CMNT_TITLE

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Antigua and Barbuda (RATIFICATION: 1983)

Articles 3(2) and 16 of the Convention. Functions of the labour inspectors and frequency of inspection visits. The Committee recalls that, according to the job description that had been provided by the Government in 2008, it would have been possible to entrust labour inspectors with duties which might not be part of the primary functions set out in Article 3(1)(a)–(c). It moreover recalls that, from 1997 to 2009, there was a high fluctuation in the number of labour inspections conducted (1997: 362; 1998: 75; 1999: 332; 2000: 75; 2001: 127; 2002: 81; 2003: 53). Consequently, the Committee asked the Government to provide information in relation to additional functions that might be entrusted to them, and on statistics on labour inspection visits. In its report, the Government refers to the functions of the Inspection Unit as provided by Labour Code Act No. 14 of 1975, and which are in conformity with the Convention, and indicates the number of inspections conducted in 2009 (248) and 2010 (128). In this context, the Committee also takes note of the information provided in a communication addressed to the Labour Commissioner’s Office of 9 July 2012, which had been shared with the ILO, to the effect that job descriptions for all public service positions were being updated within the Public Sector Transformation Strategy.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government could provide the Office with an updated job description for labour inspectors, once completed. It also invites the Government to revisit the job description for labour inspectors within this Transformation Strategy, with regard to the comments which were already brought forward by the Committee.

It also asks the Government to explain the continuing high fluctuation in inspection numbers, with inspection visits having almost halved in 2010 compared to 2009.

Article 5. Cooperation between the labour inspection services and other Government services or public institutions and collaboration with employers’ and workers’ organizations. The Committee notes with regret that, despite long-standing comments, and previous commitments expressed by the Government, the Government is silent on the subject of collaboration with the Ministry of Health in particular, as it only refers to the comments made in its previous report. The Committee is therefore bound to again repeat its request for detailed information on the difficulties which prevent the adoption of practical measures to develop cooperation between the labour inspectorate and the Ministry of Health (such as on regular exchange of information and data, common training seminars or conferences), and asks the Government again to provide details on the content and modalities of any existing cooperation.

It reminds the Government that it may avail itself of ILO assistance in this area if it so wishes.

As far as collaboration with the social partners is concerned, the Government repeats information previously brought forward indicating that collaboration exists between the labour inspectors and social partners, and that all violations are reported to the labour inspection units and followed up accordingly. Noting the limited amount of information provided on this matter, the Committee is bound to repeat its previous request, encouraging the Government to seek for collaboration between the labour inspectorate and social partners, and to keep the ILO informed of the results achieved. Moreover, it requests the Government again to indicate whether the labour inspectorate is associated in the work of the National Labour Board.

Articles 6, 7 and 10. Number, status and qualifications of labour inspectors. The Committee recalls that the labour inspectorate comprises “non-established” and “established” labour inspectors, with all of them performing labour inspection functions, but with only one person being specialized in occupational safety and health. It also observed that labour inspectors were remunerated according to the scale of the department in which they were placed and that there were no requirements as to the qualification and the level of competence required, notably as far as “non-established” labour inspectors were concerned. Consequently, recalling the obligations set out in Articles 6, 7 and 10, the Committee requested the Government to take measures to staff the labour inspectorate with a sufficient number of labour inspectors, who are suitably qualified, to ensure a status which grants them stability of employment and adequate wages, and to specify the remuneration scale applicable to labour inspectors.

In this context, the Committee notes the Government’s reply indicating that it is in the process of merging the two existing systems in the public service, and that it is envisaged to recruit labour inspectors on the basis of the qualifications and level of competence required for such positions. It also notes from the communication from the Director of Public Sector Transformation of 9 July 2012, addressed to the Labour Commissioner’s Office, that it is intended, within the public sector reform that was approved by the Cabinet of Antigua and Barbuda in 2010, to complete a payroll audit in order to identify discrepancies between staffing levels and monies paid out in salaries, and to update job descriptions. Moreover, the Committee notes from this communication that the Civil Service Act had been redrafted and is currently being prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel for presentation to the September sitting of the Parliament.

The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the outcome of the civil service reform. It asks the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard, and to elaborate in particular the way in which the points raised by the Committee are being addressed by the civil service law reform.

It asks the Government to submit the amended civil service legislation, once adopted by the Parliament, and information on the possible new salary scales applicable to labour inspectors by comparison to the remuneration of public officers with similar functions such as tax inspectors.

Noting that the Government has not replied to its previous comments, the Committee once again requests it to provide details on the training programmes provided to labour inspectors (subjects, duration, attendance, evaluation and impact) and to communicate copies of any relevant documents.

Articles 17–21. Number of penalties imposed and warnings issued. Submission of a consolidated annual inspection report. The Committee observes that the Government abstains from providing information on the number of warnings issued and prosecutions launched as previously requested. It recalls that, in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, the central authority should publish an annual general report on the work of the inspection services containing information and statistics on the subjects enumerated in Article 21(a)–(g), including on penalties imposed. With reference to its general observation of 2010 the Committee recalls that when well prepared, the annual reports offer an indispensable basis for the evaluation of the results in practice of the activities of the labour inspection service and, subsequently, the determination of the means necessary to improve their effectiveness. In this regard it notes with interest that the Government, with the help of the Office, is in the process of implementing a Labour Market Information System to ensure that data are available for annual reports to be completed within the prescribed deadlines (Article 20).

The Committee requests the Government to keep the Office informed of any progress made in this regard. It moreover asks the Government once again to provide detailed information on the number of warnings issued by labour inspectors and the number of prosecutions initiated, as well as on their outcome in practice.