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

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

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

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

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

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

With reference to its 2004 observation, the Committee notes with satisfaction the publication in February 2010, after validation by the National Council of Labour Inspection, of a collective work on “Principles of Deontology for Labour Inspection” the preparation of which had been initiated in 2004 under the direction of the Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR) and had continued with ILO technical support. The working group which elaborated this tool was mainly composed of representatives of the labour inspection at various levels, as well as other structures of the Ministry of Labour. The ILO and the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) were also represented. The Committee notes with interest the statement made in the book’s preface by the Minister of Labour, social relations, family, solidarity and cities, that “deontology reinforces the coherent action of the labour inspection agents at all hierarchical levels ... as it protects the citizens themselves from the risks of arbitrariness”. The Committee also notes that according to the Minister, “the principle of independence of labour inspection does not signify only a right for the agents concerned, but also a guarantee for the citizens who are able to benefit from an organized public service which is not subject to any undue external influence”.

Article 6(3) of the Convention. Duties additional to the supervision of working conditions and the protection of workers. Involvement of the labour inspectorate in combating illegal work. The Committee notes that a series of communications from the Single National Union-work, employment, training and professional integration SNU-TEF (FSU), including one received at the ILO on 6 July 2010 about the involvement of labour inspectors in joint operations to combat illegal work pursuant to the interministerial circular of 2 June 2010 No. NOR-IMIM1000102NC concerning the combat as it affects foreign nationals, concern the application of the Convention. Furthermore, it notes the information sent by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous comments and to the matters raised by the abovementioned organization regarding the circular, the provisions of which likewise concern workers with no residence permit employed in agricultural undertakings. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its observation under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and asks it to take the measures requested and to provide, in so far as it concerns the application of this Convention, relevant information on the reshaping of interinstitutional cooperation on the policy to combat the illegal employment of foreigners without residence permits and the role of labour inspectors in agricultural undertakings.

Article 7(3). Integration of the system of labour inspection in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The Committee notes that the process to merge labour inspectorates (agriculture, maritime, transport, labour) has been speeded up since 1 January 2009. It notes that one of the Recommendations made as a result of the merger experiment conducted in two departments, was to maintain or create an inspection sector for agriculture in each department. According to the Government, the number of visits to agriculture undertakings should be maintained.

The Committee notes, however, that according to section R8122-9 of the Labour Code, one section in each department is responsible for supervision of agricultural occupations unless an order or the ministers responsible for agriculture and labour provides otherwise. The Government states that such an order was issued on 23 July 2009 allowing a waiver from the obligation to create or maintain an agriculture section in 14 departments (Alpes de Hautes Provence, Hautes-Aples, Ariège, Corse-du-Sud, Creuse, Haute-Loire, Lozère, Nièvre, Hautes-Pyrénées, Territoire de Belfor, Val d’Oise, Guyane, Martinique, La Réunion.).

The report on the activities of labour inspection in agriculture shows that the total number of interventions in the sector dropped in 2008 to 23,368, as compared to 24,342 previously. A drop was noted in particular in the regions where the departments exempted from the obligation are located (Rhône-Alpes: ‑130 inventions, Pays de la Loire: -126 interventions). No information has been provided on non-metropolitan territories (overseas departments and St Pierre and Miquelon). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that interventions in agricultural undertakings are maintained at a level at least equal to that prevailing prior to the merger, particularly in departments where an agricultural inspection section has not been maintained or created. The Government is asked to include figures showing the activities of the labour inspectorate for the period covered by the next report, including figures for the overseas regions covered by the Convention. The Committee furthermore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspection services remain visible and accessible to employers and workers in the agriculture sector, particularly in departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate has not been maintained or set up.

Articles 11 and 19. Associating experts in the work of labour inspection in agriculture. In its previous observation concerning Guadeloupe, the Committee requested the Government to provide details of the reasons underlying the enquiries into the use of pesticides in banana plantations. It notes that according to the Government, there were 61 interventions in Guadeloupe, of which 54 were controls. Furthermore, nine controls targeted sales outlets for phytosanitary products. It does not, however, indicate either the reasons for the enquiries into pesticides, or the results of the inquiries or the content of the 97 observations on safety and health to which the Government refers. The Committee requests the Government to send in its next report the results of the enquiries and research conducted on the use of pesticides. The Government is also asked to specific the measures taken for the safety and health of all workers particularly for the purpose of eliminating all risks to the safety and health of workers in banana plantations.

