Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



The Government provided the following written information.

The Government notes the Committee’s request to guarantee the protection of workers against possible reprisals by employers. It issued Resolution No. 1867 on 13 May 2014 guaranteeing the confidentiality of all complaints. The public service would need to take steps to guarantee that confidentiality. The Committee also questioned a section of Act No. 1610 of 2013 to the effect that certain isolated areas, for example in the mining and petroleum sector, can only be reached by using transport made available by the company or trade union. Although the Act is designed for the labour inspectors’ safety, it was only invoked on rare occasions and commonly agreed between the employers and workers. The Government believes that appropriate regulations under the Act can respond to this concern. An appropriate decree has therefore been drafted that is still under discussion; it can be found on the Ministry of Labour’s website. The new decree would allow state enterprises to enter into inter institutional agreements to facilitate the transport of labour inspectors and ensure that they did not have to rely on either employers or workers. If such regulations prove inadequate, the Government is prepared to take additional steps, such as appealing against the Act before the Constitutional Court or submitting a Bill to repeal it. With regard to the preventive approach to labour inspection, and the powers of inspectors in relation to occupational safety and health, Resolution No. 2143 of 2014 was issued under Act No. 1610 of 2013 setting out the kind of guidance, advice and assistance that labour inspectors can give; specific groups of inspectors were assigned to each function. The Committee requested the Government to adopt measures to empower inspectors to deal with occupational safety and health issues, particularly in the event of imminent danger, and to ensure that they were notified of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. Although such powers are expressly set out in Act No. 1562 of 2012 and Act No. 1610 of 2013, they have now been specifically included among the general functions of the territorial directorates and in the mandate of labour inspectors in the abovementioned resolution.

With reference to the impact of the ILO’s technical cooperation project on international labour standards in Colombia, labour inspectors have been trained and technical manuals and instruments have been developed for them. An April 2014 ILO report on the project noted that, in just six months, between 89 and 91 per cent of labour inspectors had learned to use the tools and knowledge acquired thanks to this technical cooperation. The training of inspectors and affiliated professionals has had a qualitative impact in several areas: it has improved the way inspectors examine the cases, and this has gradually given them more confidence and increased their credibility based on the quality of their work and their decisions; the criteria used in investigating cases and imposing penalties have been harmonized; social dialogue forums have been established for producers’ and workers’ organizations together with the Ministry; there have been marked improvements for beneficiaries in the design and implementation of activities, such as the conduct of preventive visits and the signing of compliance and improvement agreements; inspectors have been provided with tools for identifying forms of labour intermediation prohibited by law, so as to promote formalization agreements; instruments have been adopted for identifying anti-freedom of association practices. This has allowed inspectors to conduct their administrative investigations much more forcefully and, where appropriate, to initiate penal proceedings. Regarding the project’s impact on the prosecution of infringements and the effective application of penalties, the following points should be noted: improved knowledge of investigating illegal practices and imposing the respective penalties, including the appropriate level of penalties; labour formalization is encouraged by the deterrent effect of the penalties on enterprises; inspections are carried out in high-risk enterprises; decisions are based on the correct application of legal provisions and labour inspection is more efficient, and this has a corresponding positive social impact.

In terms of improving labour inspection, the following rules and regulations have been introduced: Resolution No. 1021 of 2014 updating the instruction manual for labour inspectors; Resolution No. 2143 of 2014 setting out the mandate of territorial directorates, special offices and labour inspectorates; Resolution No. 2123 of 2013 on penalties adopted by the National Apprenticeship Service (SENA). The resolution provides for the payment of fines irrespective of any appeal that may be lodged with the administrative disputes body and establishes a committee to strengthen the procedure for the collection of fines; Act No. 1610 of 2013 setting out labour inspection rules and regulations and promoting formalization agreements; Act No. 1562 of 2012 on occupational hazards and on occupational safety and health; Act No. 1437 of 2011 (in force since July 2013) containing a new Administrative Disputes and Procedure Code. The Code redefines the various stages of the procedure and reduces the deadline for handing down decisions from three or four years to under nine months; the Ministry of Labour has submitted a Bill to Congress aimed at reducing the workload of the Labour Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice; the Standing Committee on the Negotiation of Wages and Labour Policies has set up a tripartite subcommittee to examine the rules and regulations set out in Act No. 1610 with a view to the effective implementation of the three aspects of labour inspection; prevention, penalties and services to citizens. At the institutional level a Special Investigations Unit has been established in the Territorial Inspection, Monitoring and Management Directorate to speed up inspection and monitoring. So far the Unit has dealt with 98 cases (conciliation, administrative investigation, submission of evidence), 47 of which have been resolved. There is a clearly defined formalization programme that has so far brought 18,000 workers into the formal sector; progress is continuing on the design of standard formalization programmes, by sector, in which representatives of the ILO are systematically involved.

In 2013 and up to April 2014 some 1,759 labour administration inspections were carried out in enterprises, cooperatives and pre-cooperatives, temporary service enterprises, simplified economy companies, high-risk enterprises and occupational hazard and occupational invalidity assessment boards. Over the same period 1,782 penalties were imposed and fines collected to a total value of 58,139,772,821 pesos (approximately US$30.6 million). Prevention activities included 4,130 instances of preventive assistance and 1,275 upgrading agreements in commerce, mining, transport, hotels and restaurants and manufacturing. Some 568 public awareness campaigns were organized, along with 609 training courses and 1,693 preventive inspection visits. The Ministry of Labour’s integrated information system (iMTegra) is currently being developed. It comprises seven subsystems, in which labour inspection has priority. A total of 900 tablets have been purchased for labour inspectors with applications to assist them in their fieldwork. The system will function online by means of an information web page on the Ministry’s website. The system should be up and running by October 2014 after which the Government will be able to provide the ILO with an annual report containing the statistics and information called for under subparagraphs (a)–(g) of Article 21 of the Convention. Some 29,000,000,000 pesos (approximately $15 million) have been invested in upgrading, financing and modernizing the labour inspectorate’s physical infrastructure. Regarding the use of penalties Act No. 1453 of 2011 increased the fines for infringing the right to freedom of association and introduced fines for concluding collective agreements which, overall, offer non-unionized workers better conditions. Decree No. 2025 of 2011 contains rules and regulations aimed at promoting formalization and combating associated labour cooperatives and increased fines to enforce compliance. Act No. 1610 of 2013 raised the level of fines from the previous 1 to 100 minimum wage equivalents to 1 to 5,000 minimum wage equivalents, irrespective of any other penalties that may be imposed and, if appropriate, in addition to further penalties for repeat offences and refusal to comply.

The number of labour inspectors was increased from 424 in 2012 to 904 in 2014 and constitutes a global workforce that can be assigned to units as required. Some 684 new labour inspectors have been recruited in the country as a whole. All in all, 633 labour inspectors specialize in legal matters and 271 in medicine, engineering, company administration and economics, and the Government expects all of them to be operational by the end of 2014, thus meeting the goal that was set for 2010–14. Colombia’s labour inspectorate covers 8,475,437 workers; since the number of inspectors was raised to 904, the ratio of inspectors to the working population has risen from 5 to 10.66. Until they become permanent civil servants, labour inspectors have a temporary status, though this does not modify their situation in terms of job stability. The Constitutional Court has determined that such temporary officials are entitled to a degree of protection; i.e., they cannot be dismissed other than for disciplinary reasons, for failure to carry out their functions properly, for reasons directly related to the service or when another person has been awarded the post following a competition (Ruling T-007 of 2008). Regarding the establishments that are subject to labour inspection and the number of workers employed, 613,614 employers are registered under the occupational hazards system, which covers 8,475,437 workers from all economic sectors (including 600,000 independent workers).

In addition, before the Committee, a Government representative explained the replies to the comments of the Committee of Experts were intended to indicate the progress that had been made in the area of labour inspection, rather than to justify non-compliance. The results of the ILO project entitled “Promoting compliance with international labour standards in Colombia”, which sought to strengthen institutional capacities in labour inspection and stimulate social dialogue, and which was due to end in 2016, were satisfactory. The observations of the Committee of Experts did not refer to non-compliance, but contained requests for information. With the support of the ILO, the Government was making progress in the area of inspection and consequently there was no reason why the country should be included in the list of countries invited to supply information on specific Conventions, usually in connection with non-compliance.

