Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2007, publiée 97ème session CIT (2008)

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 31 May 2006.

1. Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 19 and 20 of the Convention. Organization, functioning and budget of the labour inspection system. The Committee notes the new Constitution, which was adopted in May 2005 and entered into force on 18 February 2006, under which the national public service, the public finances of the Republic and labour legislation come under the exclusive competence of the central authority (section 202(8), (9) and (36)(e)), whereas the provincial and local public service and provincial public finances come under the competence of the provinces (section 204(3) and (5)). Referring to its comments made in 2000 and 2002 concerning the undertakings made by the Government to strengthen the resources of the labour inspectorate, and despite being fully aware of the severe and persistent budgetary constraints which the Government faces because of the economic situation, the Committee is nevertheless bound to underline the importance of the socio-economic role played by the labour inspectorate and to stress once again the need to provide labour inspectors with a status and conditions of service which take due account of the importance and the specific nature of their duties, in particular providing remuneration linked to personal merit. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the distribution of powers between the central authority and the provincial authorities with regard to the organization and functioning of labour inspection structures, the appointment of labour inspection staff and also budgetary decisions concerning the resources which are necessary for this function of the public administration.

While noting the Government’s reply to some of the issues raised by the Confederation of Trade Unions of Congo (CSC) in its observation, which was supported by a statement from the World Confederation of Labour (WCL, now International Trade Union Confederation – ITUC) and sent by the ILO on 16 July 2004, and likewise raised in a second CSC observation sent to the Government on 11 October 2005, the Committee draws its attention to the following points.

2. Article 3, paragraph 2, and Articles 6 and 15(a). Probity, independence and impartiality of labour inspectors. The observations sent by the CSC in 2004 and 2005 suggest that the highly precarious conditions of work of labour inspectors results in their tending to favour employers by allowing them to dismiss workers following individual and collective disputes in exchange for financial inducements. In addition, labour inspectors tend also to have parallel duties as heads of personnel in certain enterprises. In the CSC’s view, the profession of labour inspector is tainted with a reputation for corruption. Furthermore, the lack of transport facilities is an additional obstacle to the inspectors’ performance of their investigation duties. The Government, on the other hand, considers that, even though the conditions for performing labour inspection duties are indeed difficult, the inspectors do their best to ensure observance of the law with regard to the settlement of collective labour disputes, in accordance with sections 62, 298 and 304 of the Labour Code relating to termination of the employment contract at the employer’s initiative and Order No. 12/CAB/MIN/TPS/2005 of 26 October 2005, replacing Order No. 025/95 of 31 March 1995, concerning procedures for the dismissal of workers on the grounds of the operational needs of the enterprise, workplace or service. However, the Government makes no comment with regard to the performance by certain inspectors of a parallel profession or the lack of transport facilities referred to by the CSC. The Committee notes that the Government, contrary to what it states once again in its report, has not sent the Order of 5 May 1997, requested several times by the Committee, lifting the ban on inspection visits imposed by the Order of 25 August 1994.

As the Committee has underlined in its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, when inspectors do not receive remuneration commensurate with their responsibilities, the labour inspection itself is devalued. In carrying out their duties, inspectors may then find themselves treated with disrespect, which detracts from their authority. Their low standard of living can also expose inspection officials to the temptation of treating certain employers leniently in exchange for favours (paragraph 214). Combining jobs, even when there is a prohibition on intervening as an inspector in any matter having a direct or indirect link with their private activity, is, in the Committee’s view, an obstacle to the performance of inspection duties. The Committee therefore asks the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors have a status and conditions of service which correspond to the importance of their responsibilities, shielding them from any improper external influence, in particular such influence as might result from being in a subordinate position because of parallel employment.

Also recalling that, in accordance with the guidance given by Recommendation No. 81, labour inspectors’ duties should not include acting as conciliator or arbitrator in labour disputes, and drawing the Government’s attention in this respect to paragraphs 72 and 74 of its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection, the Committee asks it to take measures to ensure that inspectors are not entrusted with any such task or with any other task that might interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties defined by Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention or that might prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary in their relations with employers and workers. The Committee hopes that the inspection services will thus devote most of their human and material resources to the duties of supervision, information and technical advice to employers and workers, and to improving the legislation on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work.

3. Articles 22 and 23, paragraph 2, of the ILO Constitution. Obligation to report to the ILO and obligation to communicate to professional organizations government reports submitted to the ILO. In its first observation, the CSC indicated that the Government was not communicating to workers’ organizations its reports on the measures taken to apply the Convention. The Committee notes that the Government does not reply to this allegation, but states that it sent its last report to four employers’ organizations and 12 workers’ organizations. In its previous report covering the period from 1 September 1997 to 31 May 2000 which was received by the ILO on 8 June 2001, the Government stated that it had sent that report to three employers’ organizations and six workers’ organizations. The Committee asks the Government to take measures to ensure that its reports to the ILO on the application of the present Convention are communicated in good time in future to professional organizations so that they are able to react with the necessary promptness. It also reiterates that the Government is bound, as stated in the Convention report form, not only to supply information on any new legislative measures concerning the application of the Convention and send a copy of the report to employers’ and workers’ organizations, but also to provide information in reply to questions in the report form on the practical application of the Convention and on any observations from such organizations, as well as in reply to any comment from the ILO supervisory bodies regarding the application of the Convention.

4. Articles 20 and 21. Annual report on the work of the labour inspection services. The Committee notes that no information has been provided for many years on the implementation of measures to give full effect to these provisions of the Convention, with the result that it has no practical or illustrative information on the functioning of the labour inspection system with which to fulfil its supervisory duty. It would be grateful if the Government would adopt such measures rapidly, inform the ILO and also send all available information and statistics on the matters covered by Article 21.

The Committee is also sending a direct request to the Government on another point.