to the courts. The annual inspection report for 1994, as well as providing detailed information on the work of the inspectorate, supplied statistical data together with relevant analyses and comments, including on occupational accidents, placing special emphasis on the lack of general safety and health standards in small and medium-sized establishments.

In 1995, an ILO technical assistance mission found that the labour administration was only represented in 20 of the country’s 39 districts and had lost over 75 per cent of its human resources. For example, of the 67 posts planned for the occupational safety and health department, only two existed, one in Jinja, the other in Mbala, notwithstanding the significant number of establishments covered by the 1964 Factories Act and the fact that they were located throughout the country.

The annual inspection report for 1996 referred to 17 collective labour disputes concerning trade union rights, the refusal by employers to pay wage arrears and retirement benefits, and unfair dismissals of unionized workers. With the restructuring of the country’s administration, unemployment was compounded by the dismissals of public employees. During the period covered, supervision of working conditions appears to have been marginalized in relation to employment policy and to no longer have been a matter of concern for the Government. The central labour administration’s resources had been so reduced that no vehicles were left for travel outside the capital to supervise the operation of district services, some of which were unattainable by telephone. During the year covered by the above report, only 13 of the 21 district labour services were able to communicate information on their work: in all, 1,151 inspection visits were carried out, for some of which transport was provided by the employers. In total, there were 19 occupational safety and health inspection staff. Out of the 104 occupational accidents notified, only eight were investigated. Records showed that 25 per cent of the accidents were in construction and 33 per cent in government services and private security bodies. The 26–30 age group accounted for 34.61 per cent of the accidents, but no legal proceedings had been initiated during the period covered. The industrial court nonetheless apparently played an important role in pacifying and harmonizing industrial relations and, in most of its decisions it found for the workers. Its impact was attributed to its functional and financial independence.

In the observations it made in the years that followed, the Committee repeatedly noted that the Convention was not applied and reminded the Government of the obligations arising out of ratification, asking it to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation of the labour inspection services. Such measures involve, in particular, placing the inspection services under the supervision and control of a central authority and recruiting qualified and properly trained personnel. Financial, material and logistical resources are also essential for the control of the industrial and commercial establishments covered by the Convention and of the relevant national legislation (suitably equipped offices, provision of appropriate technical equipment for inspections and transport facilities and repayment of duty travel expenses). The diversity and complexity of the labour inspection functions defined in the Convention also require labour inspectors to devote most of their time to these duties, in their capacity as public officials who are assured of stability of employment and are independent of improper external influences.

Nevertheless, due to the decentralization of the labour administration as a whole, the Ministry of Labour as such soon disappeared and its component parts were absorbed by a succession of ministries. The labour administration is now a department in the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD). Its resources have been significantly reduced, as has its authority over the decentralized services. While decentralization was designed as a response to the demands of a policy to encourage investment, both national and international, in the interests of developing the national economy and creating jobs, its implementation has become increasingly detrimental to workers because it has overlooked issues relating to conditions of work, which is in violation of the Convention.

The Local Governments Act, No. 1 of 1997, transferred labour issues to the districts, together with services and activities for social rehabilitation, probation and well-being of street children and orphans, the role of women in development, community development, youth, culture and information services. With this transfer of authority, the districts are now exercising powers formerly held by central government, such as formulating development plans on the basis of priorities defined at the local level including raising, levying, managing and assigning resources through separate budgets, and establishing or abolishing public service bodies. As labour administration issues were no longer given priority, district labour departments were consequently reduced to rudimentary structures, and in some instances disappeared altogether. Furthermore, the number of districts increased from 56 to 75 in 2005 and to 80 in 2009, and is likely to increase further in the near future. Only the district of Kampala, which has a special status, is administered by the country’s central authorities. COFTU and NOTU have expressed concern at the fragmentation of the country’s administration at a time of drastic reductions in labour administration personnel and have called for amendment of the Constitution so that labour inspection can be placed back under the control and supervision of a central authority in a fully fledged ministry of labour endowed with the necessary capacities to fulfil its functions effectively. Although a similar view was expressed by nearly all the political and administrative officials and other stakeholders it met, the mission concluded that there is no such prospect on the agenda.

On 15 September 2008, the Local Governments Act was again amended with a view to the further decentralization of the administration taking account of a distinction between rural and urban entities. In accordance with section 77 of the Act, local governments will have the right and duty to formulate, approve and execute their budgets and plans subject to compulsory budgetary equilibrium (paragraph 1). Subject to the obligation to give priority to the objectives set out in national programmes (paragraph 2), urban governments are given financial independence, provided that their plan is incorporated into the district plan (section 79). The Committee notes that, according to section 83 (paragraph 2), central Government allocates to local governments to finance the operation of decentralized services, an unconditional minimum amount calculated in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Constitution, equal in value to the amount of the previous tax year for the same item.

