Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2011, publiée 101ème session CIT (2012)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Maurice (Ratification: 1969)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to bring the following additional issues to the Government’s attention.

Article 5(a) of the Convention. Cooperation between the labour inspection inspectorate and other bodies to achieve the goals of the Convention. Effective cooperation with competent bodies entrusted with registration of establishments liable to labour inspection. Referring to it general observation of 2009 whereby the Committee strongly encouraged Members to endeavour to establish registers of workplaces liable to inspection or to improve existing registers, the Committee notes with interest the adoption of the (Registration of Employers and Permits of Job Contractors) Regulations 2009 – GN No. 24 of 2009 – made on February 2009 under the Employments Rights Act 2008. According to the Government, the Regulations stipulates that all employers of ten or more workers should register themselves with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations and Employment (MLIRE) in providing detailed information such as the nature of business, the number of male and female workers employed and their category. Such information may prove useful to produce a plan of inspection so that industrial workplaces can be inspected, as often and as thoroughly as is necessary, to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions in conformity with Article 16 of the Convention, according to criteria relevant to determine priority actions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of any progress made in the registration of workplaces liable to labour and occupational safety and health (OSH) inspection, and if it would provide more detailed information on how it uses the data obtained to improve the organization and planning of labour inspection activities.

Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and the justice system. The Committee welcomes the detailed information showing the support brought by the justice system to the work of the labour inspection bodies. Referring to the statistics received with the previous Government’s report, it notes that between June 2007 and May 2009, in Mauritius, 12,928 complaints had been registered, while 12,179 had been disposed of. In the last four years, the number of civil cases referred to both Chambers and Court, and the number of civil cases disposed of by Chambers and Court increased, the amount of the fines for civil cases recovered dropped significantly, while those for the criminal cases increased to a large extent. Additionally, between June 2009 and May 2011, these figures, as well as the amount of recovered correspondent fines, have continued to increase significantly. The Committee asks the Government to explain the above described trends, and to keep the Office informed of any lessons learnt and of any measures envisaged or taken to improve the efficiency of the labour inspection system with the effective support of the justice system, as recommended in the general observation of 2007 under this convention.

Concerning the impact of the cooperation of the justice system on safety and health situation in workplaces, according to the Government, the number of industrial injuries decreased because of the increase in penalties and the ongoing training provided by the OSH division of the MLIRE to both employers and employees. However, the rate of work accidents remains high in the construction and manufacturing sectors. Taking into consideration the very important socio economic cost of work injuries, the Committee urges the Government to take all the necessary measures to strengthen labour inspection activities, targeting the occupational risks faced by the workers in construction and manufacturing workplaces, in the very near future, and to keep the ILO informed of any progress achieved in this regard. Such measures could include those promoted in Part II of Recommendation No. 81, involving employers and workers of these sectors, as well as technical schools and any other competent public or private body.

Article 5(b). Collaboration between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, the authorities set up two tripartite consultative statutory bodies, namely, the Labour Advisory Board Council and the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and Health. The Government is requested to supply information of the work of these two bodies and the results achieved during the next reporting period.

Article 7 (1) and (2). Recruitment and training of labour inspectors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of the recruiting process, specifically on the procedure applied and the criteria used to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates to the Labour Inspectorate Cadre for the performance of their duties.

Article 7(3). Training of the labour inspection staff for the performance of their duties. The Committee notes that the officers of Labour inspectorate Cadre continued to benefit from overseas courses and seminars between June 2009 and May 2011. The Committee asks the Government to provide more detailed information on the impact of these trainings on the observance of the legal provisions pertaining to conditions of work and the protection of worker while engaged in their work. It also asks the Government to supply information on any type of domestic training provided to labour officers performing labour inspection activities (area, attendance, frequency, duration, etc.).

Articles 8 and 10. Composition of the labour inspection staff. The Committee notes with interest that funds have been earmarked for the filling of the existing vacancies in the Labour Inspectorate Cadre. It also notes that attention has been paid to gender balance among labour inspectors by recruiting more women. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would send a copy of the Remuneration Cadre, which was not attached to its report, and if it would specify whether women inspectors are assigned to special duties or to specific areas of inspection, for example, in sectors with a predominantly female workforce.

Articles 11 and 16. Material resources of the labour inspectorate and visits of inspection. The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report, the regional offices at the Occupational Safety and Health Inspectorate (OSHI) are no longer operational, since 2009, with a view to a more effective use of available resources. The Committee also observes that the number of inspections decreased significantly in the last two years (from 3,963 between June 2007 and May 2009 to 1,056 between June 2009 and May 2011). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would take all the necessary measures to improve the coverage of the labour inspection system in spite of the suppression of the regional offices, and if it would keep the ILO informed on any progress made in this regard.

Article 12(1)(b) and (2). Powers of entry of OSH inspectors in premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection. The Committee notes that, according to article 4 of the OSH Act (Employees’ Lodging Accommodation ) Regulations 2011, an authorized officer may, for the purposes of these regulations, enter, with the consent of the head of any undertaking, any building used as a lodging accommodation, in order to make such inspection or investigation as may be necessary. The Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to Article 12(1)(b) and (2) of the Convention, according to which labour inspectors provided with proper credentials shall be empowered to enter by day any premises which they may have reasonable cause to believe to be liable to inspection (paragraph 1(b)), and should be authorized to abstain from notifying their presence to the employer or his/her representative if they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (paragraph 2). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken or envisaged to amend article 4 of the OSH Act (Employees’ Lodging Accommodation) Regulations 2011 so as to bring it in line with Article 12 of the Convention.

Articles 14 and 21(g). Recording and notification of cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes that no data on cases of occupational disease in the industrial and commercial establishments has been provided to the ILO, and that such information is not posted on the MLIRE website. In reply to the previous direct request, the Government suggests that the most plausible explanation for the previously noted decrease in reported cases of occupational diseases is that in 2004, the occupational health doctors were carrying out health surveillance for workers from private workplaces (workshops, factories, construction, etc.) which may, in principle be considered as more hazardous than public workplaces. The Committee requests the Government to describe the procedure for the recording and notification of occupational diseases in industrial and commercial establishments, specifying the role of the labour inspectorate in this framework and to furnish statistics of occupational diseases in its next report.