The Worker members recalled that the Committee had already examined the case of Colombia on several occasions, most recently in 2009, and since then any hope of an improvement in trade union rights had been disappointed. The weakness of the labour inspectorate aggravated this situation. In its observation, the Committee of Experts requested information on the results of a technical cooperation project and the practice of “preventive” visits, which the trade unions criticized as being inefficient. The observation dealt mainly with the underlying challenges facing the inspectorate, starting with the shortage of staff. Disregarding the confusion in the figures given, even an assumed workforce of 900 inspectors would still fall short of the country’s needs. The information on the inspectors’ status and functions was also contradictory. It was reported that 85 per cent of them were temporary staff, and not officials who could not just receive complaints but also take the initiative to investigate or impose sanctions. Another weakness related to the means of operation. Inspectors did not seem to have access to official vehicles for access to all workplaces. Finally, the legal framework of labour inspection was inadequate, especially from the perspective of confidentiality regarding the source of complaints, as required by the Convention. Additional problems included voluntary transactions without consulting the workers, and the failure to collect the fines provided for by law. By and large, the way the labour inspectorate operated seemed designed to maximize quantity rather than quality, which would explain why the results were so poor. There was no public report on the activities of the inspectorate, and the social partners were not associated with the design and implementation of labour inspection strategies.

The Employer members thanked the Government for its submissions in the present case. At the outset, the Government had indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Office, to organize special training workshops on issues related to labour inspection and to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Committee of Experts had noted in its observation a number of positive developments, such as reports from the Government concerning new handbooks and teaching materials regarding the graduation of penalties, the administrative sanction procedure, administrative sanctions concerning the improper use of labour mediation and other infringements of the rights of workers. The observation noted that special training programmes had been implemented for labour inspection and that standards had been updated and an analysis of labour risks conducted. The most recent observation noted with interest that the Minister of Labour, in cooperation with the Office, had organized special training workshops on a number of international labour standards. The Employer members welcomed the information provided by the Government, both before the Committee and in its written submissions, which addressed a number of issues that the Worker members had raised including issues concerning the confidentiality of complaints, transport facilities for labour inspectors and technical manuals. It had also provided updates on the impact of the Office’s technical cooperation programme on international labour standards, including: its impact on infringements and effective application of penalties; the steps taken over the previous year to improve labour inspection; and new rules and regulations. The Government had also provided information on the number of labour inspectors, the number of labour inspections undertaken, as well as on the Minister of Labour’s integrated information system, which was currently being developed. The Government had made progress and should be urged to continue its efforts to ensure compliance with the Convention in law and in practice. The Employer members encouraged the Government to continue accepting the Office’s assistance in that regard and to continue providing reports to the Committee of Experts so that it could assess the positive progress in the case.

A Worker member of Colombia said that even though progress had been made, the country was still some way from having a labour inspection system that guaranteed due respect for workers’ rights. Labour inspection was a key instrument for decent work. It was essential to ensure the suitability, independence and transparency of labour inspectors, while providing them with proper remuneration and the necessary facilities for the performance of their duties. Preventive inspections should target workplaces where the most violations were presumed to exist, whether those concerned freedom of association or other workers’ rights. In addition, the number of inspectors should be increased to ensure better coverage of the country, taking into account gender equality, variations in occupational profile and experience in specific matters, such as occupational safety and health or labour issues. Taking account of precarious employment, job placement, anti-union action and violations of the ILO’s recommendations, the Government should establish a better labour inspection system in full consultation with the social partners. Labour inspection should contribute towards preventing disputes. The recommendations of the 2012 high-level mission in the country should be taken into consideration.

Another Worker member of Colombia said that there were 685 labour inspectors in the country, 85 per cent of whom were on temporary appointments, with no job stability or performance rewards. The number of labour inspectors was low and their pay was very low. They received half the salary of labour judges and had no facilities for performing their duties. Moreover, such facilities were provided by enterprises, which affected inspectors’ independence. Furthermore, penalties had no deterrent effect since fines were derisory and were often not paid. The labour inspectorate did not examine the most serious violations of labour legislation, as some 6 million people were in illegal employment and 8 million were self-employed. Workers’ rights were being undermined as a result of subcontracting, cooperatives, foundations, temporary work agencies and trade union contracts, but the labour inspectorate took no action on such matters. Nor did the labour inspectorate investigate the situation of those employed in dock work, horticulture, palm oil production and mining. It did not ensure the protection of freedom of association or penalize the refusal of companies to engage in collective bargaining or their intentions to sign collective accords that affected workers’ organizations. Nor was action taken to penalize acts of anti-union discrimination. Moreover, the labour inspectorate had been used to undermine the exercise of the right to strike. In conclusion, he deplored the fact that complaints were not confidential, and that the Government had not ratified Part II of the Convention on labour inspection in commerce, which left more than 5 million workers without protection.

Another Worker member of Colombia indicated that in 2003 the Ministry of Labour had been closed by the previous Government, which transferred its functions to another Ministry, which had seriously undermined the labour inspectorate and rendered it practically inoperative. Henceforth, the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and other trade unions had protested and a campaign had been started to re-establish that important public institution. That goal had been achieved with the change in Government. In February 2011, the Ministry of Labour had been re-established and plans had been developed to restore the labour inspectorate. Although it had been announced that there would be a significant increase in the number of labour inspectors and that other measures would be taken to provide inspection staff with the necessary means to carry out their functions, labour inspectors were recruited in an irregular manner, were not sufficiently remunerated and were not adequately equipped to perform their work independently and effectively. In addition, different tasks were assigned to them, which detracted from their essential functions. The Government should therefore adopt measures to overcome the obstacles which limited inspection, particularly with regard to: ensuring payment of the minimum wage; mechanisms to ensure respect of the right of association; monitoring observance of the right to collective bargaining in the private and public sectors; preventive monitoring of occupational safety and health conditions, with priority on mining, agricultural, transport, trade and services sectors; effective supervision of labour subcontracting in the private and public sectors; and the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on employers who contravened regulations. Labour inspection was a key function of the Ministry of Labour and its development should therefore correspond with the essential needs in employment relations, thereby giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee of Experts and the present Committee.

The Employer member of Colombia referred to the 2006 Tripartite Agreement on Freedom of Association and Democracy, which the ILO high-level mission had endorsed in 2011, and the 2011 United States-Colombia Labour Action Plan, with particular emphasis on the strengthening of the Ministry of Labour and the labour inspectorate. Administrative and budget arrangements had been made in 2014 to create an additional 480 posts for labour inspectors, who had already been recruited. A total of 683 inspectors throughout the country were receiving training in the 35 territorial directorates. A hundred inspectors were assigned exclusively to inspecting and monitoring priority sectors (palm oil, sugar, mining, ports and flower production). According to official figures, 394 administrative investigations had been conducted in 2013 and 233 cases had been referred to the Office of the Public Prosecutor. As a result of a successful campaign against illegal associated labour cooperatives, their number had decreased from 4,307 in 2010 to 2,895 in 2012, with the elimination of 84 in the sugar sector alone. The Ministry of Labour had successfully launched a campaign to promote labour rights and increase public awareness of freedom of association, gender equality, child labour, etc. The Occupational Guidance and Assistance Centre (COLABORA) had acquired new technological tools, such as virtual inspectors, the “línea 120” helpline, a service to guide people through the country’s main social networks. There were also a number of training programmes for labour inspectors undertaken with ILO support. With regard to preventive inspections, the concept had been submitted to the Standing Committee for Dialogue on Wage and Labour Policies, which was a tripartite body. The objective of such inspections was prevention and the improvement of working conditions, and they focused on the formal sector and did not need any prior authorization from employers. Preventive inspections had been stepped up, in particular in relation to associated labour cooperatives, temporary placement agencies, employment agencies, priority sectors and enterprises that employed workers covered by trade union contracts and accords. He concluded by calling on the Committee to take note of the progress made in Colombia with ILO technical cooperation and urged Colombian employers to contribute to the training of labour inspectors by explaining how their enterprises were organized and how they met their commitments to their workers.

The Government member of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), highlighted the information supplied on the legislative measures adopted to respond to the requests made by the Committee of Experts. It included: the confidential handling of complaints made to the labour inspectorate; the establishment of a special group for preventive inspections; and the provision of the necessary logistical resources to enable inspectors to perform their duties properly. He also referred to the implementation of the ILO project entitled “Promoting compliance with international labour standards in Colombia”, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour, whose objectives included strengthening labour inspection. He observed that in only six months various tools had been adopted or updated and labour inspectors had received training, thereby enabling harmonization of the criteria for the performance of their duties. He emphasized the adoption and application of various laws and administrative provisions which had contributed to the definition and delimitation of inspection tasks, and also the significant increase in the number of labour inspectors (from 404 posts in 2012 to 904 posts in 2014). GRULAC welcomed the information indicating that inspection activities had resulted in 5,724 administrative inspections and 1,782 penalties for non-compliance, which corresponded to fines totalling US$31 million. In conclusion, he considered that the information supplied by the Government was satisfactory and he encouraged the Government to continue working with the social partners to strengthen labour inspection.