Article 19. Occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest the campaigns carried out in Réunion to alert farmers to phytosanitary risks, and the controls carried out in the use of phytosanitary products in the overseas territories. The Government refers to the particular risk facing agriculture workers in Réunion but also all workers in the overseas territories, which are wet zones, where exposure to leptospirosis is high. The Committee notes that occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease are clearly under reported in Guyana. The Government is asked to provide information on:

–           the impact of the information campaigns and controls carried out on the use of phytosanitary products in the agricultural undertakings of the overseas departments covered by the Convention;

–           the measures taken to alert employers, workers and members of health professions to the need to observe procedures for reporting occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease;

–           the follow up to the controls of sales outlets for phytosanitary products.

The Government is also asked to take specific measures for preventing the risk of leptospirosis infection for agricultural workers and to provide information on these measures and on the activities of the labour inspectorate in this area.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received on 8 September 2008, accompanied by information in reply to its previous comments, as well as the annual report on the organization, operation and work of the labour inspectorate in agriculture for 2007. It notes with interest the quality of the information provided.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the General Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Personnel (FO-ITEPSA) on 14 January and 29 July 2008, which were forwarded to the Government on 4 April and 4 September 2008, respectively, and the Government’s comments on the matters raised by the union.

Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Integration of the labour inspection system in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The FO-ITEPSA, in its communication of 14 January 2008, challenges the decision to merge the labour inspectorates, considering that this measure represents a severe threat to the survival of the labour inspectorate in agriculture. It indicates that, as a sign of protest, it decided as the principal organization of the labour inspection services in agriculture, and with the support of the federations of agricultural employees of Force Ouvrière and the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), on a collective action to boycott the transmission of the annual activity reports for 2007 to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Furthermore, the Secretary-General of the FO-ITEPSA, in his personal capacity, sought an opinion on the matter from the National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT). He provided the Office with a copy of the notification from the CNIT dated 4 July 2008 of the opinion finding his request irreceivable.

In communications dated 28 April and 14 July 2008, the Government provided the Office with information on the reasons for the decision to merge the labour inspection systems beginning in 2009 with a view to their operational merger as of 1 January 2011. It indicated that this decision had been preceded by a trial, under the terms of a circular of the Prime Minister dated 2 January 2006, consisting of bringing together the labour inspection services in agriculture and the Departmental Directorates of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training in 2006 and 2007 in two departments (Dordogne and Pas-de-Calais). According to the Government, the trial was positive and resulted in the development of synergies and complementary action between the inspection services and to improving the transparency and quality of the service provided to users. One of the recommendations made following this trial was to establish an agricultural section in each department. This section would have to be recognized as such by the social partners in the agricultural sector, who would thereby maintain their natural and customary counterpart. It would also allow the central administration to maintain an easily identifiable structure. It is also planned to maintain the general nature of the labour inspectorate in agriculture (with overall competence for action in the fields of individual and collective labour relations, conditions of work, occupational safety and health, and the various types of employment) in compliance with the Convention. The Government gives the assurance that the number of inspections and related measures each year will be at least equal, if not greater than those undertaken in 2006 and 2007. The Government adds that the call for a boycott announced by the union has been raised and that all the services provided their annual activity report to the central labour inspection authority in agriculture. It notes that the arrangements for the merger of the labour inspectorates will require close dialogue with all the trade union organizations.

The Committee notes these clarifications and recalls that the Convention does not impose a single form of organization of the labour inspection system in agriculture. Indeed, Article 7, paragraph 3, provides that labour inspection in agriculture might be carried out for example: (a) by a single labour inspection department responsible for all sectors of economic activity; (b) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal functional specialization through the appropriate training of inspectors called upon to exercise their functions in agriculture; (c) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal institutional specialization by creating a technically qualified service, the officers of which would perform their functions in agriculture; or (d) by a specialized agricultural inspection service, the activity of which would be supervised by a central body vested with the same prerogatives in respect of labour inspection in other fields, such as industry, transport and commerce. Remaining attentive to the changes in the organization and functioning of the labour inspectorate as a whole, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the ILO duly informed of the developments occurring in this respect during the period covered by the next report, while at the same time continuing to provide separate information on labour inspection in agriculture, as required by the Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 3. Further duties in addition to those relating to the inspection of conditions of work and the protection of workers. With reference to its comment on the application of Convention No. 81 in relation to the matters raised by other trade union organizations concerning the additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors in agriculture are not involved in the joint operations undertaken in the workplace under the control of other public authorities in the framework of the policy to combat illegal immigration. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on these measures and their impact on the volume and quality of enforcement activities in relation to conditions of work in agricultural undertakings.

