Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

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

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the detailed information provided in response to its previous requests, in particular in connection with the points raised by Business New Zealand. It also notes the information provided in response to the points raised by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions (NZCTU) in a new observation sent with the report, and the legislation adopted during the period covered. The Committee notes with satisfaction the constructive dialogue established between the Government and the employers’ and workers’ organizations during the preparation of the Government’s reports on the application of the Convention.

1. Duality of the inspection system and differentiated approach for the development of a single preventive culture. The Government and the NZCTU believe that the new distribution of responsibilities and inspection activities between, on the one hand, occupational safety and health inspectors and, on the other, labour inspectors, has allowed for effective collaboration in working towards the common objective of prevention. The Committee notes, however, that, according to the NZCTU, there are still some inconsistencies in the respective approaches of both services to complaints, due, in part, to the different legislation being enforced. Therefore, complaints relating to health and safety give rise to proceedings and penalties, even when they are anonymous and made by the public, as is the case with complaints regarding building sites and large retail outlets. Labour inspectors, however, do not respond to anonymous complaints. They only examine wage and time records following complaints from workers, which are most often made when an employee is at the point of leaving his job. Moreover, they only very rarely prosecute offending employers, their priority being to seek recovery of underpayment of wages. According to the NZCTU, these complaints generally concern violations of provisions relating to changes to the minimum wage, and small and medium-sized enterprises should be provided with information, in simple language, on the application of these provisions during proactive visits, so as to prevent such situations arising. The Committee notes with satisfaction that this situation is in the process of being rectified, since, as indicated by the Government, in accordance with Article 3, paragraph 1(b), of the Convention, labour inspectors are invested, by virtue of new legislative texts on general conditions of work, with the duty to supply technical information and advice to employers and workers, and that, according to the Holidays Act of 2003, labour inspectors are also authorized to bring an action for a penalty against an employer for breaches of the Act and to recover arrears of pay on an employee’s behalf. The Committee notes the point of view expressed by the NZCTU on the need to take measures of a budgetary nature with a view to reinforcing the number of labour inspection staff, given the extra work resulting from the abundance of new legislative provisions. The Government, for its part, acknowledges that the reduction in proactive inspections is a reality and largely attributed to prolonged vacancies within the Labour Inspectorate. It indicates that inspections of general working conditions are only carried out in response to complaints or in establishments known for their failure to comply with the minimum standards, but that seminars are conducted to promote decent working conditions. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide, in its next report, information on any measures taken to reinforce the number of staff of the Labour Inspectorate, with a view to increasing the proactive visits aimed at instilling in the social partners a culture of respect for the relevant legislation, so as to prevent, insofar as is possible, situations that are detrimental to workers.

2. Article 3, paragraph 1, and Articles 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18. Preventive functions of the Labour Inspectorate in respect of safety and health. Whilst welcoming the proposal made by the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (NOHSAC) that there should be a single agency to take full responsibility for the entire range of occupational health and safety issues, the NZCTU fears that, if the emphasis is put on the issue of illnesses of occupational origin, this could have the effect of minimizing activities to prevent occupational injury. The NZCTU recognizes, however, that the issue of action on occupational illnesses linked to exposure to chemical substances is of particular importance to workers engaged in manufacturing and transport industries. The Committee is pleased to note that a conference on occupational illnesses was hosted by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) in 2005, which illustrates the importance that employers are giving to this issue. According to the NZCTU, government agencies, including health and safety inspectors, should show greater awareness of the causes of occupational diseases and take the necessary measures to minimize the risks to workers. In this regard, the Committee notes with interest the measures taken by the Government, in response to the NZCTU’s request, to reinforce the capacity of occupational health and safety inspectors and to allow them to take recourse to the necessary technical and legal assistance for the assessment and appropriate treatment of situations in which there are chemical risks and risks of occupational illness. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing any information which will enable it to assess developments in respect of the level of application of the relevant Articles of the Convention.