The Worker member of Brazil said that one of the issues that was of greatest concern to the Worker members of the Committee was the lack of any real protection from infringements of freedom of association and collective bargaining, which should be provided by the labour inspectorate. Referring to the conclusions of the high-level mission that went to Colombia in February 2011, relating in particular to the priority to be given to freedom of association and collective bargaining, he observed that little or nothing had changed in the three years since then, despite all the Government’s promises to strengthen labour inspection so as to prevent the violation of labour rights. As to the anti-union use of labour accords, not a single enterprise had been sanctioned during those three years, despite the announcement of a special labour inspection programme. Recently, Colombian trade unions had simultaneously lodged 56 complaints, which he hoped that the Ministry of Labour would take up without delay. He regretted that the inefficiency of the labour inspectorate in such cases was such that the trade unions were obliged to request legal protection, which in some cases had been granted by the Constitutional Court.

The Government member of Switzerland expressed his Government’s support for the Colombian Government and its social partners in their efforts to improve labour inspection, particularly with a view to improving occupational safety and health at the enterprise level. Switzerland would continue to support the ILO’s Sustaining Competitive and Responsible Enterprises (SCORE) programme in the textile and flower sectors and planned to expand its cooperation project to other sectors. The main beneficiaries of the programme were the workers and employers, but labour inspectors could also benefit from capacity building. He hoped that the Colombian Government would pursue its efforts to increase resources and strengthen the capacities of the labour inspectorate and to afford workers better protection against possible reprisals.

The Worker member of the United States recalled that the Governments of Colombia and the United States had signed a labour action plan to improve the protection of workers’ rights in Colombia and to facilitate the ratification by the United States Congress of the trade agreement that had been negotiated five years earlier. In light of the variety of challenges faced by Colombia, both Governments had made the strengthening of labour inspection a central commitment in the Action Plan. The United States Congress had ratified the United States-Colombia Trade Agreement, which entered into force in 2012. Despite considerable support from the Government of the United States and the ILO, key commitments of the Action Plan relating to labour inspection remained unfulfilled, indicating some of the ways in which Colombia had failed to comply with the Convention. Under Article 10, the number of labour inspectors deemed sufficient was determined in relation to the scale, complexity and practical challenges of inspection. Colombia had an insufficient number of inspectors. As of February 2014, there were only 685 working inspectors in a country of more than 20 million economically active persons. The selection and hiring process of inspectors, and doubt as to the independence of inspectors were sources of concern. The provisional nature of their recruitment reduced the value of the training provided by the ILO. As of April 2014, none of the new inspectors had been recruited through a civil service posting or a competitive and transparent process. In order to hire a civil servant, a line item had to be included in the national budget, which had not been the case. Moreover, there were ongoing problems with the collection of fines and their level was inadequate. There was insufficient monitoring of voluntary resolutions that released employers from penalties, especially the use of agreements to seek remedies and remove fines. All such agreements had been negotiated between employers and the Government, with no input from workers. Waivers and the nearly complete failure to collect fines continued the cycle of impunity. In the evaluation of the Labour Action Plan, compliance with Convention No. 81, set standards that had not been met by Colombia. As Colombia and the United States moved towards ratification of their trade agreement, they needed to continue to evaluate the efforts made to comply with Convention No. 81 and the stated goals of the Labour Action Plan.

The Worker member of Spain described illegal labour relations as situations where, although an employment relationship existed, employers were often able to circumvent the law. He felt that the absence of any real inspection of illegal labour relations and the increase in the number of workers engaged through temporary service agencies meant that in practice the labour inspectorate was completely non-functional. Of Colombia’s 21 million workers, only 7 million had proper employment contracts and were entitled to social protection. Associated labour cooperatives, simplified limited companies, foundations and “fake” trade unions were just some of the methods used to deny workers their labour rights. He regretted that employers did not to pay the fines imposed as a result of labour inspection visits. He concluded by recalling that the observations of the Committee of Experts dealt with extremely important issues.

The Government member of the United States referred to the Colombian Labour Action Plan, which had been agreed in the context of the United States. The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, under which the Government of Colombia had committed, inter alia, to increased and enhanced labour inspections and doubling the size of the labour inspectorate. In support of these measures, her Government was financing the ILO technical cooperation project “Promoting compliance with international labour standards in Colombia”, the largest component of which involved training of key labour inspectorate staff, including on new inspection tools and procedures, and following up to ensure the training was applied, in practice. The Government of the United States appreciated Colombia’s efforts and its ongoing cooperation with the ILO, in particular to improve labour inspection. However, enforcement of labour law remained a challenge. For example, there had been little progress on fine collection, particularly in cases of large fines applied for illegal contracting. Targeted inspections, especially in priority sectors, had also been insufficient to effectively uncover and punish illegal conduct. She trusted that, with the continued assistance of the ILO and through open and active dialogue with its social partners, the Government of Colombia would succeed in taking the necessary measures to implement fully its commitments related to labour law enforcement under the action plan related to labour rights and its obligations under Convention No. 81.

An observer representing Public Services International (PSI) noted that, following the creation, or rather the reconstitution, of the Ministry of Labour in 2011, the Government had undertaken to increase the staff of the labour inspectorate sufficiently to be able carry out its inspection, monitoring and supervision functions properly. It was essential for the Ministry to adopt a coherent institutional policy to overcome the weakness of the labour inspectorate and especially to reinforce the labour policing function of the Ministry with respect to collective bargaining in the public service. Following the 2014 amendment of Decree No. 1092 of 2012, collective bargaining in the public administration was becoming increasingly common, and that meant that disputes were liable to arise in an environment that by and large was anti-union. Unless the Ministry took immediate steps, its labour inspection problems were likely to increase.

The Government representative indicated that the information provided by the employers and workers was important and would be taken into account. He reminded those present that the Ministry of Labour had been established in November 2011, 30 months ago. He recalled that efforts had been made to institutionalize the Ministry of Labour, and develop the legal framework and mechanisms for its effective operation. With regard to the increase in staff, he noted that resources were available to guarantee that those positions were permanent. In respect of existing vacancies, he explained that the regulations provided that staff could not be appointed or removed while the electoral process was under way. He guaranteed that by December 2014 all the vacancies would be filled. He disagreed with the statement regarding the importance given to the recruitment process, explaining that the best candidates were selected and appointed, maintaining a fairly stable workforce. Since November 2011, no employee had been dismissed without just cause. There were no competitions owing to the fact that the procedure was slow, since meeting administrative requirements could take up to a year and places needed to be filled quickly. Competitions were planned for the future. He indicated that the requests of the Committee of Experts, regarding confidentiality and the transport of labour inspectors had been addressed and resolved. An order establishing that logistical support for inspectors could only be received by means of inter-institutional agreements by public enterprises was pending the President’s signature. It could not be said that since 2011 there had been no change, as there was now a Ministry of Labour, an institutional organization and a body of inspectors organized into three main areas: monitoring, preventive management and assistance to citizens.

The Worker members indicated that following the discussions, and while acknowledging the progress made over the last few years, they wanted to support the following claims made by their Colombian colleagues. Firstly, the Colombian Government should be encouraged to ratify Part II of Convention No. 81, as well as the Safety and Health in Mines Convention, 1995 (No. 176). The Colombian Government should also repeal the current decree on labour intermediation. The Worker members believed that the new decree should be preceded by a consultation process in the Standing Committee for Dialogue on Wage and Labour Policies, and that it should contain efficient mechanisms with regard to the inspection and prevention of all forms of illegal labour intermediation. The Colombian Government, in cooperation with the social partners, should also draft a bill to reform legislation on labour inspection, in line with the observations of the Committee of Experts contained in its 2011 and 2014 reports. This bill should set out the principles of complete confidentiality regarding the source of complaints; dissuasive penalties in the event of freedom of association being violated; the collection of fines by the Directorate of Customs and Taxes; the participation of trade unions in inspection operations; and the allocation of resources to strengthen the capacity of the labour inspectorate. Following consultations and dialogue with the social partners, a public policy on labour inspection should be implemented with sufficient resources, clear results and strong commitment to increase the number of inspectors to at least 2,000; a statutory commitment of all inspectors; and a wage increase for inspectors to bring them up to the level of labour judges. In order to carry out those proposals, it was hoped that the Government would discuss and agree upon those measures within the Standing Committee for Dialogue on Wage and Labour Policies. They also hoped that a six months follow-up would be carried out on the basis of information provided by the Ministry of Labour in each departmental subcommittee and the National Social Dialogue Committee. In conclusion, they requested the Government to accept a direct contacts mission to ensure that these principles were given effect.

The Employer members welcomed the submissions made by the Government and the information provided. Additional information would help to better understand the measures taken to give effect to the Convention in law and in practice. They expressed appreciation of the Government’s responses to the interventions that had been made. They noted the progress made regarding compliance with Convention No. 81. The concrete measures should be taken. They encouraged the Government to work with the ILO to strengthen its labour inspection system. The action that was taken should be the subject of full consultation with the social partners. They emphasized the positive measures taken to date and encouraged the Government to continue its work. They noted the existence at the national level of a tripartite body in which the issues raised in this case could be addressed and considered that the case did not appear to require a direct contacts mission.