Support measures by the Government for labour inspectors. The Committee also refers in this regard to its comments under Convention No. 81 concerning the action taken by the Government following the murder in September 2004 of two labour controllers with a view to providing inspection officials with constant logistical and psychological support.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received in August 2006 and the annual inspection report for 2005 containing all the information requested by virtue of Article 27 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments, in particular on the points raised by the Association L.611-10 in a communication sent to the ILO on 20 September 2004, and the observations made by the union SNU-TEF (FSU) on 13 January 2005 and 13 July 2006, which were forwarded to the Government on 2 March 2005 and 4 September 2006, respectively.

In its observation of 13 January 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU), as well as the Association L.611-10, which the Government states is not a trade union, referred to the assassination by a farmer in Dordogne in September 2004 of two labour inspection officials while engaged in their functions and pointed to the lack of commitment by the Government in situations in which labour inspection officials are facing difficulties. According to the union, the Government’s attitude has contributed to the development of a climate of lack of respect and consideration from employers towards labour inspection officials, thereby encouraging the violation of labour laws. Noting that many of the points raised by the union concern the application of Convention No. 81 by the Government, the Committee refers to its observation under that Convention on issues of application that are common to the two instruments, and requests the Government to supply any comments it may wish to make on the matters raised.

With regard to issues related specifically to the application of the present Convention, the union criticizes the Government for not taking measures or issuing instructions relating to the obstacles and aggressions perpetrated against labour inspection officials while engaged in their duties. In contrast with labour inspectors in industrial and commercial establishments, labour inspectors in agriculture do not benefit from psychological and legal support structures following incidents of aggression. Moreover, the only step taken by the Ministry of Agriculture consisted of entrusting the general inspectorate with the mission of reducing inspections, particularly by the labour inspectorate for agriculture, in order to improve the experience of farmers subject to inspections. The labour inspection services in agriculture saw this step as a denial of their daily supervisory work.

The Committee however notes with interest the measures announced by the Government with a view to strengthening the authority needed by inspection officials in their relations with employers and workers in the agricultural sector.

1. Effective cooperation of judicial authorities. In a joint letter, the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion, the Vice-Minister for Labour Relations and the Minister of Agriculture requested the Minister of Justice to give instructions to public prosecutors to pursue with the greatest severity cases of threats and aggression against labour inspectors. This request was followed by a letter sent by the Minister of Justice on 12 May 2005 to public prosecutors in appeal courts calling for the strict application of law, focusing systematically, where appropriate, on the aggravating circumstance of the victim being responsible for discharging a public service, with special attention to labour inspectors. The Government refers by way of illustration to the case of an employer who opposed an inspection and who was given a suspended prison sentence and a 4,000 euro fine, following the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister of Justice.

2. Improving security conditions for labour inspectors and controllers. A working group has been formed to review inspection proceedings and regional meetings of labour inspectors have been organized with a view to exchanging experience of practice and finding solutions. These were followed by the adoption of practical measures: initial and continued training of labour inspection officials on the management of difficult inspections; the establishment of an immediate psychological support procedure in the case of aggression or obstacles to inspections; the strengthening of the legal protection of inspection personnel; the improved coordination of the inspections and their follow-up in order to improve relations between the administration and farmers.

3. Improvement of the training of labour inspection officials and cooperation between the various labour inspection services. The director of the National Institute of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training has been entrusted with the mission of reviewing the functioning and the organization of labour inspection. The mission will focus on trends and the organization of inspections, the management of conflicts and the initial and further training of labour inspection officials. According to the Government, an instruction issued by the Prime Minister on 2 January 2006 proposes closer collaboration, as an experiment, between labour inspectorates in agriculture and labour inspectorates in industry, commerce and services. The Committee requests the Government to supply any additional information that it considers useful on the matters raised by the organization in its successive comments.

