Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - New Zealand (Ratification: 1959)

The Committee notes the Government’s report. It also notes the comments of Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) and the Government’s response to these comments. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the following points.

1. Scope of the national system of labour inspection. Public sector undertakings. With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the information in the Government’s report that the Crown Organizations (Criminal Liability) Bill 2001 is currently before Parliament, which allows for the prosecution of Crown Organizations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. It also notes the comments of the NZCTU that despite its support to the object of the Bill, the NZCTU has made a submission to Parliament in terms that the Bill be amended to extend liability to include, at least, state sector chief executives. The Committee asks the Government to provide in its next report information on the progress made in this respect (Articles 1(2) and 17(1) of the Convention).

Extension to commercial undertakings. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to supply information on the development relating to the possibility of ratifying Part II of the Convention. It notes the Government’s indication that the new Government has not yet had the opportunity to consider this issue. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to supply information on any developments in this regard (Article 25, paragraph 2).

2. Regular versus complaint-based procedures. Referring to its previous comments concerning the NZCTU’s observation related to the Government’s supposed "hands-off policy" in the enforcement of employment right, the Committee recalls that it had stressed that a correct balance between regular versus complaint-based procedures must be struck to obtain the greatest success of the inspectorate’s work. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in addition to complaint-based enforcement, regular active promotion and enforcement of the minimum code is also undertaken within reasonable resources on a weekly basis in industries. The Committee also takes note of comments made on this respect by the NZCTU and Business New Zealand. The NZCTU acknowledges the more active approach to minimum code compliance since the last report, while Business New Zealand indicates that the employer obligations and employee rights were not less enforced under the previous regime than they are under the regime currently applying.

Since the Government’s periodic report and subsequent annual reports for 2000 and 2001 contain no information on the statistics of regular or proactive workplace visits by the Labour Directorate; the number of workplaces liable to inspection; and the number of workers employed therein, the Committee is not in a position to evaluate those comments from the abovementioned organizations, nor to determine whether the balance between complaint-based versus routine inspection is struck and whether frequency of inspection visits is sufficient to ensure the effective application of the minimum employment codes. It therefore requests once again the Government to provide necessary information in its next report (Articles 10, 16 and 21 of the Convention).