Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2010, publiée 100ème session CIT (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that, for the third consecutive year, the Government’s report has not been received and that, prior thereto and since 2000, the Government has submitted the same report which does not provide any new information in reply to the Committee’s previous comments. While noting the efforts made in the country through the adoption of a new Labour Code in 2006 and the development and adoption of a Decent Work Country Programme
2008–12, the Committee must underscore that the reporting obligations undertaken by the Government are important and that a regular review of the situation in the country in relation to the matters covered in this Convention can be helpful for the Government in its further improvements, not only in relation to the application of the present Convention but in the area of occupational safety and health in general.

Plan of Action (2010–16). The Committee would also like to take this opportunity to inform the Government that, in March 2010, the Governing Body adopted a plan of action to achieve widespread ratification and effective implementation of the key instruments in the area of occupational safety and health (OSH), the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155), its 2002 Protocol, and the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187), (document GB.307/10/2(Rev.)). The Committee would like to bring to the Government’s attention that, under this plan of action, the Office is available to provide assistance to governments, as appropriate, to bring their national law and practice into conformity with these key OSH Conventions in order to promote their ratification and effective implementation. The Committee invites the Government to provide information on any needs it may have in this respect.

In the meantime, the Committee must repeat it previous observation which reads as follows:

The Committee understands, however, that a new Labour Code has recently been adopted (Act No. 133/AN/05 of 28 January 2006) and notes with interest that it contains provisions concerning occupational safety and health that constitutes a general framework for the protection of workers against risks related to work. According to previously submitted information the relevant legislation would also include Order No. 1010/SG/CG of 3 July 1968 concerning the protection of workers against ionizing radiation in hospitals and health-care institutions, or in Order No. 72-60/SG/CG of 12 January 1972 on occupational medicine. With reference to article 125(a) of the newly adopted law providing for the adoption of implementing legislation to regulate measures for the protection of safety and health in all establishments and companies covered by the Labour Code, on a series of different issues including radiation protection, the Committee requests the Government to clarify whether the abovementioned Orders remain in force and, as appropriate, to transmit to it copies of any revised or complementing legislation once it has been adopted.

The Committee also notes the observations submitted by the General Union of Djibouti Workers (UGTD) on 23 of November 2007, raising concerns regarding insufficient protection against ionizing radiation for employees at health care centres. These observations were transmitted to the Government for comment on 21 September 2007, but no comments have been received to date.

Article 3(1). Protection of workers against ionizing radiations; Article 6(2). Maximum permissible doses; and Article 9(2) of the Convention. Instruction of the workers assigned to work under radiations. With reference to the foregoing and its previous comments, the Committee recalls that all appropriate steps shall be taken to ensure effective protection of workers against ionizing radiations and to review maximum permissible doses of ionizing radiations in the light of current knowledge. In this context, the Committee notes that the UGDT seems to indicate that, in practice, industrial undertakings using procedures involving ionizing radiation do not seem to apply uniform rules for the protection of workers against exposure thereto and that the workers engaged in, for example, health-care centres are not sufficiently informed of the dangers related to their activity and are not protected in an adequate way. The Committee again draws the Government’s attention to the revised dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiation established on the basis of new physiological findings by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) in its 1990 recommendations. The Committee requests the Government to respond to the observations made by the UGDT and urges the Government to take all appropriate measures, in the near future, and with due account of the 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP, to give full effect, in law and in practice, to these provisions of the Convention.

Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention. Exposure limits for young persons between 16 and 18 years of age. Prohibition against employing young persons under 16 in work involving exposure to radiation. In its previous comments, the Committee had noted that there were no provisions in relevant legislation prohibiting the employment of children under 16 years of age in radiation work and fixing maximum permissible doses for persons between 16 and 18 who are directly engaged in radiation work, as called for by this Article of the Convention. The Committee urges the Government to take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of this Article in the near future.

Exceptional exposure of workers in situations of emergency. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee again draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 16–17 of its 1992 general observation under this Convention which concern occupational exposure during and after an emergency. The Government is requested to indicate whether, in emergency situations, exceptions are permitted to the normally tolerated dose limits for exposure to ionizing radiation and, if so, to indicate the exceptional levels of exposure allowed in these circumstances and to specify the manner in which these circumstances are defined.

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