Moreover, the Committee notes the following information provided by the Government relating to the resources and activities of the labour inspectorate over the past two years.

4. Labour inspection staff in agriculture. The Committee notes with interest the information concerning the ratio of the number of labour inspection officials compared to the number of agricultural undertakings liable to inspection and the number and categories of workers covered in terms of annual working time. It also notes with interest that for 2005, the budgetary allocations covered 227 labour inspectors and 149 labour controllers. It would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the strengthening of the human resources of the labour inspectorate and indicate the enforcement activities relating to working conditions and the protection of workers in comparison to the other activities entrusted to labour inspection officials.

5. Importance of inspections of illegal employment in the work of labour inspection. The Committee notes that the large proportion of inspections covering illegal employment (41 per cent of all inspections in 2005) reflects the fact that this is considered by the Government to be a priority issue. However, these controls are also intended to verify conditions of work of workers (wages, leave, hours of work, accommodation, etc.). The Committee notes that the observation of the SNU-TEF (FSU), received by the ILO on 13 July 2006 and forwarded to the Government on 4 September 2006, raises the issue of the incompatibility of this activity with the mission of protecting the conditions of work of all workers without consideration of the question of the legality of their employment relationship. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on how it is planned, where appropriate, to respond to the concerns expressed by the union as to the role of labour inspection in the field of protecting the conditions of work of foreign workers who are illegally resident in the country.

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

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a report for the period 2002-04. However, it notes that the annual inspection report for 2002 for the agricultural sector contains certain of the information requested by the report form under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, as well as the information and statistics required under points (a) to (g) of Article 27 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes a communication of 20 September 2004 from the Association L611-10, which defines itself as grouping together inspection officials of the labour inspectorate with the objective of defending the supervisory mission entrusted to the inspectorate. A copy of this communication received on 29 September 2004 by the ILO was transmitted to the Government on 8 October 2004. It mainly refers to the murder by a farmer, in September 2004, of two labour inspectors who were engaged in performing their duties and describes an increase of the phenomenon of acts of violence by employers against inspectors while carrying out inspections.

The Association expresses concern at the slowness of the reaction by the public authorities to this tragic event. Deploring the indifference of the authorities with regard to matters of safety and the legitimacy of labour inspection, the Association calls for the Government to comply in full with its obligations under the present Convention, particularly as concerns the following provisions:

Article 6 of the Convention (Relation between the principal functions of the labour inspectorate relating to conditions of work and any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors).

Article 12 (Arrangements to promote effective cooperation between the inspection services and other services or institutions engaged in similar activities).

Article 14 (Adequacy of the numbers and qualifications of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of their duties). The Association indicates in this regard that the number of officials assigned exclusively to labour inspection duties (1,500) is insufficient with regard to the number of employees covered by the legislation (15 million).

Article 16 (Prerogatives and powers of investigation of inspectors on the occasion of inspections). The Association deplores the inertia of the public authorities in relation to acts of intimidation, threats or acts targeting the physical integrity of control inspectors.

Article 21 (Number, frequency and thoroughness of inspections).

Article 22 (Prompt proceedings and the discretion of inspectors as to whether to give warning and advice before initiating procedures). The Association indicates that the public authorities tend to undervalue the enforcement functions of labour inspection in favour of an exaggerated emphasis on its advisory functions.

Article 24 (Effective imposition of adequate penalties for violation of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide in its next report full information, clarifications or comments on the above points.

The Committee notes that the statistics supplied in the 2002 annual report show that the majority of the reports of violations drawn up by labour inspectors concern employment legislation. The number of warnings issued in the same field also appear to indicate that inspection in agricultural enterprises is focused mainly on illegal work to the detriment of conditions of work. The prison sentences imposed by the courts are related in the same proportion to breaches of the legislation relating to employment and that on occupational safety and health conditions (12 each). The reports issued concerning violations of the legal provisions on conditions of work, including occupational safety and health, are in many cases not followed up by legal proceedings, in contrast to those relating to illegal employment.

These figures indicate that the supervisory and prevention activities of labour inspectors in the area of conditions of work and the protection of workers appear to be suffering from the increasing importance given to their investigation and prosecution activities relating to illegal and clandestine work. They also reflect the image of a judicial system that is more concerned with penalizing illegal employment and clandestine work than the protection of workers’ rights (Articles 22 and 24).