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 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

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

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

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

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

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

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the various documents attached or subsequently sent to the ILO. The Committee further notes the joint comments on the application of the Convention by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT) and the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), transmitted to the Government on 6 September 2010, reiterating partly their previous comments and those previously made by other trade unions.

Adoption of a new approach to labour inspection and implementation of corresponding measures. The Government refers in its report to the implementation of a number of measures taken or envisaged in the framework of the USAID–Midas (More Investment for Alternative Sustainable Development) programme to establish a comprehensive and coherent approach of labour inspection (Sistema Integral de Inspeccion de Trabajo (SIIT)). These measures include: (i) the increase of preventive visits promoting so-called improvement agreements; (ii) the consolidation of data through the establishment of Excel registers at district level and the implementation and design of an information system on national level through financial and technical cooperation with the Canadian Government; (iii) the risk assessment to identify high-risk areas based on these databases at the national and local levels; (iv) the organizational restructuring of the Ministry for Social Protection (MPS), including the establishments of two new municipal labour inspection offices (El Bagre and Jagua de Ibirico) in the directorates of Antioquia and Cesar; (v) the appropriate adaptations within the structures of the labour inspectorates (including the establishment of new working groups), the reassignment of functions of labour inspectors; (vi) the strengthening of the number of labour inspection and technical staff and their geographical distribution; (vii) the provision of additional office space; (viii) the purchase of additional technical equipment (computers, etc.);
(ix) the envisaged involvement of representatives of different sectors and public and private institutions; as well as (x) the simplification of administrative procedures and the improvement of the academic profile of labour inspectors with a view to improving the effectiveness of service. The Committee notes that the Government refers to a national inspection plan focusing on the health-care sector. It also notes the increased inspections in associated work cooperatives (CTAs) and the information that the risk-assessment in the framework of the SIIT should allow inspections to be focused on high-risk sectors.

For their part, as concerns the implementation of the recently adopted measures, the CUT and CTC deplore the absence of appropriate consultations with trade unions. In relation to the new preventive approach, they observe that: (i) an increasing number of inspectors are appointed on a provisional basis, have no career prospects, are not provided with adequate and regular training and their competences are not evaluated in the course of service; (ii) labour inspectors are entrusted with a multiplicity of additional tasks; (iii) the labour inspection staff is insufficient (despite recent recruitments) in view of the number of workplaces liable to inspection; (iv) the number of inspections is low, especially in high-risk sectors, such as coal mines; (v) complaint procedures are slow; (vi) the collaboration of technical experts in occupational safety and health is not adequate; (vii) the resources allocated to the labour inspectorate, office equipment and transport facilities are scarce and the reimbursement of travel costs is inadequate and lengthy; (viii) cooperation between labour inspection services and other governmental services or public or private institutions does not operate in practice, particularly between labour inspectors and employers and workers and between the labour inspectorate and the judicial authorities; (ix) labour inspectors are not empowered to initiate judicial, or in particular penal procedures in case of violations of labour rights; (x) the labour inspectorate is informed only of cases of grave or mortal accidents; and (xi) the annual report merely contains information on the number of inspection visits and sanctions imposed. Further, according to the trade unions, the mandate of the labour inspectorate should be extended to cover commercial establishments (particularly as the number of informal workplaces in this sector has increased), and the exclusion of Part II of the Convention (commercial establishments) from its ratification should be lifted accordingly.

Article 3(1)(b). Implementation of a preventive approach to labour inspection. The Committee notes that the SIIT particularly recommends the adoption of a preventive approach to labour inspection based on risk assessment in order to identify high-risk sectors and aimed at promoting so-called “improvement agreements” between employers and workers on the occasion of preventive inspections. The Committee notes the information on the number of preventive inspections and of improvement agreements concluded in 2008 and 2009, as well as the organization of various information sessions, the publication and distribution of information material and press coverage. The Committee notes, however, that no information is provided by the Government on the measures taken or envisaged to strengthen the mechanism for notification to the labour inspectorate of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease with a view to achieving the objectives of the preventive approach. According to the CUT and CTC, preventive inspection visits: (i) are only carried out in the formal sector; (ii) are subject to previous authorization by employers which in most cases is not granted; (iii) in the case of the detection of violations of labour law, labour inspectors are not able to impose sanctions or initiate investigations; (iv) a written commitment by an employer to remedy defects is non-binding; and (v) remedial activities of employers are merely followed-up by telephone due to the heavy workload of labour inspectors (although in theory follow-up visits have to be carried out after six months).

Articles 3(2), 10 and 16. Multiplicity of tasks entrusted to labour inspectors. Human resources in relation to the workplaces liable to inspection. The Committee notes the restructuring of the Ministry for Social Protection (MPS) and the reassignment of functions entrusted to labour inspectors in the General Labour Inspection Directorate (GLID) and its local offices by Decree No. 1293 (amending Decree No. 205 of 2003), as well as the corresponding assignment of functions by resolution No. 2605 of 2009 to the newly created working groups in the GLID and in its local offices. The Committee notes that, under the terms of the above provisions, labour inspectors are still entrusted with too many additional tasks, including conciliation of individual and collective labour disputes. According to the CUT and CTC: (i) Decree No. 1293, which enumerates the functions of the labour inspectorate at the national and local levels, and entrusts further new functions to labour inspectors; (ii) resolution No. 2605 of 2009 confines itself to redistributing functions; and (iii) in practice, labour inspectors are also required, in addition to the heavy workload imposed by law, to assume secretarial tasks due to the lack of clerical staff. The Committee requests the Government to refer to paragraph 69 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection in this regard and emphasizes once again that the primary duties of labour inspectors are complex and require time, resources, training and considerable freedom of action and movement and that any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. With reference to the conciliation of labour disputes, the Committee also requests the Government to refer to Paragraph 8 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), in accordance with which the functions of labour inspectors should not include that of acting as conciliator or arbitrator in proceedings concerning labour disputes.

Articles 5(a) and (b) and 17. Cooperation with government services and the judicial authorities and collaboration with employers and workers. The CUT and CTC continue to deplore the lack of cooperation between labour inspectors and other government services and the lack of collaboration with employers and workers. With regard to cooperation with other government services, they point out that no cooperation exists between the Superintendence of Economic Solidarity and the National Directorate for the Prevention of Accidents despite a relevant cooperation agreement. The Committee notes in this regard the brief indication by the Government that cooperation with representatives of different sectors and public and private institutions is envisaged under the SIIT.

With regard to collaboration with employers, workers and their respective organizations, the Government refers to the conclusion of 219 improvement agreements in 2008 and 238 in 2009 between employers and workers during preventive inspections in different sectors.

The trade unions call for the involvement of the most representative unions in the design, implementation and evaluation of the system of preventive inspections, collaboration with judicial authorities and the establishment of a register of judicial decisions, as well as the conclusion of cooperation agreements between the various government services.

Article 11. Material working conditions and transport facilities necessary for labour inspectors. The CTC and CUT continue to deplore a lack of material resources allocated to the labour inspectorates and the lack of necessary equipment, such as computers, Internet access, filing cabinets, equipment for technical investigations and adequate transport facilities. In this regard, the trade unions point out that travel expenses of labour inspectors are only reimbursed up to an amount of 4,000 pesos, that the procedure of reimbursement is very slow and that higher or unexpected costs have to be borne by labour inspectors themselves. In addition, the unions allege that in practice, travel expenses are not reimbursed when inspections are carried out without prior notice and the authorization of the director of the local directorate, which can take up to one week or more despite the emergency of certain situations.

Associated work cooperatives (CTAs). The Committee noted in its previous comment that both trade unions and the Government had reported the existence of fraudulent strategies in CTAs to circumvent the obligations arising out of a salaried employment relationship. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest that Act No. 1233 of 2008 establishes the obligation of associated work cooperatives and pre-cooperatives to make contributions to the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF), the National Apprenticeship Service (SENA) and family benefit funds. It further notes with interest that this Act explicitly prohibits such cooperatives and pre-cooperatives from acting as employment mediation enterprises or from providing temporary labour, and provides in the case of violation for the withdrawal of the legal personality of the CTA. The Government mentions in addition the intensification of inspections in cooperatives (1,632 inspections and 1,022 investigations in 2009) to control the evasion of social security contributions, the exercise of their approved activity and to detect cooperatives acting as employment mediation enterprises or providing temporary labour, contrary to the law. However, according to the CUT and CTC, inspections in CTAs are not effective, for inspections are only carried out at the registered offices of the CTA, merely resulting in the control of documents, while for the control of the prohibition of employment mediation, inspectors would also have to control other workplaces. The Committee finally notes that the trade unions request information on the violations of legal provisions that have led to the imposition of fines or the withdrawal of the legal personalities of CTAs.

