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

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

The Committee notes the comments of the Association of Labour Inspectors of Uruguay (AITU) concerning the application of the Convention, transmitted to the ILO by the Latin American Confederation of Labour Inspectors (CIIT) on 19 February 2004 and communicated to the Government on 2 April 2004.

In its comments, the AITU considers that the Government’s report concerning the period ending 31 May 2003 is too general in character and raises certain points regarding a malfunctioning of the labour inspectorate.

1. Contribution of labour inspectors towards improving the legislation covered by the Convention (Article 3, paragraph 1(c), of the Convention). The Organization regrets the lack of reaction from the higher labour inspection authority to the reports of abuses observed in cleaning, security and forestry enterprises and to the recommendations made by the inspectors as regards supplementing the legislation with relevant provisions.

2. Impact of the performance of a parallel professional activity on the functioning of the labour inspectorate (Article 3, paragraph 2). According to the Organization, the effect of permission given to inspectors to engage in parallel employment is to restrict significantly the working time and energy which is essential for the performance of inspection duties, and to prejudice the authority, impartiality, prestige and credibility of the inspection system. No procedure has yet been established which would oblige labour inspectors to declare to the competent authority their dependence in relation to private enterprises, and cases of infringement noted and reported by the labour inspectors are not always the subject of relevant administrative inquiries.

The work of a labour commission (composed in particular of representatives of the Labour Ministry and Labour Inspectorate and of members of the AITU management), which was set up in October 2002 in order to seek appropriate solutions to the problems posed by the performance of employment in parallel to inspection duties, has been suspended, even though the administration had envisaged extending to labour inspectors, in a draft act, the requirement concerning the exclusivity of duties and raising the level of remuneration applicable to inspectors of the Directorate-General of Taxation. This draft culminated in the adoption of Act 17706 of 4 November 2002, the scope of which remains limited to tax officials, a development which is perceived by the AITU as a discriminatory act and one having a devaluing effect vis-à-vis labour inspectors and their duties.

3. Conditions of service of labour inspectors (Article 6). According to the AITU, five inspectors on contract with responsibility for environmental conditions were forced to waive their right to wage compensation in order to be incorporated in the budgetary posts of the labour inspectorate. The level of remuneration for labour inspectors is claimed to be discriminatory in relation to that applied to other inspection corps despite the scale of their duties and responsibilities.

4. Training, number and conditions of work of inspection staff (Articles 7, 10 and 11). The AITU deplores the reduction in human resources further to the implementation of the policy to cut public expenditure; the lack of training of serving inspection staff; the inadequacy of practical resources to perform the work; the slowness of the procedure to reimburse travel costs incurred by inspectors in the performance of their duties; the scarcity of fuel preventing the use of official vehicles and consequently inspection visits. The dissolution of the National Port Services Administration (ANSE) is also claimed to have resulted in an extra burden of work for the labour inspectorate without any transfer of budget allocations and resources provided for by law, and there is a lack of adequate planning in inspection activities in the port sector.

5. Suppression of sources of documentary information (Article 14). The Organization indicates the regrettable demise of a State Insurance Fund publication on industrial accidents which it considered an important instrument for the implementation of a preventive policy.

Referring to its repeated comments on the persistent failure of the Government to discharge its obligations under the Convention and to the discussions to which these failures gave rise within the Committee on the Application of Standards during its June 2002 session, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide information and a copy of any text concerning the measures taken to restore the operational efficiency of the inspection system, particularly: (i) re-establishing conditions of service for labour inspectors which ensure their independence with regard to any improper external influences (Article 6 of the Convention) and enable them to discharge their duties with the necessary authority and impartiality (Article 3, paragraph 2); and (ii) boosting practical, financial and logistical resources which are essential to the inspection services (Articles 11 and 16).

The Government is also asked to communicate to the Office any clarification or comment which it considers appropriate in relation to the grievances expressed by the AITU and to provide a copy of any relevant text.