The annual inspection report, which indicates that in 2000 the number of inspection staff in agriculture was 361 (204 inspectors and 157 controllers), does not make any assessment of the adequacy of their numbers in relation to the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the workers covered (194,565 and 1,621,012, respectively) (Articles 14 and 16). While taking into account the fluctuating number of workers in agriculture, including permanent, as well as seasonal or occasional workers, the Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate the proportion of the working time of labour inspectors and controllers that is devoted to the functions of supervision and the provision of advice and technical information to employers and workers on conditions of work, and the time allocated to the enforcement of legislation relating to illegal employment and clandestine work or to procedures for the settlement of collective disputes (Article 6, paragraph 3).

The function of a "controller of illegal employment" with which inspectors are entrusted by law, by its nature hardly propitious to the establishment and maintenance of the climate of confidence and cooperation necessary in their relation with employers and workers. The Committee nevertheless considers that information relating to situations of illegal employment and clandestine work should be systematically brought to the labour inspectorate’s attention, as these situations generally involve a high likelihood of the violation of legal provisions respecting conditions of work. The intervention of labour inspectors, within the framework of their powers and prerogatives, would allow them to take appropriate measures against the employers concerned.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility, preferably in consultation with the social partners, of a readjustment of the functions of the labour inspectorate and keep the ILO informed in this regard.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report in reply to its previous comments. It draws attention, however, to the following matters.

Article 20(c) of the Convention. The Committee notes that the memoranda of 31 May and 5 July 1985 sent with the report for the purpose of showing the effective application of the principle of confidentiality regarding the source of complaints do not cover the particular aspect of correspondence exchanged between users and the regional and departmental labour inspection services. According to the indication given in the memorandum of 5 July 1985, this matter seems to be covered by circular No. 7 001 of 29 March 1985. The Government is therefore requested to send a copy of this circular with its next report in order to allow the Committee to appreciate its scope in regard to this article of the Convention.

Annual inspection reports. The Committee notes that, despite the information contained in the Government's report, the annual inspection reports for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are not available at the ILO. It would be grateful if the Government would send copies of them at the same time as those relating to subsequent years.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the working of the labour inspection system in the agricultural sector following the reforms in the organization and powers of the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry introduced by Decrees on 28 December 1994 and subsequent legislation. The Committee notes that, in the opinion both of the trade unions and the Government, the texts in question are not in themselves an obstacle to carrying out labour inspection tasks in the agricultural sector in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; however, the Committee notes that, in practice, secondary budgetary and administrative measures have been such as to undermine observance of certain fundamental provisions of the Convention.

1. Practical application of the Convention

Article 15, paragraph 1(b). Under the terms of a circular dated 18 June 1991 from the Director of Agriculture and Forestry (Central Region), prior authorization from the Director is required for any official travel in the service of the Regional Directorate, including for the purpose of labour inspection in agriculture, and any such request must indicate the cost. None of the reference budget sections referred to in the circular relate specifically to expenditure connected with monitoring activities. The Government also confirms that all operational budget allocations of the Ministry of Agriculture are spread among the regional and departmental directorates, and the central authority does not intervene in the distribution of these allocations among the decentralized services, including those for agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy services. The Government also indicates that the determination of budget allocations on a decentralized basis is done following consultations with all the heads of the decentralized services at a budget conference in which the Inspection Mission of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) takes part. The Committee points out that the very nature of the inspection service implies a high level of routine mobility, but also the need to undertake unplanned journeys both to workplaces liable to inspection and to institutions and bodies upstream or downstream of the inspection process. The Committee emphasized in its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection that excessive red tape (special permits, time restrictions, check in and check out) could be detrimental to the effectiveness of inspectors' movements (paragraph 243) and that, under Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the competent authority should make the necessary arrangements to reimburse to labour inspectors in agriculture any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties. It would be desirable, in order to ensure that labour inspectors enjoy the freedom of movement which is essential for the performance of their duties, for any allocations relating to expenditure incurred on inspection visits to be provided for under a specific budget heading. Supervision of the activities of regional and departmental inspection services by the central authority and the production by that central authority of budget forecasts in preparation for its participation in the conference held to determine the distribution at the regional and departmental levels of budget allocations among the services would also thereby be facilitated. The Government is therefore asked to take the necessary measures to maintain throughout its territory a system of labour inspection in agriculture such that, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1, inspectors and assistant inspectors are able to carry out their tasks under the supervision and control of the central authority to which they are operationally subordinate, and to ensure that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, they are independent of any improper external influences. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide information on the specific measures taken to that end in its next report.