The Committee asks the Government to submit any comments it deems relevant in response to the observations made by the CUT and CTC and to provide information on the progress made through the implementation of the programme to establish a comprehensive and coherent approach of labour inspection (Sistema Integral de Inspeccion de Trabajo (SIIT)) in the establishment and operation of a labour inspection system consistent with the principles laid down in the Convention, and the guidance provided in the accompanying Recommendation No. 81.

It requests the Government to provide information in particular on the measures adopted to secure effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the other public or private institutions and bodies engaged in similar work, including judicial bodies (Article 5(a)); the measures for effective collaboration between labour inspectors and employers and workers
(Article 5(b) and Part II of Recommendation No. 81); the status of the current labour inspection staff and their conditions of service (Article 6); the strengthening of initial training and subsequent training during employment for inspectors, including on risk assessment (Article 7(3)); the determination of the number of labour inspectors in relation to the number of workplaces liable to inspection, and the association of qualified technical experts and specialists (Articles 9 and 10); the reimbursement of inspectors’ professional travel expenses and the granting of advances for that purpose (conditions, amount, time required for reimbursement, etc.) (Article 11(1)(b) and (2)); the application in practice of the right of free entry, without previous authorization, to workplaces (Article 12(1)(a)); the application in practice of the power to make or have made orders requiring measures to remedy situations harming the safety and health of the workers (Article 13); the measures taken to improve the mechanism of notification to the labour inspectorate of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease (Article 14); the available means for the performance of planned inspections and inspections made in consequence of the receipt of a complaint, with a view to covering as many workplaces as possible while taking into account priority sectors (Articles 11 and 16); the role of labour inspectors in legal proceedings against employers in breach of the labour law, including in CTAs (Article 17); the dissuasive nature of the sanctions applied (Article 18); and the reinforcement of the reporting obligation of labour inspectors and local inspection offices with a view to the publication by the central authority of an annual report (Article 19); and the issue of the eventual extension of the scope of labour inspection to commercial workplaces (Article 22 and Part II of the Convention).

In addition, noting that the Government did not reply to the requests under the following points, the Committee is bound to repeat the relevant comments which read as follows.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 133 of its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection concerning the meaning and scope of Article 3, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention, which provides that labour inspectors shall bring to the notice of the competent authority defects or abuses not specifically covered by existing legal provisions. In the Committee’s view, the deterioration in the working conditions of a large number of workers, many of whom are women, would be ample reason for entrusting to inspectors the task of conducting an inquiry into the employment relationships that exist between those giving instructions or receiving goods and services produced by the CTAs and the workers of the CTAs. Any defects or abuse affecting these workers could thus be identified and improvements introduced in the legislation on conditions of work and the protection of workers in the performance of their work. The Committee hopes that labour inspectors will shortly be entrusted with such an investigation to enable the law to keep pace with new situations in the world of work such as the relationship in which CTAs are subordinate to the enterprises for which they produce goods and services outside any form of work contract. The Government is asked to provide information, together with copies of any texts giving effect to Article 3, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention.

The Committee also asks the Government to inform the ILO of its views on the unions’ proposals on this matter.

Principle of the confidentiality of the source of Article 15(c). Complaints. The Committee notes once again that the Government has not sent the information requested on the existence of a legal basis ensuring that labour inspectors comply with the principle of the confidentiality of the source of complaints. It once again urges the Government to take steps rapidly to supplement the legislation to ensure the confidentiality of complaints so as to protect workers from reprisals, to keep the ILO informed and to provide any relevant laws or bills.

Annual inspection report. Articles 20 and 21. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the obligation on the central inspection authority to publish and communicate to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, an annual report on the work of the inspection services containing the information required by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 21. The Committee firmly hopes that, with the international cooperation currently under way to reinforce the labour inspectorate, the Government will not fail to take the necessary steps to ensure that full effect is given to these Articles of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would in any event provide information on all developments in this area, including any problems encountered.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

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

The Committee refers the Government to its observation and draws its attention to the following points.

Article 2, paragraph 2, and Part II of the Convention. Scope of the Labour Inspectorate’s duties. Referring to the comment in its observation that, in the view of the trade union organizations, the labour inspectorate should also cover commercial establishments, the Committee is aware that by reason of the declaration appended to its ratification excluding Part II from its acceptance of the Convention, the Government is not bound by its provisions. It nonetheless reminds the Government that, pursuant to Article 25, paragraph 2, of the Convention, any Member which has made such a declaration may at any time cancel it by a subsequent declaration, and would be grateful if the Government would give its views on this matter.

Article 5(a). Cooperation with judicial bodies. In response to the Committee’s general observation of 2007 on the usefulness of effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system to the attainment of the objectives of inspection, the Government merely states that labour inspectors notify to the competent authorities the cases that have been submitted to them and for which they are not competent and that, where conciliation fails to settle a dispute, the parties are free to take the matter to the courts. The Committee observes that the procedure described above does not amount to cooperation and points out that what it implied more particularly in its general observation was that judicial bodies and inspectors should exchange information so as to raise awareness about each other’s roles, thereby prompting due diligence and thoroughness on the part of judicial bodies in their treatment of inspectors’ reports and any complaints about the same issues brought directly by workers or their organizations. The Committee also expressed the hope that a system for recording judicial decisions would be made available to the Labour Inspectorate to enable the central authority to make use of such data in pursuing its objectives and include them in its annual report as provided by clause (e) of Article 21. It therefore asks the Government to take measures to this end, to inform the ILO of them and to send any relevant documents.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report, the comments of 31 August 2007 by the Single Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CUT), which largely address the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), and the Government’s replies sent to the Office under cover of a letter of 21 February 2008 in so far as they concern the application of the present Convention. The Committee also notes that on 28 January 2008 the CUT sent an evaluation report and proposals for implementation of a tripartite agreement “Labour rights and freedom of association in Colombia”, also signed by the General Confederation of Democratic Workers (CGTD), the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC) and the Confederation of Pensioners of Colombia (CPC). It also notes the information supplied by the Government on 9 June 2008 responding thereto. Lastly, the Committee notes the comments of 19 August 2008 by the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) making the same points as those raised in the above evaluation report and sent by the ILO to the Government on 19 September 2008.

According to the unions that signed the above report, workers’ rights are violated not only by many employers in the private sector but also by a lot of state enterprises, particularly as regards the obligation to provide social security coverage for their workers. The unions consider that measures such as the merger of the Ministry of Labour with another ministry that also deals with health, and the heavy workload imposed on labour inspectors, already too few in number, have weakened the labour administration and prevented inspectors from carrying out their main duties including the inspection of workplaces, providing employers and workers with technical information and advice or the indication to the competent authorities of shortcomings in the legislation respecting conditions of work and the protection of workers. This situation also makes complaint procedures slow and favours continual and repeated violations by employers of the relevant laws and regulations. The unions assert that breaches of the legislation are particularly numerous in commercial establishments and would like to see such workplaces covered by the inspectorate’s mandate pertaining to the application of the Convention.

The unions also object to the widespread practice of concluding employment contracts with associated work cooperatives (CTAs), which they see as a fraudulent strategy devised by enterprises to circumvent the obligations arising from a salaried employment relationship. The advantage – including for the State – of such cooperatives is that, like certain service contracts, in the form of civil or commercial contracts, is that they afford a source of cheap labour and entail none of the costs or obligations for the employer related to a salaried employment contract. In particular, they involve none of the obligations related to exercise of the right to organize, such as the requirement of collective bargaining or the exercise of the right to strike. Presented by the legislation as a free and voluntary form of association, such cooperatives are in fact a solution imposed by former employees who have been dismissed as a means of enabling them to continue receiving an income. The report cites specific instances of CTAs and outsourcing in various sectors, including the textile and garment industry, which account for a substantial proportion of the country’s exports and where the workforce consists largely of women, mainly in Bogotá and the metropolitan sector of the Department of Antioquia. Women set up small family businesses, which subcontract to large maquilas and produce items for export in micro-workshops or their own homes in extremely precarious conditions (no minimum wage, social security or statutory hours of work, and therefore no paid overtime).

The unions’ claims are: (i) that the Ministry of Labour be re-established and the labour inspectorate reinforced; (ii) that the mechanisms to monitor circumvention of social security contributions be reinforced and workers’ health insurance coverage be promoted; (iii) that the exclusion from ratification of Part II of the Convention (commercial establishments) be lifted; (iv) that the new model of labour inspection developed with support from USAID–Colombia be adopted in consultation with the union confederations; (v) that the Government ensure that the necessary legislative measures be taken to ensure that no state enterprise may have recourse to CTAs for labour relations; (vi) that a bill establishing a legal framework for the operation of cooperatives based on the guidelines in the Promotion of Cooperatives Recommendation, 2002 (No. 193), be discussed with the social partners; (vii) that labour legislation safeguarding rights and consistent with the Conventions of the ILO be drawn up in consultation with the social partners; and (viii) that the work contract be reinstated as the basis of the employment relationship to put an end to the intermediary role played by associated work cooperatives and other labour practices which exclude any employment relationship.