In its report received in November 2008, the Government stated that it was seeking funds within the framework of the Decent Work Country Programme adopted in May 2007, while pointing out that the enhancement of labour inspection is a key element of a strategy for improvement of industrial relations through the promotion of rights at work. It undertakes to address all the issues raised by the Committee in the report due in 2009, taking into account the conclusions of the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards in June 2008. However, the Government has not sent the report as announced, but documented information gathered by the ILO mission of July 2009 shows that, while the MGLSD received an additional budgetary allocation in the course of the year, the labour inspectorate had no place in the MGLSD’s budgetary allocations for the current fiscal year and that, moreover, labour administration issues in general are not included in any of the projects or strategies developed for the short and medium term by the Ministry in charge of local governments.

The Committee nevertheless hopes that, as soon as possible, the labour inspectorate will be given a key role in the country’s social and economic development strategy, in particular through the process for revising the Decent Work Country Programme adopted in 2007, through the enactment of the above new legislation on employment and occupational safety and health, and to ILO technical assistance in fulfilling the objectives of the Convention. The Committee recalls that labour inspection is a function of the public administration that needs its own operating budget allowing the recruitment of suitable personnel and adequate resources to be made available. It is for the ministry responsible for labour to define requirements for this purpose and to raise awareness among governmental authorities and the social partners, particularly employers, of the positive impact of efficient labour inspection on a country’s economic development and enterprise financial results.

The Committee notes with interest the re-establishment of an Industrial Court financed by the state budget. In accordance with Act No. 8 of 2006 on labour disputes (arbitration and settlement), the court hears disputes that the labour inspector has been unable to settle or appeals by one of the parties where there has been no decision within 90 days. However, if the Industrial Court is to play its role fully, it would be advisable for the legislation on the functioning and powers of the labour inspectorate to be revised so as to adapt it to developments in the world of work, and for the legislation on conditions of work to be supplemented by regulations to give it practical effect under the supervision of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes the indication to the technical assistance mission that a parliamentary process is under way for this purpose. The Committee notes with interest that the Employment Act, No. 6 of 2006, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, No. 9 of 2006, contain provisions that are largely consistent with the Convention, and requests the Government to take measures promptly to give effect to them in practice. In particular, it requests it to ensure that effect is given in the near future to section 3(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (No. 9) and section 9 of the Employment Act (No. 6), concerning the recruitment of the necessary inspection staff to ensure the implementation of these Acts, and that the number of inspectors will be determined in each district on the basis of the technical and geographical criteria referred to in Article 10 of the Convention. The Committee therefore urges the Government to ensure that the necessary conditions are created to establish effective cooperation between the labour administration and the other public services and private institutions that possess useful data (such as the ministries of finance, justice, tourism, commerce and industry, the Bureau of Statistics, the Investment Authority and the National Social Security Fund (NSSF)) for the establishment of a companies register providing the labour inspectorate with the necessary information to develop an inspection programme that takes into account the branches of activity in which workers are the most vulnerable in view of the general conditions of work and the risks for their safety and health.

The Committee notes with interest that, in accordance with section 20 of the Employment Act (No. 6), an annual report containing information on labour inspection must be published by the labour commissioner at the ministry responsible for labour, which seems at least to suggest a return to the idea of a central labour inspection authority within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention to supervise and control the work done by the district inspection services. An annual report, prepared in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, will also enable the national authorities concerned, as well as the social partners and the ILO’s supervisory bodies, to gain a sufficiently clear idea of the way the labour inspection system functions and hence to envisage or propose, as the case may be, the necessary means of improving it.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken in pursuit of the above objectives, together with any relevant documents. It would be grateful in particular for information on the manner in which it plans to give effect to Article 4 of the Convention in terms of organizing and running the labour inspection system in practice in the context of the application of the current version of the Local Governments Act. The Committee finally requests the Government to ensure that an annual inspection report, containing the information available on the subjects listed at Article 21 of the Convention and reflecting both progress made and the shortcomings of the labour inspection system, will be published and that a copy will be sent to the ILO.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its observation made in 2004 and repeated in 2005 concerning the process of dismantling the labour inspection system and the need to take measures to establish a system that is in conformity with the Convention. The Government indicates that it has duly noted the comments of the Committee of Experts but adds that the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution has been unable to reverse the decentralization process, contrary to previous announcements. However, the Government says that it is aware of the requirement imposed by the Convention to place the labour inspection system under the control of a central authority pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention and undertakes to keep the ILO informed of all developments in this respect and to send copies of any relevant legislative, regulatory or administrative texts. While recognizing that the decentralization policy has had a negative impact on the labour inspection system, the Government considers that this is particularly because the district authorities are unaware of the role of labour inspection in the production process that they have not given suitable priority to labour services in general. While noting the Government’s statements, the Committee recalls that the question of the deterioration of the functioning of the labour inspection has been the subject of its observations for many years and was raised in discussions within the Committee of the International Labour Conference at its June 2001 and June 2003 sessions.