Article 20, subparagraph (c). The Committee notes the general information provided by the Government in reply to the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture alleging failure on the part of the decentralized authorities to respect the principle of confidentiality of sources of complaints. This information is not sufficient to allow the Committee to assess the application of this provision under which, subject to possible exceptions allowed under national legislation, labour inspectors in agriculture must treat as absolutely confidential the sources of any complaint bringing to the notice of defect, a danger in working processes or breach of legal provisions, and must give no intimation to the employer or his representative that the visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the measures taken in particular with a view to ensuring that mail addressed to the inspection services or labour inspectors reaches them directly, without any risk of it being opened beforehand by a general mail distribution service in the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF and DRAF).

Further to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that the Government was asked to describe the practical functioning of the inspection mission of the ITEPSA, which is the central authority within the meaning of Article 7, and to provide information on the manner in which the central authority proposes to deal with the complaints contained in the communications of the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the application of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention.

2. Transmission of annual inspection reports

Articles 26 and 27. The Committee notes the communication of the annual inspection activities reports for the years 1993 and 1994. It asks the Government once again to provide such reports in future within the specified time-limits.

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

Further to its observation, the Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

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

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 refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

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

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

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

The Committee notes that the report has not been received. It refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

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

1. The Committee notes the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning application of the Convention and the responsive comments made by the Government in its report; it recalls previous comments noting observations made by the same Union. The Union states that the situation in the labour inspectorate has further deteriorated; it raises the requirement that all travel must be authorised by a regional centre and asserts that this sort of management makes labour inspection in agriculture impossible. The Government responds that the centralisation of authority cited by the Union is useful for appreciating in a more global fashion the needs of the inspection service and that, generally, the Union's claims are overstated.

2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture which protect the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate (Article 8), and the arrangements made to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with properly located and furnished offices and transport facilities (Article 15).

3. With regard to its previous comments concerning the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)), the Committee notes information provided by the Government concerning general confidentiality of correspondence. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would in addition ensure that the important principle of confidentiality is maintained with respect to the source of complaints and, in particular, describe the practical application of this Article of the Convention.

4. Articles 26 and 27, and Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the annual report on labour inspection for 1990. The Committee asks what measures are envisaged or have been taken to incorporate within the report statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g). The Committee would also be grateful to learn of any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

5. The Committee has also noted that further comments were received from the Union during its current session. It would be glad if the Government would respond also to these comments in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

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

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on the application of the Convention. It notes a subsequent observation dated 21 June 1990 by the union stating that the situation has worsened and that resources available for inspection in agriculture are quite inadequate. It has also noted the Government's response to the Committee's earlier comments.

Article 7 of the Convention. The Government has referred again to the administrative organisation of labour inspection in agriculture. While it agrees that the functioning might be improved, it does not consider further controls of inspectors' work possible.

Article 8. The Government refers to information provided earlier. It states that the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate are protected through the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture. The Committee hopes the Government's future reports will include all available information in this respect.

Article 15. The Committee notes the Government's explanation of the division of responsibilities between the various inspection offices. It indicates that, although all the difficulties have not been resolved, progress has been made in ensuring a better allocation of resources. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will supply all available information as to the implementation of this Article, specifically concerning arrangements to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with (a) properly located local offices and suitable means of communication, and (b) transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties where suitable public facilities do not exist; and with respect to reimbursement of travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 20(c). The Committee notes the Government's reference to Circular DAS/7001 of 28 March 1985 concerning the confidentiality of correspondence within the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to include in future reports information on the practical application of these provisions, particularly as they relate to the sources of complaints brought to the attention of the service.

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

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", as a result of the Decrees of 28 December 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF) and the Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DRAF).

The union considers that the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, which took place in 1984, has given rise to major difficulties in the operation of the ITEPSA resulting in the "quasi-paralysis" of the inspection services in agriculture. According to the union's memorandum, these difficulties arise essentially from the institutional measures that were adopted.