The CUT observes that, although article 125 of the National Constitution and Act No. 909 of 2004 specify that labour inspectors are public servants whose posts must be filled by competition and are members of the civil service, most inspectors currently in service were appointed on a provisional basis because no competition was organized. Indeed, in a direct request addressed to the Government in 2001, the Committee noted that for financial reasons, the recruitment of public employees had been frozen and that to make up for the lack of labour inspectors the Government had had to use the services of contract staff to carry out inspectors’ duties. The Committee accordingly asked the Government to inform the Office of any developments in the situation, particularly regarding the status and number of serving inspectors, and the status and number of the contract staff performing inspectors’ duties. The Government saw no reason to do so despite repeated requests from the Committee.

In its comments of 2007, the CUT also objected to the difficult conditions of work of labour inspectors, and particularly the lack of office equipment, both in the capital and in the main cities, and the widespread lack of transport facilities for professional travel.

According to information supplied by the Government in its report and provided on the web site of the Ministry of Social Protection, a number of measures should contribute to strengthening the labour inspection system with the implementation of the USAID–Midas (More Investment for Alternative Sustainable Development) programme and with assistance from the Office.

Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. More and better qualified inspection staff and the status of inspectors. With regard to the number of labour inspectors, the Committee notes that according to the Government, 2,000 members of the inspectorate are to be recruited between 2008 and 2010, including lawyers, economists and engineers, to supplement the existing staff of 746 serving inspectors. Furthermore, labour inspectors’ skills are to be improved through specific training. The Committee takes due note of this information and asks the Government to provide details in its next report of the arrangements for recruiting new inspection staff, and their status and conditions of service, in the light of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate, in particular, whether competitions have been held for the new posts to be filled throughout the country and to provide any relevant documentation or legal texts.

Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 1(c)(iv). Material working conditions and transport facilities for labour inspectors. The Committee notes the Government’s acknowledgement that the transport facilities available to inspectors for duty travel are inadequate and need to be improved. It requests the Government to provide information on developments in the working conditions of labour inspectors (number, geographical distribution, occupation and state of offices; office equipment, communication media; equipment for technical investigations; transport facilities, arrangements for reimbursing travel expenses and other incidental expenses).

Article 3, paragraph 2. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. With regard to the many duties entrusted to labour inspectors and their impact on the performance of their primary duties, the Committee notes that a study on the workload of the territorial directorates was undertaken as part of a project to improve the labour inspection system. The Committee notes with interest that the Government is envisaging the possibility, in the context of future legislative reforms, of reassigning some of the duties of labour inspectors to other public employees and of setting up a special conciliation mechanism. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to inform the ILO of the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors in future devote most of their working time to discharging their primary duties, with priority being given to inspections, and that their results will be reflected in relevant statistical information.

Article 5(b). New arrangements for inspecting conditions of work with the collaboration of the social partners. The Committee notes that 18 so-called “improvement” or “management” agreements were concluded in 2007 between employers and workers under the supervision and monitoring of inspectors in certain sectors, including construction, transport and security enterprises. As the Government indicates that such agreements aim to improve compliance with their respective obligations of employers and workers, the Committee requests it to provide information on their content and on the practical arrangements for implementing them, and to send copies of them to the ILO.

Article 18. Adequate and effectively enforced penalties. With regard to measures to curb the evasion of social security contributions, the Government states that the labour inspectorate is to have information tools such as the single form for the integrated recovery of all contributions due from enterprises, employers or self-independent workers to social security administrators and parafiscal bodies (PILA). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the impact of the introduction of this procedure in terms of fulfilment of social security-related obligations. It also asks the Government to provide figures showing contraventions reported and penalties imposed for failure to comply with social security obligations.

Associated work cooperatives (CTAs), subcontracting and increasing precarity of work. According to the Government, the CTA concept has produced a proliferation of entities in which employment relations are concluded in breach of the labour legislation, as abusive and flexible working conditions have undermined the very concept and purpose of cooperatives. It cites instances of employers dismissing workers and setting up cooperatives that the latter are invited to join, and other instances of enterprises circumventing their obligations as employers by creating CTAs, both in the private and public sectors. However, the Government states that measures have been taken to remedy the situation, particularly as regards social coverage, by establishing proper supervision. It cites in this connection Decree No. 4588 of 2006 which regulates the organization, operation and inspection of CTAs. In the last quarter of 2007 and the first half of 2008, a total of 875 cooperatives and 22 pre-cooperatives were brought into conformity with the above Decree. In 2007, 113 penalties, amounting to 268,453,400 pesos, were imposed on cooperatives acting as intermediaries or temporary service enterprises, for evasion of social security contributions, and six penalties amounting to 291,821,800 pesos were imposed on pre-cooperatives. In the Government’s view, the establishment of CTAs must be regarded as a legitimate and effective means of creating jobs and as being of particular benefit to the unemployed, displaced and marginal persons, and enterprises in difficulty or that are restructuring. It is planning to set up an information system on cooperatives, including data on all cooperatives and pre-cooperatives in the country, pursuant to the above Decree No. 4588, as amended and supplemented, so as to prevent the abuse of such associations.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 133 of its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection concerning the meaning and scope of Article 3, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention, which provides that labour inspectors shall bring to the notice of the competent authority defects or abuses not specifically covered by existing legal provisions. In the Committee’s view, the deterioration in the working conditions of a large number of workers, many of whom are women, would be ample reason for entrusting to inspectors the task of conducting an inquiry into the employment relationships that exist between those giving instructions or receiving goods and services produced by the CTAs and the workers of the CTAs. Any defects or abuse affecting these workers could thus be identified and improvements introduced in the legislation on conditions of work and the protection of workers in the performance of their work. The Committee hopes that labour inspectors will shortly be entrusted with such an investigation to enable the law to keep pace with new situations in the world of work such as the relationship in which CTAs are subordinate to the enterprises for which they produce goods and services outside any form of work contract. The Government is asked to provide information, together with copies of any texts giving effect to Article 3, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention.

The Committee also asks the Government to inform the ILO of its views on the unions’ proposals on this matter.

Article 14. Notification to labour inspectors of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee has on several occasions asked the Government to take steps to ensure that effect is given to this Article of the Convention. Since it has sent no relevant information on this matter, the Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that effect is given in law and practice to this important provision of the Convention as an essential requirement for the development of a policy for the prevention of occupational risks. It firmly hopes that relevant information on this matter will be sent with the Government’s next report.

Article 13. Preventive occupational safety and health measures in high-risk activities. Information available at the ILO shows that in recent years there have been serious accidents in the mining sector, including fatal accidents in February 2007 in the coal mines of San Roque and La Preciosa en Sardinata in the Department of Norte de Santander, and at Gámeza in the Department of Boyacá. As the Government announced that priority will be given to preventing occupational risks by targeting activities and establishments in which workers face serious risks to their health and safety, the Committee requests it to indicate the measures taken to this end. Please indicate in particular whether measures have been taken to identify the risk factors responsible for the above accidents and the means to eliminate them, and to provide any relevant information. If such measures have not been taken, the Committee urges the Government to take measures rapidly to protect the workers concerned against the risk of serious accidents, and to keep the ILO duly informed.

Article 15(c). Principle of the confidentiality of the source of complaints. The Committee notes once again that the Government has not sent the information requested on the existence of a legal basis ensuring that labour inspectors comply with the principle of the confidentiality of the source of complaints. It once again urges the Government to take steps rapidly to supplement the legislation to ensure the confidentiality of complaints so as to protect workers from reprisals, to keep the ILO informed and to provide any relevant laws or bills.

Articles 20 and 21. Annual inspection report. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the obligation on the central inspection authority to publish and communicate to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20 of the Convention, an annual report on the work of the inspection services containing the information required by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 21. The Committee firmly hopes that, with the international cooperation currently under way to reinforce the labour inspectorate, the Government will not fail to take the necessary steps to ensure that full effect is given to these Articles of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would in any event provide information on all developments in this area, including any problems encountered.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government on other matters.

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

1. Impact of the reorganization of the labour administration on the functioning of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the action undertaken and envisaged in relation to the reorganization of the labour administration as a whole. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the impact of this action on the effectiveness of the labour inspectorate in terms of cooperation with other bodies in the labour administration, collaboration with the social partners and the volume and quality of the activities of the inspectorate.

2. Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide information concerning developments in the situation following the freezing of the recruitment of public servants and on the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors recruited in the context of the restrictions imposed in view of the economic situation.