1. Dismantling of the labour inspectorate owing to the decentralization of labour administration functions. During the discussion in June 2003, the Conference Committee noted that the Government had not supplied the requested information to the Committee of Experts. It reminded it of the commitment made before it in June 2001 to examine all aspects of the labour inspection situation with all the partners concerned, if necessary having recourse to technical assistance, and also its commitment to review the decentralization measures. In addition, the Conference Committee also expressed again the hope that the Government would quickly send the Committee of Experts the requested information and the details showing that its legal and practical obligations had been implemented, in particular with the assistance of the employers’ and workers’ organizations, by means of administrative and financial measures which were essential for the implementation of labour inspection services in conformity with the Convention.

During its November–December 2003 session, the Committee of Experts was bound to note once again that the Government had not sent any report relating to the Convention and to send it a new observation, in which it reiterated its deep concerns and called on the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible, with the required technical assistance.

After examination of the Government’s report covering the period ending in May 2003, but sent to the ILO in June 2004, the Committee essentially pointed out, in an observation which it sent to the Government in 2005, that the labour inspection system, the performance of which had been badly affected by an unfavourable economic situation before the start of the decentralization process, continued to deteriorate owing to the persistence of the economic stagnation, on the one hand, and to the manner in which decentralization of the labour administration was being implemented, on the other. Moreover, the existing legal framework governing the powers, organization and working of the labour inspectorate, still based on the principle of the existence of a central supervisory authority and monitoring of the inspection system, was no longer applicable either in law or in practice, since the process of decentralizing competence to the heads of district was accompanied by withdrawal of the central government in relation to the use of budgetary resources by the districts. The Committee referred to its previous comments and also to the discussions within the Conference Committee at the 2001 and 2003 sessions of the International Labour Conference and also noted the information describing an in-depth reform of its institutions appearing ultimately to aim at decentralizing most state functions. However, as the Government itself observed, decentralization did not comply with Article 4 of the Convention, which calls for supervision and control of the labour inspection system by a central authority.

The information supplied by the Government shows that the very notion of a central labour inspection authority has become devoid of all substance. The little authority that the minister retains in law cannot be exercised for want of the necessary structure and resources, and some heads of districts take the attitude that to maintain or establish local labour inspection services serves little purpose. An ILO mission carried out from 9 to 13 May 2005 revealed that there were a total of 26 labour inspectors for all 56 districts, and that assistance to the labour services from all donors was low in the light of labour inspection needs, particularly with regard to training relating to the gathering of information and the drafting of reports.

The ILO mission was informed that, in order to reconsider the decentralization of the labour inspectorate, revision of the Constitution was necessary. However, the labour inspection function has not been mentioned explicitly as one of the functions calling for relevant measures in the White Paper drawn up to this end.

Since such developments are particularly worrying in terms of the Convention’s social and economic objectives, the Committee called on the Government, in an observation sent to it in 2004 and repeated in 2005, to reconsider, if not the principle of a decentralized labour inspectorate which now appears firmly to be a part of the overall national project, at least the methods and means of implementing decentralization. The Committee reiterated that the Government would be bound to observe the principle of placing the labour inspection system under a central authority, pursuant to Article 4 of the Convention taken as a whole, since restructuring in Uganda seemed to be moving towards a kind of “federalism”, in which the districts are like the “federated units” referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. It also emphasized that the obligations laid down under article 22 of the ILO Constitution that the Government assumed on ratifying the Convention must in any event remain the responsibility of the State. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the conditions needed to apply the Convention exist nationwide. National laws must ensure that competence for labour inspection is shared between the central bodies of the labour administration and the decentralized authorities, and there must be uniform legislation governing the status, conditions of service and training of inspection staff (Articles 6 and 7). Furthermore, there must be scrupulous observance of the need to ensure the establishment either of a labour inspection system in each district or, possibly, of a system in which competence is determined on a broader regional basis, if such an option is deemed better suited to the more rational use of available resources. In any event, resources must be assigned on a legal basis to the labour inspection in order to make available to labour inspection services the staff, material and logistical resources needed to perform their duties (Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11).

2. Establishment of an inspection system suited to economic and social needs: Urgent preliminary measures. As already observed by the Committee, the fact that it has been impossible for many years to produce an annual report on the work of the inspection services (Articles 20 and 21) not only reflects the extent to which the inspection system has been dismantled but, even more regrettably, prevents any assessment of needs either at the national or regional level. As a result, it is impossible to determine any priorities for action and evaluate the resources needed. The Committee notes in this respect that the Government has not sent the report which, according to the Government, deals with the inspections carried out, without stating the period or geographical area covered.

In its previous comments, the Committee stressed the need to study and anticipate on a tripartite basis the effects of globalization on working conditions and workers’ rights in order to secure the social partners’ attachment to the principle that an effective labour inspection service needs to be established in the twofold interest of social protection and improved productivity. Referring to the technical assistance provided by ILO under the Strengthening Labour Relations in East Africa (SLAREA) project to raise the Government’s awareness of the importance of the tripartite dimension of labour administration, the Committee hoped that measures would be taken in this area, particularly in the context of the application of this Convention. However, it observes that the Government gives no indication that progress has been made in this direction.

