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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 5(a), 13 and 17 of the Convention. Necessary balance between an informative/advisory approach and the use of coercive authority by labour inspectors to enforce the legislation. Cooperation with judicial bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it regards the provision of information and advice on safety and health as an important duty. The Government mentions, however, that the relatively low number of violation reports actually written and transmitted is a problem, in particular because the risk of a penal sanction must remain credible. In the Government’s view, it is advisable to pursue efforts to improve coordination between the labour inspectorate and public prosecutors in the interests of gaining precise knowledge of the fate of proceedings instituted. The Committee nonetheless notes in this connection that in 2009, the number of violation reports concerning offences relating to illegal work was still very high in comparison with the number of violation reports relating to occupational safety and health matters (37.5 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively), yet the former relate to a duty which is not among the primary duties of labour inspectors as defined in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government in its next report to describe the measures taken to encourage better cooperation between the labour inspectorate and judicial bodies particularly as regards the action taken on violation reports issued on safety and health matters.

Articles 3, 10, 11 and 16. Labour inspection staff and performance of inspection duties. Guyana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St Pierre and Miquelon and Reunion. The Committee notes with interest that, as part of the plan to modernize and develop the labour inspectorate, posts have been created in the abovementioned non-metropolitan territories (one labour inspector’s post in Guyana, two posts in Guadeloupe, four labour controllers’ posts in Martinique, two labour inspectors’ posts and two controllers’ posts in Réunion and one labour controller’s post in St Pierre and Miquelon). The Committee notes however that the post of regional medical inspector in Guyana is vacant. Furthermore, the Government indicates that local action plans set the priorities of the operational programme budget with a special focus on illegal work, collective disputes and occupational safety and health. The Government also mentions that the number of interventions in enterprises has dropped owing to the social crisis of 2009.

The Committee again reminds the Government that the primary duties of the labour inspectorate as defined in the Convention are to ensure enforcement of the legal provisions on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and that any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the performance of their primary duties, and asks the Government to indicate the total number of posts vacant in the non-metropolitan territories and the measures taken to ensure that they are filled as soon as possible. In addition, it asks the Government to send figures showing the share of labour inspectors’ activities devoted to further duties (combating illegal work and collective disputes) and the share of activities devoted to the primary duties of labour inspection.

The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the role entrusted to labour inspectors in implementing government measures adopted following the industrial action of February 2009 as concerns conditions of work in industrial and commercial establishments.

Article 5 and Part II of Recommendation No. 81. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and other public or private institutions carrying out similar activities, and collaboration with employers and workers or their organizations. The Committee notes with interest that the Directorate of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (DTEFP) of Martinique has indicated that there is coordination with the Regional Directorates of Industry, Research and Environment (DRIRE) for supervision of establishments classified as SEVESO high-threshold sites. It also notes with interest that that the DTEFP maintains regular contacts with the Regional Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ARACT), in particular for the purpose of setting up a regional inter-occupational joint committee. The Committee also notes with interest that the Réunion DTEFP has set up regional arrangements for social dialogue involving all representative trade unions, in particular for the purpose of devising partnership actions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the cooperation between the labour inspectorate and other public institutions, the results obtained and their effect on the activities of labour inspection services, and on the standard of working conditions. The Government is also asked to provide particulars of the arrangements made for collaboration between inspectors and employers and workers or their respective organizations.

Article 18. Legal action for obstructing a labour inspector in the performance of his duties. The Committee notes the conviction of the author of a minor assault against a labour controller in the performance of his duties notified by the Martinique DTEFP, and would be grateful if the Government would state whether the incident that gave rise to the conviction occurred during an inspection and, if so, to specify which area of the law was the subject of the inspection.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments. It notes with interest that, following repeated requests from the Committee, the Government is planning to take measures to have separate information on inspection work and its results supplied in its future reports and in the annual labour inspection report in relation to French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion and St Pierre and Miquelon, which are now treated as metropolitan France for the purposes of the ILO Constitution pursuant to the registration of a declaration to this effect dated 31 August 2009.

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

The Committee also notes the comments from the Single National Union – Work, Employment, Training – Professional Integration (SNU–TEF(FSU)) received at the International Labour Office on 6 July 2010, concerning the involvement of labour inspectors in joint operations to combat illegal work pursuant to “Inter-ministerial Circular No. NOR-IMIM1000102NC of 2 June 2010 to combat illegal work concerning foreign nationals – implementation of joint operations in 2010”. The circular provides for reinforcement of the inter‑institutional cooperation measures to combat illegal work on which the Committee commented previously. On 15 November 2010 the Government sent information to the Office concerning the matters raised by the SNU–TEF(FSU).

The Committee also notes a communication of 29 June 2010 from the Inter-Union Association (CGT–SUD–UNSA), expressing concern at the establishment of a labour inspection office on the premises of the Porto Vecchio (Corsica) Chamber of Trades because of the implications for the principle of independence that ought to govern the performance of inspection duties and the principle that access to inspectorate premises should be ensured for employees. The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the points raised.

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a), 6, 12, 15(c) and 17 of the Convention. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Mobilization of resources and incompatibility of inspection methods and the objectives pursued. In its replies to the Committee’s previous comments on the involvement of labour inspectors in operations carried out in workplaces jointly with officials whose job is to implement the policy to combat illegal immigration, the Government indicates that the allegations of the SNU–TEF(FSU) consist in a conflation of press articles, communications from trade unions and the relevant legislation. The Committee points out that it had undertaken a thorough analysis of the legislation and had found that the joint operations to combat illegal work by foreign workers in irregular status were not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and stressed the need for measures to remedy the situation and to enable labour inspectors to carry out their functions as defined by the Convention. The Committee observes that the Government has, on the contrary, adopted the circular of 2 June 2010.

The Committee notes that the circulars of 20 December 2006 and 7 July 2007 focus on preserving and respecting the professional identities in determining the role to be played by each administration in the joint operations to combat illegal work. This implies that labour inspectors should keep the responsibility of enforcing the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers, namely sections L.341-6-2, L.8258-1 and L.8252-2 of the Labour Code, which treat unlawfully employed foreign workers in the same way as lawfully employed workers in terms of the obligations incumbent on employers under labour regulations (pay, allowances, severance compensation). The circumstances and results of the joint operations show that the labour inspectors’ cooperation in many cases has the exact opposite effect and ends up exposing workers to a procedure of removal from France and the attendant withdrawal de facto of any right of challenge against the employers who broke the law by hiring them. This is established by Circular No. NOR-IMIM0800047C of 24 December 2008 and the abovementioned circular of 2 June 2010 concerning the results of the joint operations conducted in 2007 (out of 992 persons in an unlawful situation,
295 were expelled) and in 2009 (out of 1,116 workers taken in for questioning, 680 were issued with prefectural expulsion orders and 159 were actually expelled). The Committee notes the terms of the circular of 24 December 2008 according to which, even before a joint operation is launched, “it is important that all steps be taken at each of the levels involved (internal security service, prefectural aliens offices) to ensure that, where foreigners in an unlawful situation are apprehended, this leads to effective removal”. The Committee regrets that the circular of 2 June 2010 reproduces word for word these provisions which may negatively impact on “preserving and respecting” the professional identity of labour inspectors. The circular also emphasizes the logistical arrangements to be made upstream, such as pre-reservation in administrative detention centres when an operation is likely to lead to multiple arrests. The Committee notes that although this circular prescribes measures to ensure speedy procedures for the prosecution of offending employers, it contains no reference to the provisions of sections L.8258-1 and L.8252-2 of the Labour Code, which safeguard the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation who are victims of the offence of illegal employment. The Committee recalls that, under both the Convention and the national legislation, labour inspectors are to use their powers of injunction to get employers to fulfil their obligations towards workers. It also notes that the circulars make no reference to the rights of the workers affected by joint operations. This may lead to the denial of the right of these workers to apply to the labour courts and give rise to discrimination against them.

