Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2006, publiée 96ème session CIT (2007)

The Committee notes the Government’s report, its brief reply to the Committee’s previous observation concerning comments made by the Confederation of Public Service Unions (CSP) and the General Union of Cameroon Workers (GUCW) received at the ILO in September 2004. It also takes note of the new observations sent to the ILO by the GUCW dated 30 August 2005 and 30 August 2006.

1. Inadequate resources, ineffectiveness and deterioration of the labour inspection system. In its comments received at the ILO on 22 September 2004, the CSP alleges that certain Articles of the Convention are not properly applied. It notes with regret that there was no cooperation whatsoever between labour inspectors, employers and workers (Article 5 of the Convention); inspectors’ working and pay conditions made them vulnerable and exposed them to influence by employers (Article 6); and this is reflected, inter alia, by the non-application of Article 13 concerning inspectors’ authority to make orders for the elimination of risks to workers’ health and safety. The CSP also asserts that inspections are confined to enterprises in the private sector and never give rise to the application of penalties (Articles 16 and 17).

The same points were made by the GUCW in an observation of 27 August 2004, which also mentioned that local offices were poorly equipped and even lacked a supply of drinking water, and that there were no means of transport (Article 11).

In comments of 29 May 2005, the Government replied to the observations of the abovementioned organizations, stating that it was awaiting proof of the GUCW’s allegations concerning the labour inspectors’ lack of authority and resources. As to the inspectors’ supervisory authority, the Government indicated that the relevant text was to be submitted for examination to the Tripartite Synergy Committee for referral to the officers of the National Labour Advisory Commission, the only body with authority to issue opinions and proposals on labour legislation and regulations.

On 30 August 2005, the GUCW sent further comments to the ILO on the application of the Convention in which it referred to its previous observation and indicated that, in addition, as a result of restructuring, the Ministry of Employment, Labour and Social Insurance had been split into two ministries, with several inspectors being assigned to the new Ministry of Employment and Vocational Training, with the result that “workplace inspection had taken a punishing”.

Under cover of a letter of 29 November 2005, the Government sent to the ILO the GUCW’s reply regarding proof of its allegations, referring the Government to the reports of the annual conferences of officials of the central and external departments of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

The Committee further notes that, according to the general and legislative information sent by the Government, effect is given in law to every provision of the Convention. It notes, however, that there are no reports or extracts of reports on the practical working of the labour inspection enabling the Committee to assess its effectiveness or its weaknesses. Yet, in a direct request to the Government in 2002, the Committee noted the information that teams were to be despatched to collect reports from the departmental and provincial inspectorates and that technical assistance was to be sought from the ILO to improve skills in the collection and analysis of the statistics needed to draw up such reports. No such measures appear to have been taken and, according to the Government, it is still difficult to produce a general report on the labour inspection services.

In a new observation dated 30 August 2006, the GUCW reiterates its views on the situation of the labour inspectorate and adds that there is no longer an inspectorate for want of inspectors and resources. It again reports that some labour inspectors are subject to corruption by employers and that inspectors have no authority in the performance of their tasks.

The Committee urges the Government to take steps to ensure that an annual report on the activities of the labour inspectorate, containing all available information on the subjects listed at Article 21 of the Convention, is drawn up, published and sent by the central inspection authority to the ILO, in accordance with Article 20. It would be grateful if the Government would at once take measures to establish a method for uniform collection and processing of the relevant information and to report to the ILO all progress made towards this end.

The Government is also asked to provide information on the text concerning the powers of the labour inspectorate which, the Government says, has been submitted to the National Labour Advisory Commission, and on the outcome of the Commission’s examination of the text.

2. Collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and the social partners. The Committee notes that in reply to its direct request of 2004, the Government states that collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and workers or their organizations (Article 5(b)) is regulated by Title II of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that these provisions say nothing of collaboration in labour inspection, and draws the Government’s attention to Part II of Recommendation No. 81, which provides useful guidelines on the nature and form of measures that could be taken to encourage such collaboration, with employers as well as workers, in the area of occupational safety and health. It would be grateful if the Government would consider, in consultation with the employers and the workers, the possibility of implementing such measures, and if it would keep the ILO informed of the results of such collaboration.