The Committee is therefore bound to urge the Government, in the light of the above, to adopt as soon as possible all measures that are essential for the establishment and functioning of an inspection system which conforms to the requirements of the Convention, including in particular seeking the necessary funds and technical assistance, keeping the ILO informed and sending copies of the relevant legislative, regulatory and administrative texts. It also requests the Government to supply the information required by the Convention report form, to send its report to employers’ and workers’ organizations in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the ILO Constitution and to keep the ILO duly informed.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The information supplied by the Government in its report again brings to light the following two facts:

(1)  The labour inspection system, already seriously affected by the country’s economic difficulties before decentralization, continues to deteriorate owing to the persistence of the economic downturn and to the manner in which decentralization is being implemented.

(2)  Being based on the principle of a labour inspectorate placed under the control of a central supervisory authority, the existing legal framework governing the powers, organization and working of the labour inspection service is no longer practicable and cannot be applied because, with decentralization and the transfer of powers to the districts, the central authority has yielded control to the districts over their budgetary resources.

1. Decentralization and labour inspection. With reference to its previous comments and the discussions in the Conference Committee at the 2001 and 2003 sessions of the International Labour Conference, the Committee of Experts notes that the country is currently engaged in an in-depth reform of its institutions which appears to aim ultimately at decentralizing many state functions. However, as the Government itself observes, decentralization does not comply with Article 4 of the Convention and a central authority is needed to supervise and control the labour inspection system.

The information provided by the Government shows that the central labour inspection authority is now devoid of all substance: the little authority that the Ministry retains in law cannot be exercised for want of the necessary structure and resources and some heads of districts take the attitude that to maintain or establish local labour inspection services serves little purpose.

All this is particularly worrying in terms of the Convention’s social and economic objectives, to which the Government subscribed formally through the solemn act of ratification. The Committee accordingly urges the Government to reconsider, if not the principle of a decentralized labour inspectorate which now appears firmly to be a part of the overall national project, at least the methods and means of implementing decentralization. One necessary principle is that the labour inspection system should come under a central authority, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention taken as a whole - the restructuring in Uganda seems to be moving towards a kind of "federalism", in which the districts are like the "federated units" referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Committee points out that the obligations laid down under article 2 of the ILO Constitution that the Government assumed on ratifying the Convention must in any event remain the responsibility of the State. It is a duty of the State to ensure that the conditions needed to apply the Convention exist nationwide. National laws and regulations must ensure that authority for labour inspection is shared between the central bodies of the labour administration and the decentralized authorities, and there must be uniform legislation governing the status, conditions of service and training of inspection staff (Articles 6 and 7). Furthermore, there must be scrupulous observance of the need to ensure the establishment either of a labour inspection system in each district or, possibly, a system in which authority would be determined on a broader, regional basis if such an option is deemed better suited to the more rational use of available resources. In any event, resources must be assigned on a legal basis to labour inspection in order to make available to labour inspection services the staff, material and logistic resources necessary to perform their duties (Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11).

2. Establishment of an inspection system suited to economic and social needs: urgent preliminary measures. The fact that it has been impossible for many years to produce an annual report on the work of the inspection services (Articles 20 and 21) not only reflects the extent to which the labour system has been dismantled but, even more regrettably, prevents any assessment of needs either at the national or regional level. As a result, it is impossible to determine any priorities for action and evaluate the resources needed. The effects of globalization on working conditions and workers’ rights need to be studied and anticipated on a tripartite basis to secure the social partners’ attachment to the principle that an effective labour inspection service needs to be established in the twofold interest of social protection and improved productivity. The Committee notes that the ILO is endeavouring, through technical assistance under the SLAREA project, to draw the Government’s attention to the importance of the tripartite dimension of labour administration. It hopes that measures will be taken in this area, particularly in the context of the application of this Convention.

The Committee urges the Government, in the light of the foregoing and its earlier and repeated comments, to take all the preliminary steps necessary for the establishment of an inspection system that meets the requirements of the Convention; to keep the Office informed of any developments; to provide copies of relevant legislative, regulations and administrative texts; and to report any difficulties encountered.

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

The information supplied by the Government in its report again brings to light the following two facts:

(1)  The labour inspection system, already seriously affected by the country’s economic difficulties before decentralization, continues to deteriorate owing to the persistence of the economic downturn and to the manner in which decentralization is being implemented.

(2)  Being based on the principle of a labour inspectorate placed under the control of a central supervisory authority, the existing legal framework governing the powers, organization and working of the labour inspection service is no longer practicable and cannot be applied because, with decentralization and the transfer of powers to the districts, the central authority has yielded to the districts control over their budgetary resources.

1. Decentralization and labour inspection. With reference to its previous comments and the discussions in the Conference Committee at the 2001 and 2003 sessions of the International Labour Conference, the Committee notes that the country is currently engaged in an in-depth reform of its institutions which appears to aim ultimately at decentralizing many state functions. However, as the Government itself observes, decentralization does not comply with Article 4 of the Convention and a central authority is needed to supervise and to control the labour inspection system.

The information given by the Government shows that the central labour inspection authority is now devoid of all substance: the little authority that the Ministry retains in law cannot be exercised for want of the necessary structure and resources and some heads of districts take the attitude that to maintain or establish local labour inspection services serves little purpose.