The Committee notes that in its report, in connection with this aspect of the offending circulars, the Government mentions Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 18 June 2009, which provides that member States must ensure the availability of effective procedures allowing workers in an irregular situation who have been returned, to introduce a claim seeking their entitlements or to enforce a judgement to that effect. In replying to the comments of the SNU–TEF(FSU), the Government specifies that the bill to transpose the European Directive makes the French Immigration and Integration Office (OFII) responsible for recovering and conveying to foreign nationals who have been illegally employed any amounts outstanding from their occupational activity. Since the bill has not been adopted, the Committee can only hope that it will become law shortly so as to strengthen those provisions of the legislation that already afford protection and non-discriminatory treatment to the foreign workers concerned (workers in the construction and public workers (BTP) sector, the hotels, café and restaurants (HCR) sector, the agricultural sector and the apparel sector).

According to the Government, labour inspectors are called on to cooperate in the joint operations in the interest of creating synergy between supervisory bodies responsible for the same type of offence defined in the Labour Code, and such cooperation is therefore fully consistent with Article 5 of the Convention. As to the impact of this activity on other inspection functions, the Government states that violation reports relating to the employment of foreigners with no work permit account for less than 4 per cent of all violation reports. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on the level of the penalties imposed on employers, in order to enable it to assess how dissuasive they are. The Committee recalls that the aim of the cooperation referred to in Article 5(a) is to strengthen the means available to inspectors to enforce the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers (Articles 2 and 3(1)), and that according to Article 12(1)(c)(i), labour inspectors should be empowered to carry out examinations alone or in the presence of witnesses (implied appointed freely by them). The Committee considers that they are not in a position to exercise this prerogative in joint operations, and their freedom to enter workplaces (with no need for a court authorization or an order from the public prosecutor) is used for purposes that are contrary to their functions.

The Committee is also of the view that the association of the police in labour inspection is not conducive to the relationship of trust needed to create the climate of confidence that is essential to enlisting the cooperation of employers and workers with labour inspectors. It must be possible for inspectors to be feared for their authority to report offences, and at the same time to be respected and approachable as preventers and advisers.

The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to provide information so that it can assess the manner in which it is ensured, in accordance with section L.341-6-1 of the Labour Code, that foreign workers in an irregular status benefit from the same protection by the labour inspectorate as other workers, and to provide in so far as possible relevant statistics (number of complaints filed and convictions of employers to regularize their situation with regard to the workers’ rights, as well as the status of procedures for the enforcement of such decisions).

The Committee also, once again, urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the powers of inspectors to enter workplaces liable to inspection are not misused for the implementation of joint operations to combat illegal immigration.

The Committee also requests the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors are notified of cases of immigrants in an irregular status, who are apprehended outside a workplace and are engaged in a labour relationship covered by the Convention.

The Committee notes the creation on 1 December 2008 in French Guiana of a service to combat illegal work (SLTI). It notes with concern that despite the small size of the inspection staff (4.5 for the whole department), two of its members (one inspector and one controller) and an administrative secretary are assigned on a full-time basis to implement the local policy to combat illegal work formulated by the Select Committee to Combat Illegal Work (CORELTI) and the provision of secretariat services for CORELTI, whose membership comprises the police, gendarmerie, customs and fiscal authorities.

Although the Government asserts that the SLTI’s work in combating illegal work is focused on the inspection duties defined in the Labour Code, the figures supplied are insufficient to show what proportion of supervisory duties (547 inspection visits) accounted for enforcement of the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers: the information that there were 28 decisions to close down sites, 295 written observations and 36 violation reports does not allow a distinction to be drawn between action linked to the reporting of offences of illegal employment and action linked to the reporting of offences against the provisions covered by the Convention. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to take the necessary steps to enable all the labour inspection staff of French Guyana to carry out their inspection functions that relate to enforcement of the legal provisions on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. It would be grateful if, in support of the relevant information, the Government would provide detailed statistics of the activities of the labour inspectorate in the department.

Article 10. Strength and composition of the labour inspectorate staff in relation to development functions and the complexity of the legislation. The Committee notes with interest that between 2006 and 2009, 452 student inspectors were promoted and 923 probationary controllers were trained. It also notes that of the 60 posts for labour inspectors and the 100 posts for labour controllers created in 2009, most are controller posts.

Articles 5(a) and 7(3). Effective cooperation between the inspection services and other government services and public or private institutions, and training for inspectors in the prevention of occupational risks. The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning Réunion in which it asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the frequency of industrial accidents and instances of occupational disease, particularly in work noted as having a high risk potential. The Committee notes in this connection that in September 2007 ten inspectors received training in the field of chemical risks and that pursuant to a partnership agreement signed in 2005, the Directorate of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (DTEFP) of Réunion belongs to a prevention network (whose membership includes the National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions – ANACT –, the General Fund for social security, the occupational health services). Furthermore, it notes with interest that improving occupational safety and health, particularly in the construction and public works sector and in the area of chemical risks, was one of the main objectives set for the labour inspectorate for 2008 and that a regional occupational health plan has been in preparation since October 2007.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made by virtue of cooperation between the abovementioned players in the area of occupational risk prevention and the labour inspection sections of Réunion. In particular, the Government is asked to provide information on the training that labour inspectors received in the area of occupational safety and health, on progress in the regional occupational health project and the missions and activities conducted by labour inspectors in this connection and their impact on the frequency of industrial accidents and occurrences of occupational disease.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(c). Independence of labour inspectors, accessibility of their premises to all concerned. With regard to the concern expressed by the Inter-Union Association (CGT–SUD–UNSA) that the labour inspectorate has its office on the premises of the Chamber of Trade of Porto Vecchio (Corsica), the Committee notes that according to the above organization, the premises are so designed that fear of being seen by their employers could dissuade workers from going to the labour inspectorate. The Government, for its part, states that the establishment of a labour inspection section in Porto Vecchio is recent and that it was because there were no other options that the inspectorate was housed in the premises of the Chamber of Trades, which is a public establishment. The Government adds that the questions raised about this location are being thoroughly investigated by the Directorate General of Labour, and a decision will be taken when inquiries are completed. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the results of the abovementioned investigation, and asks it in any event to take the necessary steps to ensure that labour inspectors are independent of any improper external influences and that workers are able to enter the Porto Vecchio section freely.

