Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2018, publiée 108ème session CIT (2019)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Fédération de Russie (Ratification: 1998)

Autre commentaire sur C081

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

Articles 3(1), 10 and 16 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits. In its previous comment, the Committee observed that the number of labour inspectors continuously decreased over a number of years. It noted the Government’s indication that the limited number of staff in 2010 had significantly affected the results and quality of labour inspection. The Committee notes from the statistics provided in the 2016 report of the Federal Service of Labour and Employment (Rostrud) that the number of labour inspectors decreased between 2012 and 2016 from 2,680 to 2,102. It also notes from the same source that the number of labour inspectors is considered to be insufficient to achieve sufficient coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits, which often results in the verification and control of documents from the offices of the Rostrud rather than the conduct of actual labour inspection visits in workplaces. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the recruitment of an adequate number of labour inspectors to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to enable the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of labour inspectors.

Articles 12 and 16. Labour inspection powers and prerogatives. The Committee notes the Government’s indication, in reply to the Committee’s request to give full effect to Article 12, that the powers of labour inspectors to ask workers and employers questions provided for in section 357 of the Labour Code are not curtailed by the Federal Law No. 294-FZ of 2008 (as amended in 2014) on the protection of legal entities and individual entrepreneurs in state control (supervision) and municipal control. However, the Committee notes that section 357 only gives labour inspectors the power to interview employers (and not workers) and that Law No. 294-FZ, the Labour Code (as amended) and Regulation No. 875 of 2012 (on state supervision over the observance of labour legislation and other normative legal acts containing labour law provisions) provide for numerous restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors, including the free initiative of labour inspectors to undertake inspections without prior notice (sections 9(12) and 10(16) of Law No. 294-FZ), and the free access of labour inspectors to workplaces (without an order from a higher authority) at any hour of the day or night (sections 10(5) and 18(4) of Law No. 294-FZ). Moreover, these laws and regulations provide for restrictions on the conduct of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as necessary, including limitations with regard to the grounds on which unscheduled inspection visits may be undertaken (section 360 of the Labour Code, section 10(2) of Law No. 294-FZ and section 10 of Regulation No. 875 of 2012). The Committee further notes that pursuant to section 19(6)(1) and (2) of the Code of Administrative Offenses, labour inspectors may incur administrative liability where they fail to observe certain of these restrictions, for example where they undertake labour inspections on grounds other than those permitted in law. Recalling the importance of fully empowering labour inspectors to make visits without previous notice in order to guarantee effective supervision, the Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into compliance with Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. Particularly, it urges the Government to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to: (i) make visits without previous notice, in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention; (ii) to interrogate both employers and staff, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(i); and (iii) to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16.

Articles 7, 17 and 18. Enforcement of labour law provisions. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, in reply to the Committee’s previous request, concerning the causes for the discrepancy between the number of cases reported by the labour inspectorate, the number of investigations initiated and the number of convictions. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that one of the main reasons that criminal cases are not pursued was that criminal intent could not be established (criminal cases were only initiated in one out of the 14 cases reported). The Government further indicates that the reasons that administrative cases are not pursued included that non-compliance reports prepared by the labour inspectorate were incomplete or did not contain the required documents. Moreover, decisions on the closure of administrative cases were often communicated too late for the labour inspectorate to submit appeals within the prescribed time limits. However, in relation to the payment of wages, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its 2017 report on the application of the Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 (No. 95), that the number of investigations initiated and the number of convictions for cases reported concerning the non-payment of wages has increased.

With regard to the requested information on the enforcement of the legal provisions pertaining to fundamental rights at work, the Committee notes that the Government indicates that the labour inspectorate could not identify evidence for any violations of freedom of association rights. In this context, the Committee also recalls its observation published in 2017 under the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) in which it noted the observations of the Confederation of Labour of the Russian Federation (KTR) concerning a number of deficiencies in the enforcement of the provisions relating to acts of anti-union discrimination, including the lack of training of law enforcement staff concerning the evidence needed to establish violations under the Criminal Code. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective enforcement of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors, and to address the shortcomings it has identified in this regard. It requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken in this respect (such as training for labour inspectors on the establishment and completion of non-compliance reports including the collection of the necessary evidence; the improvement of communication and coordination activities with the judiciary on the required evidence to establish and effectively prosecute labour law violations as well as the need for timely communication of the outcome of cases to the labour inspectorate). The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed statistics on the administrative and criminal cases reported by the labour inspectorate including the relevant legal provisions, the investigations and prosecutions initiated and the penalties imposed as a result.

The Committee is raising other matters in a request addressed directly to the Government.