All this is particularly worrying in terms of the Convention’s social and economic objectives, to which the Government subscribed formally through the solemn act of ratification. The Committee accordingly urges the Government to reconsider, if not the principle of a decentralized labour inspectorate which now appears firmly to be a part of the overall national project, at least the methods and means of implementing decentralization. One necessary principle is that the labour inspection system should come under a central authority, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Convention taken as a whole - the restructuring in Uganda seems to be moving towards a kind of "federalism", in which the districts are like the "federated units" referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article. The Committee points out that the obligations laid down under article 2 of the ILO Constitution that the Government assumed on ratifying the Convention must in any event remain the responsibility of the State. It is a duty of the State to ensure that the conditions needed to apply the Convention exist nationwide. National laws and regulations must ensure that authority for labour inspection is shared between the central bodies of the labour administration and the decentralized authorities, and there must be uniform legislation governing the status, conditions of service and training of inspection staff (Articles 6 and 7). Furthermore, there must be scrupulous observance of the need to ensure the establishment either of a labour inspection system in each district or, possibly, a system in which authority would be determined on a broader, regional basis if such an option is deemed better suited to more rational use of available resources. In any event, resources must be assigned on a legal basis to labour inspection in order to make available to labour inspection services the staff, material and logistic resources necessary to perform their duties (Articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11).

2. Establishment of an inspection system suited to economic and social needs: urgent preliminary measures. The fact that it has been impossible for many years to produce an annual report on the work of the inspection services (Articles 19, 20 and 21) not only reflects the extent to which the labour system has been dismantled but, even more regrettably, prevents any assessment of needs either at national or regional level. As a result, it is impossible to determine any priorities for action and evaluate the resources needed. The effects of globalization on working conditions and workers’ rights need to be studied and anticipated on a tripartite basis to secure the social partners’ attachment to the principle that an effective labour inspection service needs to be established in the twofold interest of social protection and improved productivity. The Committee notes that the ILO is endeavouring, through technical assistance under the SLAREA project, to draw the Government’s attention to the importance of the tripartite dimension of labour administration. It hopes that measures will be taken in this area, particularly in the course of applying this Convention.

The Committee urges the Government, in the light of the foregoing and its earlier and repeated comments, to take all the preliminary steps necessary to the establishment of an inspection system that meets the requirements of the Convention; to keep the Office informed of any developments; to provide copies of relevant legislative, regulatory and administrative texts; and to report any difficulties encountered.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee refers to the discussion in the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 91st Session of the Conference in June 2003, and once again notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received.

In its previous comments, the Committee reiterated its concern that the health, social and economic situation may affect the workers’ rights laid down in the Convention. It noted in particular that the decentralization of the labour inspectorate implemented in 1995 with an extensive devolution of functions to local governments had not only aggravated the social situation but was contrary to the Convention. The Committee emphasized that decentralization is incompatible with the requirement that a central authority must be responsible for the supervision and control of the labour inspection system (Article 4) and with the national and international objective of formulating an annual report of inspection activities. The Committee invited the Government to refer to the discussion on this matter in its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection (paragraphs 273 et seq.) and requested it to provide regular information on the actions envisaged to establish a system of labour inspection which complies with the Convention, that is, a system which is under the control and supervision of a central authority and involves the cooperation and collaboration of the social partners and the public and private institutions concerned.

The Committee also noted that the lack of material and logistical means, particularly in transport, of the inspection services in a number of districts made it impossible for inspectors to discharge their supervisory functions in the workplaces liable to inspection, and might encourage employers to neglect their legal obligations with respect to working conditions, including in occupational health and safety matters. The Committee expressed the hope that measures would be taken by the Government, possibly with international assistance, to ensure that the part of the budget allocated to labour inspection was commensurate with the importance of the objectives set by the Convention.

In the Conference Committee of June 2003 the Government undertook to supply relevant information to this Committee. The Conference Committee invited the Government also to provide information showing that it was meeting its obligations, both in law and in practice. Noting that the Government had requested ILO technical assistance, the Committee also expressed the hope that, in collaboration with the employers’ and workers’ organizations it would take the administrative and financial measures that are essential in order to implement inspection services that meet the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures as soon as possible with the technical assistance requested.

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

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls the deliberations which took place within the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in June 2001 during which the Government recognized the relevance of the points raised, and provided clarifications on the economic reasons for a deteriorating labour inspection system since the decentralization of services. The Government has given assurances to the Conference Committee to the effect that the situation would be closely examined, taking due account of all viewpoints, with all the partners concerned. It further indicated that the process would take time, and would require technical assistance. The Conference Committee expressed the hope that the Government, through technical cooperation, will be able to find solutions. Recalling each of the points raised in its previous comments, the Conference Committee also expressed the hope that, with the assistance of international collaboration, the Government will quickly take the necessary measures, as requested by the Committee. The Committee is therefore obliged to reiterate its previous comments on the following points:

1. Socio-economic situation and labour inspection. The Committee notes with concern the socio-economic impact of the epidemic of HIV infection. It notes the educational activities carried out by the Government and the health measures taken, but notes that the information provided by the Government and the conclusions of a report by a joint ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission undertaken in 1995 on labour administration indicate that the structures of the labour inspection system are in a critical situation. The decentralization of the organization and the management of services and personnel of the labour inspectorate is resulting in practice in serious shortcomings in supervising the application of legal provisions for which the labour inspectorate is responsible in an environment which is characterized by the very rapid growth in the number of national and foreign private industrial enterprises. Noting that the provisions of the Convention are not applied, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the importance, particularly in such a difficult economic, health and social situation, of ensuring the best possible protection for workers.