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

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

Article 22 of the ILO Constitution and Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Manner in which effect is given to reporting obligations. With reference to its observation and noting the Government’s statement that its previous report concerned metropolitan France, the overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Guyana, Martinique and Réunion) and the territorial community of St Pierre and Miquelon, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to indicate the manner in which it was envisaged that the statistics required by clauses (c)–(g) of Article 21 were to be published and communicated to the ILO separately so as to allow an assessment of the application of the Convention in each of these departments. The Committee notes that the report provided in September 2008 under this Convention also contains in annex the report on its application in French Guyana. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to ensure in future that the annual report on the work of the inspection services provides separately for each of the above non-metropolitan territories the information required by Article 21, as well as information on the impact of measures to strengthen the supervisory personnel in light of the number and type of inspections, particularly in small establishments. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the benefits expected from the implementation of the plan to modernize the labour inspectorate in relation to the non-metropolitan territories.

Protection of the health of the labour inspectors and controllers during certain visits. The Committee notes with interest in the annual inspection report for 2005 that, to prevent the risks of cancer to which inspection staff indicated they were exposed during controls related to the legislation respecting asbestos, the latter have been provided with specific training and the support of newly established pluri-disciplinary units (prevention engineers and physician-inspectors).

Articles 3, paragraph 1(a) and (b), 13 and 17. The necessary balance between an advisory approach and use of powers of enforcement by labour inspectors to ensure compliance with the legislation. According to the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training and Professional Integration
(SNU-TEF (FSU)), for many years the labour inspectorate has too frequently been invited to adopt an advisory approach to enterprises, and is almost never called upon to implement its powers of enforcement. The Committee notes that the situation described in recent annual reports (2005 and 2006) shows a significant increase in the number of criminal prosecutions and convictions, particularly against employers for violations in the field of occupational safety and health. However, the Committee notes that, according to the statistical tables for 2006, the number of rulings handed down in cases of illegal employment and work (506) is higher than those relating to safety and health (478) and it observes that, according to the Government, in 2007 the labour inspectorate participated in 31,000 controls in the context of the national action plan to combat illegal work. The report for 2006 also deplores the fact that “inspections in enterprises represent less than half of the working time of officials responsible for controls” (page 146). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to ensure that inspectors are able to use the full range of their powers, prerogatives and functions, as prescribed by the Convention, in the manner in which they consider most effective to secure the application of legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers in workplaces liable to inspection.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reports received by the Office on 23 November 2007 and 8 September 2008, and the additional information received in January 2008 concerning the matters raised by the General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière (CGT-FO) in 2002 and the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training (SNU-TEF (FSU)) between 2005 and 2006.

It also notes the annual report of the labour inspectorate for 2006.

Structural developments. The Committee notes with interest the designation in 2006 of the General Directorate of Labour (DGT) of the Ministry of Employment, Social Cohesion and Housing as the central labour inspection authority and the establishment by Decree No. 2007-279 of 2 March 2007 of a National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT) entrusted with contributing to ensuring “the discharge of the functions and guarantees of labour inspection as set out in ILO Conventions Nos 81 and 129”.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Annual report on the work of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes with satisfaction the quality of the annual report covered by these provisions. In addition to detailed descriptions and numerous statistical tables on each of the subjects covered by Article 21, the report also contains forward-looking comments.

The Committee notes with particular interest, in relation to a concern expressed by the CGT-FO, the inclusion in the annual inspection report of very detailed data, based on numerous criteria, on the causes of employment accidents and cases of occupational disease and the measures taken in a number of fields to achieve a significant reduction in their incidence (with particular reference to commuting accidents, accidents caused by cranes, diseases related to asbestos, substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic in respect of reproduction, as well as aircraft paints).

Article 10. Numbers and composition of the labour inspection personnel in relation to development functions and the complexity of the legislation.  The Committee notes with interest the plan for the modernization of the labour inspectorate, which envisages a substantial increase in numbers and a reinforcement of the qualifications of inspection officials between 2006 and 2010 (an additional 240 inspectors, 420 controllers and 40 engineers and physicians). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the distribution of the inspection personnel trained and recruited under this plan, by grade and by function, in light of the duties defined in Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

Articles 6 and 18. Support from the public authorities and the judicial system for inspection officials exposed to physical aggression and threats. The Committee notes with interest the positive message sent out by the ruling of 9 March 2007 convicting a farmer to a sentence of 30 years of imprisonment for the murder in 2004 of two inspection officials engaged in the discharge of their duties. According to the Government, support by the authorities for inspection officials is now a major part of the plan for the development and modernization of the inspectorate (in its legal, judicial and psychological aspects), and the central inspection authority is moreover closely involved in the work undertaken on this subject by the Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC).