3. Article 14. Notification to labour inspectors of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests the Government to take measures to ensure that the labour inspectorate is notified of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease.

4. Article 15(c). Principle of the confidentiality of the source of any complaint. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments on this issue and emphasizes once again the necessity of a legal guarantee of the principle of the confidentiality of the source of any complaint. It therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the principle of the confidentiality of the source of any complaint and the prohibition upon inspectors from revealing to the employer or her or his representative that a visit of inspection was made in consequence of a complaint.

5. Articles 19, 20 and 21. Annual inspection report. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning, among other matters, the number of enterprises registered and workers therein, the number of inspections undertaken by territorial directorates, the number of complaints received and the number of enterprises penalized. The Committee requests the Government to draw the attention of the central labour inspection authority to the guidance provided in Part IV of Recommendation No. 81 concerning the manner in which the information required by Article 21 may be presented in the annual report to serve as a basis for evaluating the operation of the labour inspectorate and the extent to which the legislation subject to its supervision is applied, and in determining appropriate measures for improvement. The Committee hopes that an annual labour inspection report will soon be prepared, that it will be published and communicated to the ILO in accordance with Article 20 and that it will contain the information required on each of the matters covered by Article 21 so that the social partners can be informed and offer relevant suggestions.

Finally, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of Ruling No. 10728 of 22 August 1996 of the Council of State, which it describes as being related to application of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report on the application of the Convention for the period from 1 July 2004 to 31 August 2006, containing its replies to the Committee’s previous comments and forwarding a copy of resolution No. 004283 of the Ministry of Social Protection. The Committee also notes the Government’s replies received on 16 February 2006 to the comments made by the Confederation of Workers of Colombia (CTC), received by the ILO on 31 August 2005 and relating to freedom of association. The Committee refers in this respect to the Tripartite Agreement concluded by the delegation of Colombia to the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference in June 2006, the objectives of which include shedding light on violations of the freedom and life of workers and trade union leaders, giving new impetus to the ILO’s principles with a view to giving effect to fundamental labour rights and affirming the implementation of ILO policies with emphasis on concerted action, social dialogue, collective bargaining and the right of association. The Committee expresses the firm hope that this agreement will contribute to achieving the objectives established and requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of any development in relation to the application of the Convention.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain matters.

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Articles 3, paragraph 2, and 16 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest that the number of inspections increased, rising from 6,692 in 2000 to 10,811 in 2003. However, noting that the inspection function is not separate from the function of conciliation and that the activities of labour inspectors are focused on the resolution of disputes, the Committee hopes that the Government will ensure that measures are taken to enable labour inspectors to devote the majority of their working time to their principal functions, as set out in the Convention.

Article 5. Please indicate the measures adopted in the framework of the new Ministry of Social Protection to promote effective cooperation between the inspection services and other government services and public or private institutions engaged in similar activities (clause (a)), and collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations (clause (b)).

Articles 6 and 10. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide the information requested in its previous comments concerning developments in the situation following the freezing of the recruitment of public servants and on the status and conditions of service of labour inspectors recruited in the context of the restrictions imposed in view of the economic situation.

Articles 7 and 11. The Committee notes that the Special Inspection, Surveillance and Control Unit does not enjoy administrative, technical and financial autonomy and that the operation of the territorial directorates depends on the budget that is allocated to them annually by the Ministry of Social Protection. In its report under Convention No. 129, the Government indicates that a series of training seminars for labour inspectors is envisaged this year, but that all activities depend on the availability of resources. The Committee notes in this respect that, under section 43 of Decree No. 205 of 2003, the resources and possessions of the former Ministries of Labour and Social Security and of Health shall be transferred to the Ministry of Social Protection. It would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of the legal and practical arrangements for the implementation of this text and the resulting situation at the present time.

Further noting that the manual for inspectors is being updated, the Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the new manual once it has been published.

Article 14. With reference to its previous comments and emphasizing, as it has in paragraph 86 of its General Survey on labour inspection of 1985, that notifying the labour inspectorate of cases of employment accidents and occupational diseases is not an end in itself, but part of the more general aim of accident prevention, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would rapidly take measures to ensure that the labour inspectorate is notified of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease in such cases and in a manner as may be prescribed by national laws and regulations, and to provide information on any progress achieved in this respect.

Article 15(c). The Committee refers to its previous comments under Article 20(c) of Convention No. 129 on the necessity to guarantee a legal basis ensuring the principle of confidentiality of the source of any complaints, with a view to securing the effective protection of workers against any reprisals by employers and to prevent the fear of the revelation of their identity constituting an obstacle to the collaboration of workers with labour inspectors. The Committee notes that no information has been provided by the Government on this subject. It would be grateful if the Government would rapidly take the relevant measures to ensure compliance with the principle of the confidentiality of the source of complaints and the prohibition of inspectors revealing to the employer or her or his representative that a visit of inspection has been made in consequence of a complaint. It hopes that the Government will provide information showing that effect has been given to this provision of the Convention.

Articles 19, 20 and 21. The Committee notes the statistical tables (containing information disaggregated by territorial directorate) provided by the Government. It notes that these tables cover in particular strikes, complaints, conciliations, consultations, authorizations for work by young persons, complaints relating to young persons, applications for terminations, inspection visits, the number of enterprises penalized, administrative functions, administrative investigations, the amount of the fines imposed for infringements of the legislation relating to the general system of occupational risks and on employment accidents and cases of occupational disease resulting in permanent or partial incapacity, invalidity or death. Further noting from the Government’s report under Convention No. 129 that the central inspection authority does not issue an annual report on the activities of the labour inspection services, but that territorial directors submit quarterly reports to the Special Inspection, Surveillance and Control Unit containing, among other data, information on the enterprises inspected and penalized, the Committee requests the Government to ensure that the central authority discharges its obligations of the publication and communication to the ILO, within the time limits set forth in Article 20, of an annual inspection report containing information on each of the matters enumerated in Article 21.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also provide copies of Amendments No. C-096 of 1993 of the Constitutional Court, No. 14684 of 12 October 2000 of Chamber 2 of the Council of State and No. 10728 of 22 August 1996 of the Council of State, which it describes as relating to the application of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s partial responses to its previous comments, and the documentation provided in annex.

It notes in particular the merger, under the terms of Act No. 790 of 2002, of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the Ministry of Health into a single ministry called the Ministry of Social Protection, the objectives, structure and functions of which are determined by Decree No. 205 of 3 February 2003. The Committee notes with interest that, under resolution No. 0004283, of 23 December 2003, determining the new jurisdiction of labour inspection offices, the jurisdictions of the labour inspectorates are redistributed so as to extend the coverage of the inspection services to the whole of the national territory and to improve their operation, as well as distributing resources on the basis of certain criteria, such as: the political and administrative divisions of the country; the number of municipalities per department; the size of the department; the total population, the working-age population and the economically active population; the unemployment rate; the underemployment rate; the number of enterprises; the distances between municipal areas; and the communication and transport facilities and workload.

The Committee notes that the labour inspection system is placed under the central authority of the new Ministry, that it is structured at the central level into the Special Inspection, Surveillance and Control Unit; at the regional level, into 32 territorial directorates distributed among the main towns of the department, with the possibility of creating special offices by ministerial decision on the basis of the political, economic and social needs in a specific region, and at the local level in municipal labour inspection offices, the headquarters and jurisdiction of which are to be determined by the Minister. According to the Government, in technical terms, the regional and local structures are under the responsibility of the Deputy Minister of Industrial Relations and, in administrative terms, the Special Inspection, Surveillance and Control Unit.

The Government is requested to provide information on the impact of the recent reorganization of the labour administration on the effectiveness of the activities of the labour inspectorate, together with copies of resolutions Nos. 002 and 0951 of 2003 of the Minister of Social Protection, which were referred to in the Government’s report, and of any other text adopted under Decree No. 205 relating to the subjects covered by the Convention.

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

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee reminds the Government of its request for information on the following points.

1. Noting that the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security was accompanied by the establishment of a special inspection, control and surveillance unit enjoying administrative and financial autonomy, but that the labour inspection services remained within the purview of the Ministry and depended in operational terms on the technical labour, employment and social security and occupational risks directorates, the Committee requested the Government to provide clarifications on the allocation of the budget for the provision of the vehicles and transport expenses required for travel by labour inspectors. The Government is once again requested to provide this information so as to enable the Committee to assess the manner in which effect is given to Article 11, paragraphs 1(b) and 2, of the Convention.

2. Noting the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the national directorate for the prevention of accidents, a number of bodies and institutions and the Ministry of Labour with a view to improving working conditions and occupational safety in the mining sector (Article 5(a)), the Committee also requested the Government to provide information on the application of this agreement in practice in so far as the labour inspectorate was associated with it, and to indicate the measures taken in practice, where appropriate, to promote collaboration between the staff of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to reply to this request so as to indicate the manner in which effect is given in practice to Article 5(b).

