Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Japon (Ratification: 1953)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

With reference to its observation, the Committee would like to raise the following additional points.

Articles 3(1)(b), 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Convention. 1. Preventive activities of the labour inspectorate, collaboration with workers’ and employers’ organizations and programming of inspections. The Committee notes the comments made by the Japanese Trade Union Confederation (JTUC–RENGO) in its communication attached to the Government’s report, and following the trade union’s previous allegations of inadequacy of the preventive activities by the labour inspectorate. The JTUC–RENGO refers to the need, in view of the increasing number of industrial accidents between 2009 (105,718 cases) and 2012 (117,958 cases), to design preventive measures against industrial accidents that are more closely linked to the actual conditions in workplaces, with greater consultation of representatives of employers’ and workers’ organizations.

It notes that the Government, in response to the previous comments by the JTUC–RENGO, once again refers to the preventive activities conducted in collaboration with the Industrial Injury Prevention Organization, including the specialized support provided to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), but that it has not provided any details in this regard. It further notes that the Government reiterates that the incidence of industrial accidents (which employers are required to notify to the labour standards inspection offices (LSIO) in accordance with section 97 of the Ordinance on Industrial Safety and Health) is analysed by the LSIO in order to target inspections and direct guidance towards specific workplaces. It also notes the explanations provided by the Government according to which the reason for the significant decrease in the number of reported industrial accidents between 2008 and 2009 was due to a drop in production levels as a result of the global economic crisis and that in 2010, production had recovered, which explains the renewed increase of industrial accidents in 2010. The Committee also notes the information on the number of industrial accidents and corrective measures ordered, including the information relating to the construction and manufacturing industry in this regard.

The Committee once again asks the Government to provide details on the technical information and advice provided to SMEs in the field of accident prevention in collaboration with the Industrial Injury Prevention Organization (Articles 3(1)(b) and 5(a)).

Please also provide details on any other preventive activities carried out by the labour inspectorate during the period covered by the Government’s next report. In this regard, it asks the Government to provide data that is as detailed as possible, including disaggregated data by sector on the various categories of industrial accidents reported, the findings of investigations carried out following industrial accidents, and any measures taken or recommended by labour inspectors to minimize risks, prevent the recurrence of similar incidents and sanction labour law violations (Articles 13, 14 and 17).

2. Expert groups on safety, health and industrial relations. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the explanations by the Government with regard to the expert groups on safety, health and industrial relations established at the level of the prefectural labour offices. According to the Government, these expert groups are composed of consultants and medical doctors (specializing in risk assessments, occupational diseases including mental health issues, etc.) and are appointed, usually in equal numbers, on the recommendation of employers’ and workers’ organizations. They are considered to be more efficient and effective than the former system of industrial accident prevention instructors, in the light of national budget cuts and the pressure for greater efficiency. The Government reiterates that the mandate of these expert groups consists of providing opinions and advice to the prefectural labour offices on preventive measures against industrial accidents and the maintenance and promotion of workers’ health. It adds that, on average, meetings are held twice a year. Referring to its previous comments, in which it noted the Government’s indications that it was in the process of establishing a budget for the activities of the expert groups on occupational safety and health and industrial relations, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the budgetary and material resources allocated. Please also provide information on the activities conducted by the expert groups during the period covered by the Government’s next report and provide copies of all relevant texts or documents, if possible in one of the working languages of the ILO.

Articles 5(a), 17, 18, 20 and 21. Compilation of information on workplaces. In its previous observation, the Committee noted with interest that the LSIO use the Labour Standards Administrative Information System (LSAIS) to process information gathered from several sources on workplaces and on labour law compliance. The Committee notes with interest that the Government indicates, in its current report, that the results of the cases submitted to the public prosecutor’s office and brought to court are recorded in the LSAIS. Noting that the Government has not provided a reply in relation to its previous question in this regard, the Committee once again asks the Government to provide information on the operation of the LSAIS, more detailed information on the type of information it includes, and the possible use made of the information contained in this system for the elaboration and publication of the annual labour inspection report.