Articles 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, 5(a), 6, 12, 15(c) and 17. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Mobilization of resources and incompatibility in light of control methods and the objectives pursued. With regard to the association of the labour inspectorate, under the terms of the Decree of 12 May 2005 and various subsequent circulars, with operations to combat the employment of illegal foreign residents, which the SNU-TEF (FSU) considers to be a violation of the Convention, the Government criticizes the union for a restrictive interpretation of the Convention. The Government refers to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1973, under the terms of which a treaty shall be interpreted “… in light of its object and purpose”, and accordingly considers that there is no discrepancy, but indeed synergy between the logic of protecting workers when engaged in their work and that of combating the employment of foreign nationals without a work permit. The Government also refers to the points of view expressed by the Committee in its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, according to which it is the labour inspectorate that is responsible for verifying whether the conditions in which the contract of employment is concluded and fulfilled comply with the applicable provisions, in particular in the case of vulnerable workers, such as young persons or people with certain disabilities (paragraph 76). The Committee is bound to specify in this respect that the basic idea behind this position was that it is because of a vulnerability related to physical, mental or psychological criteria that the employment of such persons is considered by Article 3, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention as forming part of conditions of work and therefore comes within the legal competence of the labour inspectorate. With regard to the supervision of provisions relating to clandestine or illegal employment, paragraph 77 of the General Survey indicates that neither Convention No. 81 nor Convention No. 129 contain any provisions suggesting that any worker be excluded from the protection afforded by labour inspection on account of their irregular employment status. With the exception of the employment of vulnerable workers, as indicated above, the functions of the labour inspectorate, as defined by the two Conventions, are intended to secure conditions of work that are in accordance with the relevant legal requirements and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and not the lawful nature of their employment. From the same viewpoint, the annual report of the labour inspectorate for 2005 describes activities in the field of employment as not coming within the competence of the labour inspectorate, within the meaning of Convention No. 81 (second part, III, page 31), while the report for 2006 specifies that the issues covered by the concept of “conditions of work” concern the conditions and environment in which work is performed (page 61). Recalling that the principal function of labour inspection is not to enforce immigration law and emphasizing that the human and other resources available to inspection services are not unlimited, the Committee has observed that the volume of inspection activities devoted to conditions of work appears to be diminished in relation to those concerning the legal status of workers under immigration law (General Survey, paragraph 78). According to the Government’s report, in the sole year of 2007, the labour inspectorate participated in 31,000 controls in the context of the plan to combat illegal work. The SNU-TEF (FSU) criticizes the Government for associating labour inspectors with joint operations intended to identify and apprehend illegal foreign residents at their place of work. Under the terms of the relevant circulars, whether they are employers or employees, the principal administrative measure imposed is to accompany them to the border, which has the consequence for employees of denying their rights arising out of their capacity as wage earners, in contradiction with the objective of labour inspection of affording protection and contrary to national legislation, under which the offence of illegal employment can only be levelled against the employer, as the workers concerned are in principle considered to be victims (section L.314‑6-1 of the Labour Code). The Committee considered in the above paragraph of its General Survey that, to be compatible with the objective of labour inspection, the function of verifying the legality of employment should have as its corollary the reinstatement of the statutory rights of all workers, and it advocated caution in any collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the immigration authorities (paragraph 161). The Committee notes in this respect that Interministerial Circular No. 21 of 20 December 2006 limits the scope of cooperation by the labour inspectorate to the extent necessary for the effective implementation of the rights of unlawfully employed workers, and that it refers explicitly to Article 17 of the Convention respecting the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Circular adds that the notion of “competence” in relation to labour inspection relates principally to the effective implementation of the rights of illegally employed workers. It also refers to the “complimentary and concordant clarifications in this respect” contained in the above General Survey. However, the Committee wishes to observe that the fact that inspectors are incorporated into the ranks of and directed by officials from public bodies other than their own central authority, as defined in Article 4 of the Convention, to undertake joint operations the purpose of which is incompatible with the objective of labour inspection constitutes a transgression of the principle of independence set out in the Convention (Article 6) and undermines the right of decision referred to above, as well as the principle of confidentiality as to the source of complaints (Article 15(c)). It also results in an important limitation on the powers of inspectors to initiate and carry out inspections in workplaces (Article 12, paragraph 2(c)(i) and (ii)) and subordinates action related to the priorities of the central labour inspection authority to those of the authorities combating illegal immigration.

Interministerial Circular No. 10 of 7 July 2008, provided by the Government with its report, orders the renewal in 2008 of joint operations to combat the employment of illegal foreigners and hidden work. While referring to the principles recalled in the Circular of 20 December 2006, it nevertheless indicates that the organization of these joint operations forms part of the activities of the labour inspection services under the aegis of the operational committees to combat illegal work and it recommends that the involvement of labour inspection services in interministerial action to combat the illegal employment of foreigners should be strong, “visible and identified”. The Committee notes the indignation of the SNU-TEF (FSU) at the role imposed upon the labour inspectorate and its officials in the implementation of operations carried out on the basis of “personal appearance” according to “a purely police logic”. The SNU-TEF (FSU) provides abundant documentation in support of its allegations, including articles from the press and statements by associations of inspectors and controllers giving the reasons for their rejection of what they describe as activities which very seriously undermine the objective of labour inspection. The SNU-TEF (FSU) refers as an example of good practice in this respect to a European country in which the function of controlling illegal employment has been transferred from the labour inspectorate to another public authority, as a result of which inspectors have been reinstated in their principle duties, as defined by the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information so that it can assess the manner in which it is ensured, in accordance with section L.341-6-1 of the Labour Code, that illegal foreign workers benefit from the same protection by the labour inspectorate as other workers, and if it would provide in so far as possible relevant statistics (number of complaints, of employers ordered to bring their situation into compliance with their obligations and the status of procedures for the implementation of such orders).

The Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the powers of inspectors to enter workplaces liable to inspection are not misused for the implementation of joint operations to combat illegal immigration. It requests the Government to take measures, in accordance with Article 5(a) of the Convention, to promote collaboration by the services responsible for combating illegal immigration with labour inspection. These services could notify the labour inspectorate of cases of illegal immigrants apprehended outside a workplace but who are engaged in a labour relationship covered by the Convention. Labour inspectors would accordingly be in a position to ensure their protection in accordance with the powers conferred to them under the terms of the Convention and the Labour Code.

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

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. However, annual inspection reports for 2003 and 2004 were sent on 6 September 2005 and 24 April 2006, respectively. It notes the observations of 13 January and 22 November 2005 and 10 July 2006 by the Single National Union – Work Employment Training Integration – SNU-TEF (FSU). The Office sent the above observations to the Government on 2 March, 16 February and 4 September 2006, respectively.

In its observation of 13 January 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU) referred to a murderous assault in the Dordogne in September 2004 against two labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, and a similar incident in Brazil. The above organization expressed its concern at the emergence of violence on the part of employers in the country. It states that there has been some delay on the Government’s part in the prosecution of the above assault and that it has not reacted with operational decisions, particularly as regards strengthening the staff of the inspectorate. It also alleges glaring inadequacy in the numbers of inspectors in light of the extra work created by the complexity of the new legislation (particularly on working hours), the branch agreements and, above all, the enterprise agreements, which are often unclear, and the increase in the number of workplaces and workers covered. Furthermore, those most affected by the drop in the frequency of inspections are workers in small enterprises, where most wage earners are employed, and where the staff have no representation. This situation is impairing not only workers’ rights but also the working conditions of inspection staff: an inspection only once every ten years is conducive, in the organization’s view, to accidents in such enterprises. The organization expresses deep concern not only at the shortage of inspection staff, but at the consequences of the inspection campaign decided on by the Government after the State was found guilty by the Council of State of delay in responding to occupational risks arising from the use of asbestos. The campaign apparently targeted friable asbestos, was carried out over a period of 15 days and was “improvised”, with no serious preparation which meant that the inspectors themselves were exposed to carcinogenic risks. The organization also takes the Government to task for failing to react to employers’ publications on the Internet encouraging enterprises not to observe the legislation and encouraging certain employers’ federations to refuse any supervision by labour inspectors without a prior appointment. Pointing out that the supervisory aspects are only part of the phenomenon, the SNU-TEF (FSU) also alleges breach of Article 18 of the Convention, in that the judicial bodies apprised of incidents in the course of inspection pronounced convictions in only 20 per cent of the cases referred by inspectors. Lastly, it is the organization’s view that the legitimacy of the inspectorate’s supervisory duties must be restored as a matter of urgency.

The Committee notes in this connection that, in the annual inspection report for 2004, numerous departmental directorates report difficulties in following up the results of the court proceedings effectively.