2. Supervision and control of the labour inspectorate by a central authority (Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention); annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21). The Committee notes that the power conferred since 1994 on district authorities to decide whether to establish an inspection structure to recruit and manage labour inspectors is in contradiction with the objective of the Convention, which is to ensure a coordinated and effective labour inspection system throughout the national territory under the supervision and control of a central authority. However, the disparities in the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors operating in the offices established in 21 of the 45 districts in no way permits the establishment of such a system, and the precariousness of inspectors is incompatible with the requirement of authority and impartiality which are indispensable in the relations that inspectors should maintain with employers and workers. The Committee also notes that the periodic inspection reports provided to the Ministry of Labour by a small number of district offices cannot provide the latter with the means of making an overall assessment of the level of application of labour legislation in workplaces liable to inspection and are not adequate to serve as a basis for the preparation of an annual report, as required by Article 20. The Committee reminds the Government that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the system of labour inspection shall apply to all workplaces in respect of which legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work are enforceable by labour inspectors, and that the annual report, the contents of which are set out in Article 21(a) to (g) has the objective of providing a regular assessment of the situation with a view to determining the action to be taken for its improvement. The Committee also invites the Government in this respect to refer to paragraph 273 et seq. of its 1985 General Survey on the value at both the national and international levels of preparing, publishing and forwarding such a report to the ILO. It hopes that the Government will commence without delay a process of reflection at the local, regional and national levels on the manner in which the Convention should be applied and that it will associate in this process the social partners, ministerial departments and public and private bodies concerned. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information regularly on the action envisaged to establish a labour inspection system placed under the supervision and control of a central authority and involving cooperation and collaboration with the social partners and the above institutions.

3. Material and financial resources of the labour inspectorate (Articles 10, 11 and 16). The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statements concerning the crucial lack of means of transport and transport facilities and its consequences on workplace inspection. Furthermore, according to the report of the ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission, the premises serving as offices for labour inspectors in some districts give rise to problems of accessibility for their users and are not equipped to meet the needs of the service. According to the Government, even before the decentralization of inspection services, difficulties were experienced in the application of the requirements set out in Article 11 in view of the same budgetary constraints on personnel and means of transport in particular. The Committee notes that the inadequacy of the resources of the inspection services encourages a general laxity by employers with regard to their legal obligations respecting occupational safety and health and other conditions of work. The Committee wishes to emphasize once again, as it did in paragraph 214 of its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection, the economic and social value of labour inspection and the social cost of reducing its effectiveness. It trusts that measures will be taken, including having recourse to international cooperation, to ensure that the proportion of the national budget allocated to labour inspection is determined as a function of the priority nature of the objectives which it should be assigned in accordance with the Convention.

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

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee recalls the deliberations which took place within the Committee on the Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference in June 2001 during which the Government recognized the relevance of the points raised, and provided clarifications on the economic reasons for a deteriorating labour inspection system since the decentralization of services. The Government has given assurances to the Conference Committee to the effect that the situation would be closely examined, taking due account of all viewpoints, with all the partners concerned. It further indicated that the process would take time, and would require technical assistance. The Conference Committee expressed the hope that the Government, through technical cooperation, will be able to find solutions. Recalling each of the points raised in its previous comments, the Conference Committee also expressed the hope that, with the assistance of international collaboration, the Government will quickly take the necessary measures, as requested by the Committee. The Committee is therefore obliged to reiterate its previous comments on the following points:

1. Socio-economic situation and labour inspection. The Committee notes with concern the socio-economic impact of the epidemic of HIV infection. It notes the educational activities carried out by the Government and the health measures taken, but notes that the information provided by the Government and the conclusions of a report by a joint ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission undertaken in 1995 on labour administration indicate that the structures of the labour inspection system are in a critical situation. The decentralization of the organization and the management of services and personnel of the labour inspectorate is resulting in practice in serious shortcomings in supervising the application of legal provisions for which the labour inspectorate is responsible in an environment which is characterized by the very rapid growth in the number of national and foreign private industrial enterprises. Noting that the provisions of the Convention are not applied, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the importance, particularly in such a difficult economic, health and social situation, of ensuring the best possible protection for workers.