3. Noting the information in the Government’s report concerning the conclusion of a cooperation agreement between the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and the Office for the Defence of the People, two institutions with the responsibility of developing, with the support of municipalities, programmes to monitor and control the application of labour and social security provisions, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the implementation of the action undertaken in accordance with this agreement, and on the role entrusted to labour inspectors for the achievement of the common objective.

4. Noting that the economic situation required, on the one hand, the freezing of recruitment of public servants and, on the other hand, adoption of the provisional measure of the recruitment of officials under contract, the Committee requests the Government to keep the ILO informed of developments in the situation with regard to the status and numbers of labour inspectors already employed and those recruited in the context of these restrictions.

5. Finally, with reference to the provisions of Act No. 100 of 1993 establishing the integrated safety system under which industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease must be notified to the bodies responsible for the management of occupational risks, the Committee requests the Government to specify the bodies in question and indicate the cases and conditions under which it is envisaged in the national legislation, in accordance with Article 14, that the labour inspectorate shall be notified of the above accidents and diseases.

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

1. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction that the supervision of trade union activities entrusted to labour inspectors by section 41 of Legislative Decree No. 2351 of 1965, which is in contradiction with Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, has been abolished by section 20 of Act No. 584 of 13 June 2000 repealing and amending certain provisions of the Labour Code.

2. The Committee nevertheless notes that the principal activities carried out by labour inspectors remain conciliation in the context of labour disputes and a certain number of other activities not closely related to the principal duties that should be assigned to them in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1. Labour inspectors, whose numbers do not appear to have increased according to statistics for the year 2000, undertook 64,985 conciliation procedures, not including attempted conciliations, but only carried out 6,692 workplace inspections, including inspections related to occupational safety and health. Each inspector would have therefore carried out only 24.5 inspections, compared with 238 conciliations during the above period. The Committee would be grateful if the Government envisages taking the necessary measures to ensure that inspectors in future devote most of their working time to their principal duties relating to the application of the legislation, with priority being given to the inspections which, in accordance with Article 16, they should undertake as often and as thoroughly as possible. It trusts that the Government will not fail to provide the ILO with information in this respect and that the results of the relevant measures will be reflected in the near future in statistical data on the work of the labour inspectors in accordance with the letter and spirit of the above provisions of the Convention.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.

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

The Committee notes the detailed report provided by the Government, and the attached documentation.

The Committee notes with interest Decree No. 1128 of 29 June 1999, restructuring the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and establishing a special inspection, supervision and monitoring unit under the Ministry, which enjoys administrative and financial autonomy. It also notes that the labour inspection services come hierarchically under the Ministry of Labour and Social Security and functionally under the technical directorates of labour, employment, social security and employment injury. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which the budget for the labour inspectorate is administered, particularly in relation to the vehicles and reimbursements necessary for travel by labour inspectors.

The Committee also notes with interest that, under Act No. 443 of 1998, the administrative careers of public officials are now governed by a technical system of personnel administration and that this system will have the advantage of safeguarding them from political influence and the consequences of any change of government. The Committee hopes that, by ensuring the authority of the inspectors in relation to the social partners, the new provisions will have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the labour inspectorate.

The Committee notes that the principal activity of the inspection services consists largely of resolving labour disputes and that a certain number of other functions are entrusted to labour inspectors in addition to the primary duties set out in Article 3, paragraph 1. It notes in particular with a certain concern the information provided by the Government concerning the right of labour inspectors to enter any trade union meeting at any time without prior notice. The Committee emphasizes that the objective of labour inspection, in accordance with Article 3, is to secure the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and it therefore considers that the exercise of the powers referred to above by labour inspectors is in no way justified and, indeed, is liable to compromise gravely the development of the climate of confidence which should prevail between inspectors and workers. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would take the necessary measures to amend the national legislation on this point and to indicate in its next report the manner in which, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 2, it ensures that the exercise of such functions by labour inspectors is not such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers.

The Committee notes that, in accordance with Article 5(a), a cooperation agreement has been concluded between the national directorate for the prevention of accidents, a number of other bodies and institutions and the Ministry of Labour with a view to improving conditions of work and occupational safety in the mining sector. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the effect given in practice to this agreement in so far as the labour inspectorate is associated with it and to indicate whether practical measures have also been taken, as envisaged by point (b) of the above Article, to promote collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations.

Article 8. The Committee notes with interest the information provided under Convention No. 129 indicating the significant proportion of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which effect is given to this Article under which, where necessary, special duties may be assigned to men and women inspectors.

Noting that under Decree No. 1128 of 1999, the special inspection, supervision and monitoring unit is responsible, among other matters, for supervising and monitoring the employment injury prevention services, and with reference to its general observation of 1996 under the Convention, the Committee reminds the Government that the ILO publication entitled Recording and notification of occupational accidents and diseases (1996) contains practical guidelines on the compilation, registration and communication of reliable data in this respect. It hopes that the Government will not fail to use it as a basis when preparing texts to be issued under the above provision of Decree No. 1128 and that it will provide information in its next report on the progress achieved.

Finally, the Committee requests the Government to provide regularly in future annual reports on the inspection services, the publication and transmission of which are required under Article 20, containing information on the subjects enumerated in points (a) to (g) of Article 21.

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

The Committee would be grateful if the following information were provided in the next report.

Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Please indicate what measures are taken to ensure that labour-management conciliation duties entrusted to labour inspectors do not interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties.

Article 5(a). Please describe what measures are taken to ensure effective cooperation between the inspection services and other government services, particularly as regards the National Institute of Health and the Ministry of Health.

Articles 6 and 11(b). (1) The Committee notes that the desired transport facilities have not been provided for inspectors; reliance is sometimes placed on enterprises or unions. Please indicate any progress made so that reliance is not placed upon employers or workers' organisations for their transport. (2) The Committee notes from the report on Convention No. 129 that not all members of the labour inspectorate are career officials. Please clarify how the stability and independence of all inspection staff are ensured in these circumstances.

Article 14. The Committee notes that industrial accidents and occupational diseases are not always notifed to the Ministry of Labour. Please indicate any measures proposed to ensure that inspectors are duly notified and can thus exercise their functions correctly.

Article 15(c). Further to previous comments, the Committee notes the statement that the principle of confidentiality referred to in this Article is observed in practice. The Government also refers (for the first time) to Decree No. 1489 of 1952. Please indicate whether this Decree applies to labour inspectors and the labour inspectorate, and provide a full copy.

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

Articles 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes the labour statistics provided in Bulletin No. 33-34 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, which covers 1988 but only partially responds to the requirements of the Convention. The Bulletin indicates that the number of inspection visits made decreased in 1988, and most were in the commercial sector (excluded by Colombia from its acceptance of the Convention). The number of violations of legislation reported was also lower.

The Committee recalls the Convention's requirement that workplaces should be inspected as often and as thoroughly as necessary; and the importance of compiling annual reports on the activities of the inspection services containing detailed information on all the subjects required by the Convention, so that the manner in which the Convention is being applied can be appreciated. It once again expresses the hope that remedial measures will be taken by the Government.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government concerning application of Articles 3, paragraph 2; 5(a); 6 and 11(b); 7; 14; 15(c).

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

Article 15(c) of the Convention. In its reply to the Committee's comments, the Government asks how effect can be given to this provision of the Convention without infringing the rights of the public, deriving from Act No. 57 of 1985 respecting the public nature of official acts and documents.

The Committee notes that, under section 12 of the above Act, all persons have the right to consult official documents provided that access to them is not restricted by law. Since the non-fulfilment by labour inspectors of their fundamental obligation to treat as confidential the source of any complaint that has prompted a visit of inspection could have particularly serious consequences for the workers (see the General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection, paragraphs 201 and 202), the Committee trusts that the Government will shortly take the necessary measures to make this obligation statutory.

Article 16. The Committee wishes to point out yet again that, in the absence of any information on the number of workplaces liable to inspection, it is unable to ascertain the extent to which effect is given to this provision of the Convention on the basis of statistics of the workplaces inspected, published in the periodical bulletins transmitted by the Government. Consequently, it again requests the Government to provide all the necessary information in its next report to enable it to assess the extent to which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

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

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes that under section 57(9) of Decree No. 1422 of 1989 concerning the restructuring of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the General Inspection Directorate is responsible for collecting, processing and analysing information on inspection work at national and regional levels. Accordingly, the Committee hopes that it will be possible for annual reports on the activities of the inspection services containing detailed information on all the subjects listed at Article 21 to be published and transmitted to the International Labour Office within the period laid down at Article 20.

The Committee is also addressing a direct request to the Government concerning the application of Articles 15(c) and 16 of the Convention.