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

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - Sweden (Ratification: 1970)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union, dated 24 March 2003 (and not 2004, as incorrectly stated in the Committee’s previous comments), transmitted to the Government by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation and sent to the Office by the tripartite committee responsible for relations with the ILO on 29 July 2004 and which concerned the content of the Government’s report submitted to the Office in November 2002. The Committee also noted the Government’s explanations responding in part to these observations, and indicated that it would examine, together with the Government’s subsequent report on the application of the Convention, the information sent in reply to its previous comments, the content of the union’s observations, and any further explanations the Government saw fit to send on the points raised by the union. In its succinct report for the period ending June 2005, the Government did not provide the information requested by the Committee in 2003. It stated that it had no further comments to add to the information sent by the tripartite committee responsible for relations with the ILO in response to the Union’s observation, or to the information from the Swedish Work Environment Authority, communicated with its previous report.

1. Articles 11 and 14 of the Convention. Composition of labour inspection staff in the agriculture sector, specific skills and the number of undertakings liable to inspection. Article 21. Frequency of inspection visits. In reference to the Government’s statement that the resources of the ten district inspection services include 20 labour inspectors for agriculture, the Swedish Municipal Workers’ Union indicates that although these inspectors are effectively responsible for inspections in the agricultural sector, the new working methods mean that the district inspection services now cover a wider field and that inspections in this sector are therefore often carried out by inspectors from different backgrounds. Given that every sector faces working environment-related problems that are not unique to that sector, the skills specifically required for each sector must be supplemented by experience from other sectors. One example might be problems relating to ergonomics in agriculture, which is why labour inspection in agriculture also requires the skills of specialists in ergonomics. These working methods, of a more universal nature, and this global approach to working environment issues echo the principles of a systematic work environment management system, formulated by the Swedish Work Environment Authority and embodied by its activities.

According to the Swedish Work Environment Authority, the present Convention should also be examined in relation to the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention, 2001 (No. 184), certain provisions of which, i.e. those relating to industrial safety inspectors, women in agriculture and the right to information, are different. The Committee asks the Government to specify the reasons for this point of view.

The Committee also notes that the Swedish Work Environment Authority considers the figure quoted by the Government – 20 labour inspectors in agriculture – to be questionable if referring to full-time inspectors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details on this point and indicate, in particular, as requested in the Committee’s 2003 observation, whether the 20 inspectors work full time in agricultural enterprises and, if not, indicate their geographical distribution and the portion of their working hours allocated by the district inspection services to the enforcement of the legislation in agricultural enterprises.

The Committee also asks the Government, once again, to indicate the number of agricultural enterprises liable to labour inspection and any changes in the frequency of inspections in such enterprises.

2. Article 6, paragraph 2, and Articles 18 and 22. “Safer work with agricultural machinery” project. The Committee asks the Government, once again, to provide details of the measures envisaged by the abovementioned project to eliminate the deficiencies in the machinery and facilities posing health and safety risks for agricultural workers, as well as other persons living on farms, and to provide any available statistics on the sanctions imposed or the administrative measures applied, as appropriate. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would inform it of any progress already made in this area.