2. Supervision and control of the labour inspectorate by a central authority (Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention); annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21). The Committee notes that the power conferred since 1994 on district authorities to decide whether to establish an inspection structure to recruit and manage labour inspectors is in contradiction with the objective of the Convention, which is to ensure a coordinated and effective labour inspection system throughout the national territory under the supervision and control of a central authority. However, the disparities in the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors operating in the offices established in 21 of the 45 districts in no way permits the establishment of such a system, and the precariousness of inspectors is incompatible with the requirement of authority and impartiality which are indispensable in the relations that inspectors should maintain with employers and workers. The Committee also notes that the periodic inspection reports provided to the Ministry of Labour by a small number of district offices cannot provide the latter with the means of making an overall assessment of the level of application of labour legislation in workplaces liable to inspection and are not adequate to serve as a basis for the preparation of an annual report, as required by Article 20. The Committee reminds the Government that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the system of labour inspection shall apply to all workplaces in respect of which legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work are enforceable by labour inspectors, and that the annual report, the contents of which are set out in Article 21(a) to (g) has the objective of providing a regular assessment of the situation with a view to determining the action to be taken for its improvement. The Committee also invites the Government in this respect to refer to paragraph 273 et seq. of its 1985 General Survey on the value at both the national and international levels of preparing, publishing and forwarding such a report to the ILO. It hopes that the Government will commence without delay a process of reflection at the local, regional and national levels on the manner in which the Convention should be applied and that it will associate in this process the social partners, ministerial departments and public and private bodies concerned. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information regularly on the action envisaged to establish a labour inspection system placed under the supervision and control of a central authority and involving cooperation and collaboration with the social partners and the above institutions.

3. Material and financial resources of the labour inspectorate (Articles 10, 11 and 16). The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statements concerning the crucial lack of means of transport and transport facilities and its consequences on workplace inspection. Furthermore, according to the report of the ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission, the premises serving as offices for labour inspectors in some districts give rise to problems of accessibility for their users and are not equipped to meet the needs of the service. According to the Government, even before the decentralization of inspection services, difficulties were experienced in the application of the requirements set out in Article 11 in view of the same budgetary constraints on personnel and means of transport in particular. The Committee notes that the inadequacy of the resources of the inspection services encourages a general laxity by employers with regard to their legal obligations respecting occupational safety and health and other conditions of work. The Committee wishes to emphasize once again, as it did in paragraph 214 of its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection, the economic and social value of labour inspection and the social cost of reducing its effectiveness. It trusts that measures will be taken, including having recourse to international cooperation, to ensure that the proportion of the national budget allocated to labour inspection is determined as a function of the priority nature of the objectives which it should be assigned in accordance with the Convention.

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

With reference also to its observation on the Convention, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Supervision and control of the labour inspectorate by a central authority (Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the Convention); annual inspection report (Articles 20 and 21).  The Committee notes that the power conferred since 1994 on district authorities to decide whether to establish an inspection structure to recruit and manage labour inspectors is in contradiction with the objective of the Convention, which is to ensure a coordinated and effective labour inspection system throughout the national territory under the supervision and control of a central authority. However, the disparities in the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors operating in the offices established in 21 of the 45 districts in no way permits the establishment of such a system, and the precarity of inspectors is incompatible with the requirement of authority and impartiality which are indispensable in the relations that inspectors should maintain with employers and workers. The Committee also notes that the periodic inspection reports provided to the Ministry of Labour by a small number of district offices cannot provide the latter with the means of making an overall assessment of the level of application of labour legislation in workplaces liable to inspection and are not adequate to serve as a basis for the preparation of an annual report, as required by Article 20. The Committee reminds the Government that, under the terms of Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the system of labour inspection shall apply to all workplaces in respect of which legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work are enforceable by labour inspectors, and that the annual report, the contents of which are set out in Article 21(a) to (g), has the objective of providing a regular assessment of the situation with a view to determining the action to be taken for its improvement. The Committee also invites the Government in this respect to refer to paragraph 273 et seq. of its 1985 General Survey on the value at both the national and international levels of preparing, publishing and forwarding such a report to the ILO. It hopes that the Government will commence without delay a process of reflection at the local, regional and national levels on the manner in which the Convention should be applied and that it will associate in this process the social partners, ministerial departments and public and private bodies concerned. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information regularly on the action envisaged to establish a labour inspection system placed under the supervision and control of a central authority and involving cooperation and collaboration with the social partners and the above institutions.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reports, the information provided in reply to its previous comments and the attached documents. It also notes the draft legislation prepared recently with the technical assistance of the ILO in the context of a cooperation project with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

1.  Socio-economic situation and labour inspection.  The Committee notes with concern the socio-economic impact of the epidemic of HIV infection. It notes the educational activities carried out by the Government and the health measures taken, but notes that the information provided by the Government and the conclusions of a report by a joint ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission undertaken in 1995 on labour administration indicate that the structures of the labour inspection system are in a critical situation. The decentralization of the organization and the management of services and personnel of the labour inspectorate is resulting in practice in serious shortcomings in supervising the application of legal provisions for which the labour inspectorate is responsible in an environment which is characterized by the very rapid growth in the number of national and foreign private industrial enterprises. Noting that the provisions of the Convention are not applied, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the importance, particularly in such a difficult economic, health and social situation, of ensuring the best possible protection for workers.

