Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

Labour Statistics Convention, 1985 (No. 160) - Azerbaijan (Ratification: 1992)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government’s report and requests the Government to supply further information on the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. In the absence of reply to its previous request, the Committee once again asks the Government to state, concerning Articles 7, 8 and 9 (in particular, with regard to the labour force survey programme mentioned under Article 7), the manner in which the representative organizations of employers and workers are consulted when the concepts, definitions and methodology used are designed or revised.

Article 7. Regarding the planned labour force survey described in the previous reports, the Committee notes the suspension of this survey, due essentially to financial reasons, despite the 1995 pilot survey.

The Committee asks the Government to state whether it is expected that the latest standards and guidelines such as the ILO occupational classification (International Standard Classification of Occupations, ISCO-88) and UN industrial classification (International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, ISIC-Rev. 3) will be followed (in accordance with Article 2) and if not, why.

Article 8. The Committee notes that according to the available information, this Article can now be considered as partially applied. However, it draws the attention of the Government to the obligations of Article 5 concerning the communication to the ILO of data derived from the latest census. In this regard, the Committee draws the Government’s attention to the requirement under Article 2 to take into consideration the existing international classifications (ISIC-Rev. 2 or ISIC-Rev. 3; ISCO-68 or ISCO-88 and the International Standard Classification of Status in Employment, ISCE-1993) in classifying the data, including those to be sent to the ILO.

Article 9, paragraph 1. The Committee asks the Government to supply information on the measures taken or envisaged to extend the compilation of statistics of average earnings to the distinction by sex. It also notes that there is some inconsistency in the economic classification of the data on average earnings, some data being classified under ISIC-Rev. 2 (by economic activity), with others (in manufacturing, by industry group) under ISIC-Rev. 3. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to this inconsistency, and asks the Government to state whether ISIC-3 has been fully adopted. It hopes that the relevant statistics, including those communicated to the ILO, will follow, as far as possible, the same classification.

The Committee further asks the Government: (i) to confirm whether statistics of average hours of work are actually compiled through the regular labour reports (and not only through the October survey); and (ii) where relevant, to communicate to the ILO the corresponding statistics (in accordance with Article 5) and the relevant methodological information (in accordance with Article 6).

Article 9, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that the October survey of occupational wages and hours of work appears to collect data on both wage rates and earnings, as well as normal hours of work and hours actually worked by occupation, for full-time employees on full rates of pay. Some methodological information was communicated to the ILO. However, as it is still not clear whether the corresponding statistics which have been transmitted to the ILO (for publication in the October Inquiry Results) refer to average wage rates or to average earnings, the Committee asks the Government to clarify this point.

Article 16. The Committee notes the information in respect of Articles 10 to 15, obligations under which have not been accepted. It would be grateful if the Government would continue to supply information regarding the law and practice on the statistics covered by Articles 10 to 15 and any development concerning the extent to which effect is given to these Articles, and also to supply any available statistics and the relevant methodological information in accordance with Article 16, paragraph 4. It is for the purpose of clarifying the extent to which effect is already given to them, that the Committee is making the following remarks on some of these Articles:

Article 12. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the situation concerning the population coverage and sample size of the survey, and also to give the title and reference of the national publication which contains the detailed methodological description of the CPI series (base 1993=100) published in the ILO Bulletin and Yearbook of Labour Statistics.

Article 13. The Committee asks the Government to clarify the situation concerning the population coverage and sample size of the survey.

Article 14. The Committee takes note of the methodological information supplied to the ILO by the State Statistical Committee with respect to statistics of occupational injuries and requests information concerning their coverage in terms of economic activities. It notes that, although Azerbaijan did not accept the obligations of this Article at the time of ratification, it would seem that it is being applied. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the possibility, in accordance with Article 16, paragraph 3, of accepting the obligations of Article 14.