On 22 November 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU) sent a further communication to the ILO referring to developments in the situation, linked to the Decree of 12 May 2005 establishing a central office to combat illegal work (OCLTI). The abovementioned office reports to the subdirectorate of the criminal police department of the gendarmerie nationale, overall coordination being the task of the criminal police central directorate. According to the Decree, the labour inspectorate is “associated with the activities of the office, as necessary” (section 1). The office intervenes at the request of the judicial authorities or units of the gendarmerie, the police, departments and branches of the other ministries concerned and social protection bodies whenever circumstances require (section 4). The office centralizes, analyses, uses and forwards to the national police and units of the gendarmerie nationale, and to the administrative departments and social protection bodies concerned, all information falling within its remit (section 5). According to section 6 of the Decree, the police, the gendarmerie, the Ministries of Labour, Health, Defence, the Economy, Equipment, Transport, and Agriculture, as well as the other administrative departments and social protection bodies concerned, are required to send to the OCLTI at the earliest possible date and in accordance with jointly established procedures, all information in their possession or of which they have knowledge concerning work-related offences, the perpetrators thereof and their accomplices. The SNU-TEF (FSU) appends to its observations a circular addressed to prefects by the Minister of Labour on 29 July 2005 on stepping up mobilization to combat illegal work, following a meeting on 27 July 2005 of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Immigration Control, chaired by the Minister of the Interior. The circular requires every department to organize, before 31 October 2005, at least one joint control operation involving all departments concerned, including the labour inspectorate, the tax and customs inspectorate, to inspect workplaces liable to be unlawfully occupied by undocumented foreigners. The circular makes it plain that “the priority given to supervising the employment of foreigners without legal status […] must not, of course, be to the detriment of other aspects of illegal work, including transnational fraud, […] or other categories of fraud (hidden work, the loan or barter of unlawful labour, breaches of the law on wages and working conditions in general), which are frequently associated with the employment of undocumented foreigners”.

According to the SNU-TEF (FSU), the circular talks of “involving the labour inspectorate in crackdowns on sites where foreigners are to be identified by their appearance”, following which foreigners with no work permits would be taken immediately to the border with no heed for the procedures allowing their status to be regularized or to the Labour Code, particularly section L 341-6-1, which treats undocumented workers as victims who have the entitlements of workers employed for remuneration (wages due, severance pay). The above organization has sent the ILO press articles reporting unrest following a joint operation that led to the arrest of foreigners. It refers to comments addressed to a country by the Committee in 2005 concerning the involvement of labour inspectors in the control of unlawful work by foreigners, in which the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Government had met its commitment to take the necessary measures to transfer the control of unlawful work to a body other than the labour inspectorate, so as to enable inspectors to carry out their main duties fully, in accordance with Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

Lastly, in observations sent on 10 July 2006 the SNU-TEF (FSU) reports what it sees as an aggravation of the situation: an inter-ministerial circular signed on 27 February 2006 ordering several joint operations every year. In the organization’s view, the circular violates the principles on which the action of the labour inspectorate is based, its ethics and the independence which the inspectorate must enjoy in order to perform its duties and which is embodied in the Convention. It would appear that all the organizations of employees of the Minister of Labour reacted immediately to resist what they see as a series of abuses resulting in the perversion of the inspectorate’s duties and to defend the culture and rights of inspectors by refusing to allow them to be associated with what they consider to be purely police operations to identify people by their appearance, with no heed for the fundamental logic of labour law, namely protection of the rights of wage earners, and in breach of Article 17 of the Convention, which gives labour inspectors discretion as to follow-up action and of Article 15(c), providing for confidentiality of the source of any complaints to the inspectorate.

The organization indicates that, at a national meeting of organizations held in Paris on 21 and 22 March 2006, 800 inspectors out of 1,800 voted in favour of a motion to reject in its entirety the current policy on the work of foreigners, and in favour of notifying a national strike.

The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to send information replying to its observation of 2004 together with any comments it may deem useful regarding the matters raised by the SNU-TEF (FSU).

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

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the following information provided in reply to the comments made by the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière (CGT-FO), dated 18 February 2002.

1. Delays in the publication of annual labour inspection reports. Efforts are being made so that in future the report is communicated earlier. The 2002 report should already have been available since July 2004, while the 2003 report should be transmitted in February/March 2005.

2. Staff of the inspectorate (Article 10 of the Convention); material resources (Article 11); and number and frequency of inspections (Article 16). The staff and material resources, particularly in terms of information technology and transport, available to inspection personnel are continually progressing. However, while the absolute number of inspections is increasing, their frequency in relation to the workplaces liable to inspection has in practice been considerably reduced over the past two decades, with the ratios (of theoretical value) having fallen between 1987 and 2002 from one inspection every two years to one inspection every 4.2 years for workplaces with 50 or more workers and from one inspection every 4.6 years to one inspection every 20 years for workplaces with fewer than 50 workers. The Government explains the objective reasons for this trend, which include: the regular increase in the number of workplaces to be covered; a relative stagnation in the number of inspection units; the increasing volume and complexity of the legislation covered and the increase in the number of collective agreements; the weakening of staff representation, leading to a multiplication of individual claims; and the reduction of the working week to 35 hours. The Government nevertheless indicates a significant increase in the number of coordinated activities involving inspection staff.

3. Causes of industrial accidents at high-risk workplaces. The procedure established for the notification of industrial accidents results in certain accidents, which are not classified as being serious, not being immediately notified to the inspection services. This is not the case for serious or mortal accidents, when the police and the gendarmerie take responsibility for notifying them immediately. Inspectors are generally called upon to carry out in-depth investigations and to implement legal prevention and/or repression measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents, although the Ministry of Labour has no data on the causes of industrial accidents in high-risk sites. The Committee however notes with satisfaction, following the effects of the accident in the AZF chemical factory on 21 September 2001, the decisions communicated on the implementation and strengthening of systematic inter-institutional collaboration with a view to the prevention to occupational risks, namely: (1) the joint note of the Ministers responsible for labour and the environment, of 14 December 2001, affirming the need, at the local level, for collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the inspectorate of classified installations, respecting the specific functions and prerogatives of each of these inspection bodies (Article 5(a) of the Convention); (ii) the Circular of the Directorate of Industrial Relations (DRT), of 14 February 2002, to prevent the consequences of subcontracting, intended to improve the capacities for intervention of staff representatives in "SEVESO II AS" establishments and the development of risk evaluation through, inter alia, the involvement of the penal responsibility of the employer and the development of social dialogue within the enterprise; and (iii) Circular No. 2003-04, of 12 March 2003, providing guidance for a labour policy, including important components related to the functions of the labour inspectorate and giving many reasons why working structures and methods should be fundamentally adaptable, particularly in relation to the prevention of occupational risks with deferred effects.

