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

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Uruguay (Ratification: 1973)

The Committee notes the Government’s reports, the comments by trade unions on the application of the Convention and the information supplied by the Government on the points raised. As it did in its observation of 2000 on the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129), the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the inconsistencies between national legislation and practice and the requirements of the Convention, pointed out in the comments of 29 December 1999 of the Federation of Workers’ Unions - National Workers Convention (PIT-CNT) and the observation of the Association of Labour Inspectors of Uruguay (AITU) sent to the ILO by the Latin American Confederation of Labour Inspectors (CIIT) on 26 May 2000. The Government is asked to take the necessary steps to remove these inconsistencies and to provide information on the measures taken and the results obtained.

1. Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention (Status and conditions of service of labour inspectors). Under Act No. 16 226 of 29 October 1991, labour inspectors may, in parallel to their main occupation, carry out another unrelated gainful activity provided that they first inform the institution to which they belong and refrain from intervening in their capacity as labour inspectors in any matter which is linked directly or indirectly to their private activity. The Committee notes that the provisions of the abovementioned Act which repeal section 495 of Act No. 15 803 of 10 November 1987, which specifically prohibited inspectors, in line with the Convention, from carrying out other professional activities and which authorize inspectors to devote to other gainful activities the time and energy they need to perform properly the numerous and complex duties of labour inspection. The Committee is of the view that such provisions are bound to impair the performance of these duties. Noting that the Government sees this legislative measure as a means of enabling inspectors to increase their earnings, the Committee wishes to stress that oversight of an inspector by some other employer is contrary to Article 6 of the Convention which requires inspection staff to have the status and conditions which make them independent of improper external influences. According to the Association of Labour Inspectors of Uruguay (AITU), the wage differential between labour inspectors and inspectors in other agencies of the administration such as tax inspectors makes inspection staff more vulnerable. The Committee wishes to recall, as it did in its observation under Convention No. 129, that the authority and impartiality that labour inspectors need in their relations with employers and workers can be ensured only if the statutory and material conditions specified in Article 6 are met. The Committee is therefore bound to urge the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that, in accordance with this provision, inspection staff enjoy a status and conditions of service such that they are assured of stability of employment and are independent of changes of government and of improper external influences.

2. Size of inspection staff and definition of priorities. In response to the comments made by the abovementioned trade unions observing the deterioration of the labour inspection system due not only to the reasons given but also to inadequacy of numbers and of means at their disposal, the Government indicates that it has taken measures to strengthen the labour inspectorate, such as the hiring of interns as prevention agents and the holding of competitive examinations, in order to fill vacancies in the inspectorate, and to create new posts. The Committee, nonetheless, notes that the Government does not give its views on the point made by the PIT-CNT on efforts to make the labour inspectorate more effective were concentrated on the construction sector to the detriment of other sectors and particularly the meat-processing sector which also requires attention, particularly in the area of occupational health and safety. The Committee further notes that the statistics supplied by the Government with its report for the period ending June 2000, relating to the actions undertaken by the labour inspectorate, cover a population of 85,651 workers as opposed to 140,630 in 1998. This reduction in numbers would appear to confirm that the size of the inspection staff is inadequate to cope with needs and to call for urgent measures to protect as many as possible of the workers employed in establishments subject to supervision, by the labour inspectorate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the number of establishments liable to such supervision and the current number and geographical distribution of the labour inspectors who cover these establishments.

3. Preparation, publication and transmission to the ILO of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes once again that no annual inspection report has been transmitted to the ILO in the form and content prescribed by Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention, respectively. It can but urge the Government to take steps to endow the central inspection authority with the means to fulfil the fundamental obligation to prepare and publish such a report, the objectives and usefulness at the national and international level of such an obligation being described and enlarged on in paragraphs 272 et seq. of its General Survey on labour inspection of 1985. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to refer to the above survey, and hopes that it will shortly be in a position to indicate that an annual inspection report is soon to be published, a copy of which is to be duly transmitted to the ILO.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning other matters.