Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - France (Ratification: 1972)

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", as a result of the Decrees of 28 December 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF) and the Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DRAF).

The union considers that the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, which took place in 1984, has given rise to major difficulties in the operation of the ITEPSA resulting in the "quasi-paralysis" of the inspection services in agriculture. According to the union's memorandum, these difficulties arise essentially from the institutional measures that were adopted.

The union points out that prior to the reform the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy was very adequately structured into departmental, regional and national services and that total independence had been recognised at the departmental and regional levels. In the opinion of the union, the Decrees of 1984 marked a rupture in the functioning of the inspection services. They provided for a rearrangement of the various external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, including the ITEPSA, under the direction of the DRAFs and DDAFs with the result that the regional directors and the heads of departmental inspection services were "demoted" in their positions and duties and that, as regards the inspectors, a long tradition of individual independence, responsibility to take decisions and independent representation of the administration in social matters was abandoned. The union considers that the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs and the specific natures of the duties and decision-making powers of inspectors, as set out in the Labour Code, the Rural Code and the Social Security Code, amount to a contradiction that the circulars to apply the 1984 Decrees (which, however, provide for the independent decision-making powers of inspectors in their specific areas) cannot reconcile. In short, the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has resulted in a form of "dependence" for the inspection services that is in contradiction with the nature of their duties.

Furthermore, the union states that the 1984 reform broke up the hierarchical relations between the regional service and the departmental services of the ITEPSA. The incorporation of these services into the organisational system of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has been shown to be totally inadequate for relations between the heads of the departmental services and the heads of the regional services of the ITEPSA, which has had the consequence that the unity in the management of the inspection services has disappeared and the action taken by them varies widely in practice. Moreover, the heads of departmental and regional services of the ITEPSA encounter serious difficulties in their relations with prefects due to the fact that they come up against the barrier formed by the DDAFs and the DRAFs.

Finally, the union points out that the career prospects of the staff of the ITEPSA are different, and indeed discriminatory, in relation to the prospects for the staff of the inter-ministerial labour inspectorate.

In annex to its memorandum, the union enumerates the principal facts, attitudes and situations that it considers to be a result of the 1984 reform and to be in contradiction with the principles of law, and the texts and directives that are in force. Among these texts is Convention No. 129, which, according to the union, has been violated on the following points:

- the existence of a hierarchical structure outside the inspection services which prevents the independence of ITEPSA missions, the suppression of the vertical hierarchical relationship between the regional and departmental levels of the ITEPSA and the obligation to transmit files to the central administration through the DRAFs (Article 8);

- the reduced budget, particularly for travel by the inspectors and the operation of the services (Article 15);

- the insufficient numbers of auxilliary staff allocated to the ITEPSA;

- the opening of mail sent to the ITEPSA by another department of the DDAFs and DRAFs (Article 20(c)).

In conclusion, the union calls for either the ITEPSA to be maintained within the Ministry of Agriculture, although within a framework of total independence as regards the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, or for it to be attached to the Ministry of Labour.

In its reply to the above comments, the Government refers, firstly to the Decrees of 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, to the general circulars and to the specific circular issued to apply these Decrees. These texts clearly lay down that the staff of the ITEPSA, when exercising their specific functions of inspecting and supervising labour legislation, do not come under the hierarchical authority of either the regional and departmental prefects, or the regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry. The Government also supplied a long extract of the reply to a written question raised in 1985, on this subject, by a parliamentarian, and a copy of the Order issued by the Council of State on 6 May 1988 in which it rejects the claims put forward by the CGT-FO Union of staff of the labour and employment service, by the National Federation of Unions of Labour Inspectors and by the Union of Inspection Personnel of Labour Laws in Agriculture, demanding that the Decrees of 28 December 1984 be repealed. The Council of State noted, among other questions, that no provision in the Decrees in question could be considered as having the purpose or effect of prejudicing the application of the provisions of the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

The Committee notes all the explanations supplied by the Government. It also notes, from the letter addressed by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on 15 December 1988 to the Director-General of the ILO, that the difficulties that have been encountered in the work of the ITEPSA are not a result of the texts, but rather of their application by the regional directors of agriculture and forestry. The Committee considers that while the problems of hierarchy, management, co-ordination and, in general, relations with the regional and departmental administrative authorities appear to be at the origin of the discontent within the ITEPSA, the latter also gives the impression of suffering from the absence of supervision and control of a central body, as provided in Article 7, paragraph 3(d), of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, information on the measures that have been taken to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application of Articles 8, 15 and 20(c) of the Convention which, according to the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture, are not fully observed.