The Committee hopes that the efforts made to improve the effectiveness of the inspection system will be continued and that their results will be reflected in the forthcoming annual reports under Articles 20 and 21, of which the time required for their publication and communication to the ILO should be improved through the development of the new information technology system SITERE announced by the Government. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical measures adopted to implement the action set out in the above circulars in relation to risk evaluation, as well as information on the impact of the implementation of technical instruction DAGEMO/MICAPCOR No. 2002-03 of 28 March 2002 concerning the reports of infringements drawn up by the labour inspectorate on the relations of inspectors with employers and workers or their organizations.

It also hopes that data on the causes of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases in all categories of workplace liable to inspection will soon be accessible to the inspection services to facilitate their prevention functions.

The Committee further notes with interest that a working group has been established in the Ministry of Labour, under the direction of MICAPCOR (Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services), to examine, with the technical support of the ILO, issues relating to the professional rules for discharging the function of labour inspection and the means for preparing young inspection officials to manage certain situations which may involve risks for their physical safety or psychological health.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government’s report indicates in a preliminary remark that it covers Metropolitan France, the four overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Guiana, Martinique, Réunion) and the community of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which it is envisaged, where appropriate, that the statistics required by points (c) to (g) of Article 21 are to be published and communicated to the ILO separately for each of these territories in future annual inspection reports under Article 20.

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

With reference to the comments made by the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière on 18 February 2002 concerning the annual inspection report for 1999, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in reply to the points raised concerning: the time limits for the publication of annual labour reports (Article 20 of the Convention); the impact of the inadequacy of the human and material resources of the inspection services on the number and frequency of inspections (Articles 10 and 16); and the causes of employment accidents occurring in high-risk sites (Article 21(g)).

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments.

Article 13 of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided concerning the judicial and administrative procedures which give effect to the provisions of this Article in the event of danger to the safety and health of workers. It notes that a working group established at the end of 2000 by MICAPCOR, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and of the central administration of the decentralized services of the ministry responsible for labour, has been entrusted with preparing, in close collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, new procedures for reporting violations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the outcome of the work of this group, and on any measure taken as a result.

Article 15. Noting that the legislation does not provide for exceptions to the principle of confidentiality as to the source of complaints, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the absolute nature of confidentiality may be limited by national legislation, as indicated in the introductory part of this Article. It is for each Member which has ratified the Convention to determine, in national laws or regulations, the exceptions which it intends to make to the obligation of confidentiality required of labour inspectors with regard to the sources of any complaint giving rise to an inspection, taking into account the purpose of the provision, namely the protection of employees making complaints against any reprisals by the employer. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will be able to take, in the light of the above, appropriate measures to supplement the national legislation with provisions determining exceptional situations in which, if necessary with the agreement of the worker concerned, labour inspectors may be released from the prohibition upon revealing the identity of the latter.

Article 16. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the number and frequency of inspections is well below the standards established in this respect in 1972. At the pace recorded in 1999, workplaces with 50 employees are inspected every four years, while those with under 50 employees are inspected every 14 years. The Government indicates that, according to the conclusions of a working group set up in 2000 to review the situation of labour inspection units, the maximum interval between inspections should be limited to five years for workplaces with fewer than 50 employees and three years for workplaces with over 50 employees. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any measure taken to improve the situation and to ensure, as envisaged by this Article of the Convention, that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions subject to the supervision of the labour inspectorate.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the obstacles preventing the preparation of an annual report in accordance with these provisions. It notes that the situation deteriorated further in 2000-01 as a result of protest action by labour inspectors who, in support of their claims for the improvement of their status, no longer provide statistics on inspections. However, the Government states that the computer services are currently working on the development, by 2003-04, of a labour inspection computer system called the Labour Information Network System (SITERE). The Committee hopes that this project will achieve the expected results and that an annual inspection report containing reliable information on each of the subjects enumerated in Article 21 will be published and transmitted to the ILO within the time limits prescribed by Article 20.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report and the attached documents, including Decree No. 2000-747 of 1 August 2000 issuing the specific conditions of service of the agents of the labour inspectorate and the new regulations issued in 2000 and 2001 concerning the provision to the staff of the labour inspectorate of various specific bonuses. However, the Committee notes that the Government does not indicate its position with regard to the comments made by the trade union CGT PTT of the Department of L’Aisne in a letter dated 28 December 1999, transmitted to the ILO by the Government on 9 February 2000. In the view of the trade union, the exclusion of private law contractual workers in the postal services from the purview of the labour inspectorate is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. In particular, it draws attention to the absence of protection of these workers, whose contractual conditions are, it alleges, in violation of the labour legislation and are resulting in the abusive precariousness of their situation. According to a note published in June 2000 by the Central Support and Coordination Mission of the Decentralized Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR), the question of the competence of the labour inspectorate with regard to staff representatives has henceforth been resolved by point 122 entitled "case of public sector enterprises" of Circular DRT No. 3 of 1 March 2000 respecting administrative decisions concerning the dismissal of protected employees. The note indicates that, as the postal services are henceforth considered to be a public industrial and commercial establishment, under Decisions 18824 and 18826 of the Conseil d’Etat dated 13 November 1998, the Labour Code therefore applies to private law employees and, in these circumstances, the labour inspectorate is competent to intervene where these employees are concerned if their duties are of the same nature as those envisaged by the Labour Code. The MICAPCOR is reported to have expressed an identical opinion in a note dated 12 July 1999, published in the "notes of the mission No. 38 of July 1999". The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government under Article 26, in most cases it is the MICAPCOR which responds to the question of whether certain public law entities are subject to the Labour Code, and therefore to supervision by the labour inspectorate, as governed by this Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide clarifications concerning the liability of postal service establishments to supervision by the labour inspectorate, provide copies of any relevant text and indicate the measures taken to ensure the application of legal provisions respecting conditions of work and protection to workers engaged in these establishments under private law contracts.

With reference to its previous comments concerning the observations made by the trade union organizations Force Ouvrière (FO) and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning the freeze imposed on the National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, it is proposed to set up this tripartite body established by Decree No. 83-135 of 24 February 1983. Placed under the minister responsible for labour, the CNIT is competent for labour inspection under the authority of the minister responsible for labour, labour inspection in agriculture, labour inspection in transport, maritime labour inspection and labour inspection in areas under the competence of the minister responsible for industry. The Council would issue opinions, and transmit them to the Government and to Parliament, on the state of the application of labour law, on the training programme of the National Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Institute and on the annual reports prepared by ministers under whose authority the various labour inspection services are placed. Noting that a body at this level has been awaited by the social partners since its creation was announced in 1983, and that its establishment is regularly referred to by the Government in its reports, the Committee hopes that practical measures will soon be taken for this purpose and that the relevant information will be provided to the ILO forthwith.

The Government also refers to the current reflection on whether to set up a committee of experts responsible for issuing opinions in all appeals concerning the independence of decisions by officials and to ensure that their protection is effectively secured in the exercise of their duties. This committee would be responsible for addressing matters relating to the professional rules applicable to labour inspection. Emphasizing the value of the creation of such a body in order to ensure observance of Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide information on the development and results of the reflection carried out on this issue.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the proportion of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate. However, it notes that, according to the Government, while the number of women is increasing among inspectors, this is not yet the case for managerial posts and that a multi-year plan to improve the access of women to higher managerial posts throughout the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity was approved by Order of the Minister of 7 March 2001.