2.  Material and financial resources of the labour inspectorate (Articles 10, 11 and 16).  The Committee notes the Government’s repeated statements concerning the crucial lack of means of transport and transport facilities and its consequences on workplace inspection. Furthermore, according to the report of the ILO/UNDP/EAMAT mission, the premises serving as offices for labour inspectors in some districts give rise to problems of accessibility for their users and are not equipped to meet the needs of the service. According to the Government, even before the decentralization of inspection services, difficulties were experienced in the application of the requirements set out in Article 11 in view of the same budgetary constraints on personnel and means of transport in particular. The Committee notes that the inadequacy of the resources of the inspection services encourages a general laxity by employers with regard to their legal obligations respecting occupational safety and health and other conditions of work. The Committee wishes to emphasize once again, as it did in paragraph 214 of its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection, the economic and social value of labour inspection and the social cost of reducing its effectiveness. It trusts that measures will be taken, including having recourse to international cooperation, to ensure that the proportion of the national budget allocated to labour inspection is determined as a function of the priority nature of the objectives which it should be assigned in accordance with the Convention.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

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

Articles 1, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, despite its firm intentions to implement the Convention, the Government continues to face considerable financial constraints to provide logistics, transportation, typewriters, stationery for inspection visits to be conducted and annual labour inspection reports duly compiled and published, as required by the Convention. The Committee notes that the project document containing the 1988 ILO/JASPA advisory mission's recommendations to strengthen the labour inspectorate was submitted to the UNDP, but it did not attract any funding mainly because it was not within the priority themes of the country programme of the UNDP. It notes however that the ILO was able to respond partly by granting two scholarships for training on labour statistics at the ILO Turin Training Centre in March-April 1995. It also notes that the Government is seeking further assistance from the African Regional Labour Administration Centre (ARLAC) in Harare with the view to submitting a smaller project to strengthen the labour department. In the meantime the Government indicates that efforts are being made to compile and disseminate annual reports on labour inspection for 1990 and 1991. The Committee hopes that these efforts will soon enable the Government to report improvements in the situation of labour inspection in the country, and that it will continue to supply information available.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

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

Articles 1, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that, despite its firm intentions to implement the Convention, the Government continues to face considerable financial constraints to provide logistics, transportation, typewriters, stationery for inspection visits to be conducted and annual labour inspection reports duly compiled and published, as required by the Convention. The Committee notes that the project document containing the 1988 ILO/JASPA advisory mission's recommendations to strengthen the labour inspectorate was submitted to the UNDP, but it did not attract any funding mainly because it was not within the priority themes of the country programme of the UNDP. It notes however that the ILO was able to respond partly by granting two scholarships for training on labour statistics at the ILO Turin Training Center in March-April 1993. It also notes that the Government is seeking further assistance from the African Regional Labour Administration Center (ARLAC) in Harare with the view to submitting a smaller project to strengthen the labour department. In the meantime the Government indicates that efforts are being made to compile and disseminate annual reports on labour inspection for 1990 and 1991. The Committee hopes these efforts will soon enable the Government to report improvements in the situation of labour inspection in the country, and that it will continue to supply information available.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes the limited information in the Government's report and in the annual inspection report for 1980 received in June 1990.

Articles 1, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government continues to have considerable difficulty in preparing and publishing annual inspection reports as required by the Convention. Such reports are an essential means of determining how the system of labour inspection is currently operating in the country and what measures are called for to improve it. The Committee notes from the information communicated by the Government to the Conference in 1990 that a multidisciplinary ILO/JASPA advisory mission visited the country in 1988 and proposed activities to strengthen the labour inspectorate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate what follow-up has been given to this proposal, and it would hope that the appropriate technical cooperation with the Office might soon be provided with the aim of improving application of the Convention. It hopes in the meantime that the Government will provide all available information on steps taken currently to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary to ensure the implementation of labour legislation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Further to its previous observations, the Committee notes the information in the Government's most recent report, concerning publication of the annual report of the labour inspection services required by the Convention. The Committee has noted for many years that there has been no publication of the annual labour inspection report. The Government is now hopeful that progress will be made with the ILO's technical assistance. The Committee continues to hope that an up-to-date report of the inspection service's activities will soon be published, that it will contain the information required by the Convention and that henceforth such reports will be transmitted to the Office within the time established by the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that, despite the assurances given by the Government in 1989 at the Conference Committee, the report on the work of the labour inspection services has not reached the International Labour Office. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee notes with regret that, since the communication in 1985 of the annual reports of the Ministry of Labour for 1977 and 1978, it has received no information on the activities of the labour inspection services. It trusts that the Government will not fail to take the necessary measures to ensure that, in future, annual inspection reports, containing all the information laid down in Article 21 of the Convention are published and communicated to the ILO within the time-limits set forth in Article 20.

REQUESTS

The Government is requested to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 77th Session. #CONFERENCE_SESSION:77