The union points out that prior to the reform the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy was very adequately structured into departmental, regional and national services and that total independence had been recognised at the departmental and regional levels. In the opinion of the union, the Decrees of 1984 marked a rupture in the functioning of the inspection services. They provided for a rearrangement of the various external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, including the ITEPSA, under the direction of the DRAFs and DDAFs with the result that the regional directors and the heads of departmental inspection services were "demoted" in their positions and duties and that, as regards the inspectors, a long tradition of individual independence, responsibility to take decisions and independent representation of the administration in social matters was abandoned. The union considers that the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs and the specific natures of the duties and decision-making powers of inspectors, as set out in the Labour Code, the Rural Code and the Social Security Code, amount to a contradiction that the circulars to apply the 1984 Decrees (which, however, provide for the independent decision-making powers of inspectors in their specific areas) cannot reconcile. In short, the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has resulted in a form of "dependence" for the inspection services that is in contradiction with the nature of their duties.

Furthermore, the union states that the 1984 reform broke up the hierarchical relations between the regional service and the departmental services of the ITEPSA. The incorporation of these services into the organisational system of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has been shown to be totally inadequate for relations between the heads of the departmental services and the heads of the regional services of the ITEPSA, which has had the consequence that the unity in the management of the inspection services has disappeared and the action taken by them varies widely in practice. Moreover, the heads of departmental and regional services of the ITEPSA encounter serious difficulties in their relations with prefects due to the fact that they come up against the barrier formed by the DDAFs and the DRAFs.

Finally, the union points out that the career prospects of the staff of the ITEPSA are different, and indeed discriminatory, in relation to the prospects for the staff of the inter-ministerial labour inspectorate.

In annex to its memorandum, the union enumerates the principal facts, attitudes and situations that it considers to be a result of the 1984 reform and to be in contradiction with the principles of law, and the texts and directives that are in force. Among these texts is Convention No. 129, which, according to the union, has been violated on the following points:

- the existence of a hierarchical structure outside the inspection services which prevents the independence of ITEPSA missions, the suppression of the vertical hierarchical relationship between the regional and departmental levels of the ITEPSA and the obligation to transmit files to the central administration through the DRAFs (Article 8);

- the reduced budget, particularly for travel by the inspectors and the operation of the services (Article 15);

- the insufficient numbers of auxilliary staff allocated to the ITEPSA;

- the opening of mail sent to the ITEPSA by another department of the DDAFs and DRAFs (Article 20(c)).

In conclusion, the union calls for either the ITEPSA to be maintained within the Ministry of Agriculture, although within a framework of total independence as regards the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, or for it to be attached to the Ministry of Labour.

In its reply to the above comments, the Government refers, firstly to the Decrees of 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, to the general circulars and to the specific circular issued to apply these Decrees. These texts clearly lay down that the staff of the ITEPSA, when exercising their specific functions of inspecting and supervising labour legislation, do not come under the hierarchical authority of either the regional and departmental prefects, or the regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry. The Government also supplied a long extract of the reply to a written question raised in 1985, on this subject, by a parliamentarian, and a copy of the Order issued by the Council of State on 6 May 1988 in which it rejects the claims put forward by the CGT-FO Union of staff of the labour and employment service, by the National Federation of Unions of Labour Inspectors and by the Union of Inspection Personnel of Labour Laws in Agriculture, demanding that the Decrees of 28 December 1984 be repealed. The Council of State noted, among other questions, that no provision in the Decrees in question could be considered as having the purpose or effect of prejudicing the application of the provisions of the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

The Committee notes all the explanations supplied by the Government. It also notes, from the letter addressed by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on 15 December 1988 to the Director-General of the ILO, that the difficulties that have been encountered in the work of the ITEPSA are not a result of the texts, but rather of their application by the regional directors of agriculture and forestry. The Committee considers that while the problems of hierarchy, management, co-ordination and, in general, relations with the regional and departmental administrative authorities appear to be at the origin of the discontent within the ITEPSA, the latter also gives the impression of suffering from the absence of supervision and control of a central body, as provided in Article 7, paragraph 3(d), of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, information on the measures that have been taken to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application of Articles 8, 15 and 20(c) of the Convention which, according to the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture, are not fully observed.

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

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", and the observations made on this subject by the Government. It is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain points concerning the application of the Convention deriving from the comments made by the above union.