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

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

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

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under section 112 of the Act of 2 July 1998, labour inspectors have the opportunity to discharge the duties of vocational training inspectors. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the exact role played by labour inspectors in relation to vocational training and if it would indicate whether they discharge this function in addition to their usual duties. If this is the case, the Government is requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that these further duties do not interfere with the effective discharge by labour inspectors of their primary duties, as set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.

Article 5. The Committee notes the confirmation, in reply to the observations made by the trade union organizations FO and CFDT, that the National Council of the Labour Inspectorate has not been activated, despite the appointment of its members in March 1993. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons which have prevented the initiation and operation of the above Council, within which the collaboration envisaged in point (b) of this Article could take place between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations, and if it would provide information on the measures which may have been taken or are envisaged to resolve the matter.

Article 7. The Committee notes with interest the organization of an open competition for candidates from enterprises and occupational or trade union organizations for the exceptional recruitment of 15 labour inspectors, and the information concerning the initial and further training provided by the National Institute for Labour, Employment and Occupational Training (INTEFP) for labour inspectors. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the outcome of the competition and the assignment of the successful applicants by geographical area and specialization.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the texts respecting the organization of the labour inspection system apply without distinction to all labour inspectors. The Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate whether, as envisaged by this Article, special duties are assigned to men and women inspectors. If so, please provide information on the manner in which effect is given to this provision.

Article 9. With reference to the information provided on several occasions by the Government concerning the possibility for labour inspectors to require employers to call upon institutions approved by the Ministry of Labour for the discharge of technical supervision in fields in which they are not qualified, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide examples of the application of such measures in practice. It requests the Government to provide information in particular on the financial aspect.

Article 10. The Committee notes that the number of sections of the inspectorate throughout the territory and overseas territories is determined by the density of employees. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether account is also taken of the other criteria enumerated in this Article, such as the various categories of workers, the material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors and the practical conditions under which visits of inspection must be carried out in order to be effective.

Article 13. The Committee notes that labour inspectors are empowered, in the event of serious and imminent danger for employees, to require the temporary stoppage of work in construction sites and public works, particularly in cases of non-compliance with the regulations respecting falls from heights and the risk of being buried. Since 1996, they have also been legally empowered to exercise this power in the absence of protective equipment in operations to isolate or remove asbestos. In other branches of activity, it is for the judges to issue provisional orders requiring measures to be taken to remove the risk, including the temporary closure of a workplace or work site. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons for the different treatment of situations of grave danger to the safety of workers based on the sector in which they work.

Article 14. In reply to the observations of the CFDT expressing concern at the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of the procedures for the declaration and registration of employment accidents and occupational diseases, the Government indicates that a process of reflection is envisaged concerning the possibility of a procedure for the direct notification of the labour inspectorate, similar to the procedure existing in certain sectors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details on such procedures and the advantages which they offer, as well as the measures which have already been taken or are envisaged in relation to the concerns expressed by the CFDT.

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

The Committee notes the Government's detailed report concerning the application of the Convention. However, it regrets to note for the third consecutive year the failure to transmit the annual reports on the activities of the labour inspectorate sufficiently rapidly for them to be useful. The Committee notes that the Government refers, with regard to Articles 7, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention, in relation to the application of the Convention in practice, to the statistics and information contained in these reports, and it would therefore be grateful if the Government would take the necessary steps to ensure that in future these reports are published and transmitted to the ILO within the time limits set out in Article 20. Their publication and transmission within appropriate time limits would allow workers and employers and their organizations to be informed of them and react to the points which give rise to concern, while also permitting the Committee to assess developments in the application of the Convention on a factual basis.

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

The Committee refers to its observation on the Convention and asks the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour -- "Force ouvrière" (FO) and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning the numbers in the inspection divisions of the labour inspectorate. According to the FO, although the numbers have increased slightly in absolute terms, the percentage of labour inspectorate personnel assigned to the inspection divisions has dropped over the last 20 years from 90 per cent to 53 per cent as regards inspectors and from 50 per cent to 34 per cent as regards supervisors, whereas the workload has increased. The FO notes that the total staff amounts to 432 inspectors, whereas in 1995 the total staff under the budget of the Ministry of Labour was 811 inspectors and 2,565 supervisors. According to the FO, these figures show the importance attached to employment issues in labour inspection to the detriment of the supervision of the application of labour law. In this context, the CFDT points out that the number of inspectors has barely increased despite the growing complexity of the legislation and the growing number of infringements. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the numbers of the labour inspectorate. It recalls that under Article 10 of the Convention the number of labour inspectors must be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate and must be determined with due regard for the importance of duties, the material means and the practical conditions of visits, in order to ensure that, in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention, workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of legal provisions.

2. Article 5. The Committee notes that the FO and the CFDT state that the members of the National Labour Council of the labour inspectorate, established by Decree No. 83-135 of 24 January 1983, have not been appointed. The Committee asks the Government to make such observations as it deems appropriate on this matter.

3. Article 14. The Committee notes the Government's statement that occupational accidents or cases of occupational disease are brought to the attention of the public social security service and the labour inspection service in a single declaration. The Committee notes that, according to the CFDT, the legislation does not require serious occupational accidents to be notified to the labour inspectorate; if the labour inspector is not informed by the police, he must wait to be informed by the declaration transmitted by the Regional Sickness Insurance Funds (CRAM) several weeks later. The Committee refers to paragraphs 84 to 88 of its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection in which it indicates that notification to the labour inspection service is not an end in itself but forms part of the more general aim of preventing occupational risks. Its purpose is to enable labour inspectors to conduct inquiries in the enterprise to determine the causes of occupational accidents and diseases and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to avoid recurrences of such cases. The Committee asks the Government to indicate any improvements envisaged in this respect, with a view to ensuring that the labour inspectorate is informed as soon as possible.

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

Further to its previous comments which concerned the application of the Convention in relation to the adoption of several decrees to reform the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the observations made by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs (UNAS), the General Confederation of Labour "Force ouvrière" (FO), and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning, among other matters, the strength of the labour inspectorate, the establishment of the National Labour Inspection Council and notification to the inspectorate of serious occupational accidents. The Committee also notes the opinion adopted by the Economic and Social Council on 24 January 1996 on the labour inspectorate, summing up the functions and means of the inspectorate and submitting proposals. Among the objectives of the proposals concerning the organization and activities of the labour inspectorate are the guarantee of the independence of the inspectorate, and the priority for supervision. The Committee notes with interest that there is currently a wide-ranging debate on the labour inspectorate. It requests the Government to provide information on the specific proposals for reform of labour inspection, which may be adopted following the opinion of the Economic and Social Council in connection with the application of the Convention. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on the application of Articles 5, 10, 14 and 16 of the Convention.

