Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2012, publiée 102ème session CIT (2013)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Madagascar (Ratification: 1971)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the comments of the General Confederation of Workers’ Unions of Madagascar (CGSTM) dated 26 August 2011.

Articles 6, 7 and 11 of the Convention. Status, conditions of service and work of labour inspectors. Means at the disposal of the labour inspectorate. In its previous comments, the Committee expressed its concern at the situation described not only by the Government but also by the Autonomous Trade Union of Labour Inspectors (SAIT) with respect to the severe lack of material means available to the labour inspectorate in relation to the numerous and complex duties that inspectors are required to carry out. This situation seemed to be exacerbated by a clear lack of consideration on the part of the authorities towards labour inspection staff, resulting in a weakening of the public institution to which they belonged, the role of which was to enforce the labour legislation. Inspectors were therefore discredited in the eyes of the social partners due not only to the severe lack of means available to them, but also, and above all, to their precarious status compared to the status of other public servants with similar qualifications and responsibilities. The Committee also noted that the rare information provided by the Government concerning the operation of the labour inspectorate in practice indicated a clear lack of understanding of the value and socio-economic role of this public institution. Recalling that the independence of labour inspectors from any change of government and from any undue external influence is one of the key principles laid down in the Conventions concerning labour inspections, the Committee noted that the documents provided by the SAIT concerning the dismissal and transfer of labour inspectors to very remote locations in December 2009, which took place in the month following their participation in industrial action, seemed to confirm the SAIT’s opinion that these measures were designed to punish trade union membership or activity.

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report merely states that, due to the increase in the number of inspectors who have graduated recently, redeployment measures were taken at the level of the ministry, accompanied by a decision to assign inspectors to the regions, without any consideration of their trade union membership. However, according to the Government, the assignments were suspended because of political instability. The Government adds that the draft Decree concerning the special regulations for senior labour inspectors has yet to be finally adopted and enacted by the competent authorities on account of the present crisis. The Committee notes that, without this Decree, the labour inspectors are at present in a legal vacuum as regards their specific status (given that Decree No. 61-226 establishing a body of labour and social inspectors and establishing the specific status of this body seems to have been repealed by Act No. 2003-11 on the general regulations for civil servants). The Committee recalls that the Higher Council of the Public Service had already approved this draft Decree in 2007 with a view to improving inspectors’ working conditions which, according to the SAIT, are far inferior to those of other bodies of civil servants with comparable qualifications and similar functions, such as civil administrators, tax inspectors, etc., thereby constituting an unjustified discrimination. The Committee notes finally that, in its recent comments, the CGSTM confirms that the number of labour inspectors and means at their disposal are inadequate to ensure an efficient job of labour administration and inspection, which might even, in some cases, lead to some inspectors being influenced by employers.

In paragraphs 218 and 219 of its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee referred to situations in which labour inspectors’ conditions of service were very precarious, and in which mistrustful attitudes as to their integrity, rather than any concern to keep them in the service, appeared to underlie their career management, with labour inspectors being transferred without any consideration for the negative effects on their family and social life. The Committee emphasizes that the competent authority at national level should strive to ensure that labour inspectors are treated with the respect to which their everyday responsibilities entitle them to and with due regard to the social importance of their duties, namely the continued improvement of conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work and, by the same token, as is now widely recognized, the improvement of the economic performance of the enterprise (2010 general observation). They should legitimately be able to expect career prospects that value their seniority, enthusiasm and commitment, and any unprofessional conduct on their part should be penalized, depending on its severity, in accordance with formal procedures which protect them from arbitrary decisions. As the Committee emphasized in its 2006 General Survey (paragraphs 202 and 204), inspectors cannot act in full independence, as required by their functions, if their service or their career prospects depend on political considerations. It is vital that inspectors’ levels of remuneration and career prospects, as well as the material resources and training put at their disposal, be such that high-quality staff are attracted, retained, and protected from any improper influence.

The Committee once again firmly hopes that the Government will undertake an in-depth examination of the transfers reported by the trade union SAIT. It asks the Government to keep the Office informed of the measures taken in this respect and to indicate whether the Government intends reviewing the decisions to transfer officials in question, which have been suspended for the time being.

The Committee asks the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the draft Decree on the status of labour inspectors be adopted and enacted as soon as possible and to keep the Office informed of any progress in this respect.

The Committee strongly encourages the Government to request technical assistance from the Office with a view to restoring the normal functioning of the labour inspection system and identifying donors for this purpose.

Articles 19, 20 and 21. Reporting obligations. Coordination of the submission of periodical reports by a central authority. The Committee notes with regret that the Office has not received a consolidated annual inspection report since 1995, as the statistics contained in the Government’s report only cover the region of Analamanga. The CGSTM also referred to this reporting failure in its comments. The Committee also notes the Government’s indication that there are apparent difficulties in the collection and delivering of data from other regions. Referring to its 2010 general observation, the Committee recalls the importance of collecting and publishing information on labour inspection activities in an annual report, to be able to assess the functioning of the labour inspection system, the identification of priorities and the formulation of appropriate budget estimates based on consultation with the social partners. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of a periodical report of the local inspection offices (Article 19) and to indicate the way in which these reports are compiled and submitted to the central authority, with a view to identifying any possible shortcomings in the system of drafting an annual report, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention.

The Committee is raising other points in a request that it is addressing directly to the Government.