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

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by a number of trade union organizations concerning the application of the Convention in relation to a project to reform the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, and following the adoption of Decree No. 94-1166, of 28 December 1994, respecting the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, giving effect to the reform (observations made by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs (UNAS) on 4 November 1994 and 1 February 1995; the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) on 9 December 1994; and the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions on 22 June, 16 September and 17 November 1994). The Committee noted in particular that, in its communication dated 1 February 1995, the UNAS stated that Decree No. 94-1166 raised various problems concerning the application of the Convention, particularly with regard to the functions of inspectors (Article 3 of the Convention), their stability and independence (Article 6), the number of labour inspectors (Article 10) and their material resources (Article 11).

The Committee notes that the CFDT (Federation of Social, Labour and Employment Protection) made new observations on 24 February 1995 and that the UNAS also did so on 2 October 1995. The documentation attached to this latter communication indicates that the following trade union organizations: CGT National Union of Social Affairs, the General Trade Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Employees (FO), the CFDT (Federation of Social, Labour and Employment Protection), the National Trade Union of Labour Inspectors (SNIT), and the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions (FNSIT), have brought an appeal to the Council of State to annul Decree No. 94-1166 referred to above, Decree No. 94-1167 of 28 December 1994 and a number of orders. The Committee notes that the Council of State has not yet issued a decision respecting the above appeal.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decision of the Council of State when it is issued. It also requests it to provide a detailed report containing full information on the application of the Convention in law and practice, particularly with regard to the application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Articles 4, 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention, especially in the light of the observations made by the trade union organizations.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

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

The Committee notes the Government's report and the report on labour inspection in 1992.

It notes the information on the application of the Convention submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) on 9 December 1994.

The Committee also notes the observations presented by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs on 4 November 1994 and by the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions dated 22 June, 16 September and 17 November 1994, concerning in particular the draft reform of the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training.

In its reply received on 16 January 1995, the Government refers to this draft decree.

The Committee also notes the communication from the CGT National Union of Social Affairs received on 1 February 1995. It notes that the above union comments on several provisions of Decree No. 94-1166 of 28 December 1994 concerning the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, the implementation of which appears to raise a number of problems with regard to the Convention, particularly concerning the functions of labour inspectors (Article 3 of the Convention), stability and independence (Article 6), number of inspectors (Article 10) and necessary facilities (Article 11).

The Committee will examine this matter at its next session in November 1995. It therefore asks the Government to send its comments on the above-mentioned observations in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention this year.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the Governing Body has declared receivable, at its 261st Session, in November 1994, the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging failure by France to comply with the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 82), for the territory of French Polynesia.

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

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

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information contained in the report on labour inspection in 1990. However, it notes once again that the Government's report under article 22 of the Constitution has not been received. The Committee recalls the obligation to supply a report on the application of the Convention in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO. This report, which is a different document from the annual report on the inspection services due under Article 20 of the Convention, should supply all the information required under the report form, including replies to the comments made by the Committee and an indication of the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the report have been transmitted in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to supply the report due under article 22 of the Constitution in time for it to be examined at its next session. 2. The Committee notes with regret that no reply has been received to its previous comments concerning the observations made in 1989 and 1990 by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of the Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). These observations concern the application of Articles 3, paragraph 2, and 10, of the Convention and relate to the sufficiency of the number of inspectors responsible for ensuring the effective functioning of the inspection service and the material resources made available to them. Although noting the general information contained in the annual report of the inspection services for 1990, the Committee trusts that the Government will include in its next report under article 22 of the Constitution any comment that it considers appropriate concerning the above observations or the measures taken as a consequence of these observations. 3. The Committee notes that the annual report of the inspection services for 1990 reached the ILO in December 1992. It hopes that the Government will publish and transmit annual reports for subsequent years within the time limits set out in Article 20 of the Convention.

#CONSTITUTION:22

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

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information contained in the report on labour inspection in 1990. However, it notes once again that the Government's report under article 22 of the Constitution has not been received. The Committee recalls the obligation to supply a report on the application of the Convention in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO. This report, which is a different document from the annual report on the inspection services due under Article 20 of the Convention, should supply all the information required under the report form, including replies to the comments made by the Committee and an indication of the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the report have been transmitted in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to supply the report due under article 22 of the Constitution in time for it to be examined at its next session.

2. The Committee notes with regret that no reply has been received to its previous comments concerning the observations made in 1989 and 1990 by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of the Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). These observations concern the application of Articles 3, paragraph 2, and 10, of the Convention and relate to the sufficiency of the number of inspectors responsible for ensuring the effective functioning of the inspection service and the material resources made available to them. Although noting the general information contained in the annual report of the inspection services for 1990, the Committee trusts that the Government will include in its next report under article 22 of the Constitution any comment that it considers appropriate concerning the above observations or the measures taken as a consequence of these observations.

3. The Committee notes that the annual report of the inspection services for 1990 reached the ILO in December 1992. It hopes that the Government will publish and transmit annual reports for subsequent years within the time limits set out in Article 20 of the Convention.

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

Further to its observation, the Committee noted earlier comments submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). The Government is asked to provide the necessary information on the Committee's previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee noted the observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) alleging non-application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 10 of the Convention. The Union indicated that one of the eight labour inspection posts in the Department of Isère had been effectively held vacant for almost one year because the inspector who should do the inspection work in the post has also been given responsibilities for vocational training. Consequently, a number of important enterprises have not been inspected for nine months, and the union's attempts to persuade the inspectorate to remedy the situation have failed. The Committee hopes the Government will include in its next report all due information in this respect.

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicated that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs had been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport had been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services were not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, once more, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.

Article 20 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the annual report on inspection for 1989 was received by the ILO in May 1991. It hopes that the Government will now publish and supply the annual report for 1990, and that in subsequent years the time-limits laid down in the Convention will be observed.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report under article 22 of the Constitution will be supplied for examination at its next session, and that the Government will respond to observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport) over the past two years. The Committee is once more directly requesting the Government to provide information concerning the details of these observations.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) alleging non-application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 10 of the Convention. The Union indicates that one of the eight labour inspection posts in the Department of Isère has been effectively held vacant for almost one year because the inspector who should do the inspection work in the post has also been given resonsibilities for vocational training. Consequently, a number of important enterprises have not been inspected for nine months, and the union's attempts to persuade the inspectorate to remedy the situation have failed. The Committee hopes the Government will include in its next report all due information in this respect.

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning observations submitted by the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Services/Labour Inspectorate for Transport), which read as follows:

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicates that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs has been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport have been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services is not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, once more, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it, in its next report, to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.

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

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. Furthermore, it notes the comments submitted by CGT (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Services/Labour Inspectorate for Transport) alleging non-observance by the Government of Article 11 of the Convention.

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicates that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs has been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport have been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services is not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, as it did in its previous direct request, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it, in its next report, to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.