Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - Argentina (Ratification: 1985)

The Committee notes the Government’s report received in September 2008; its reply to the general observation in 2007 on this Convention and on Convention No. 81 on the necessary cooperation between the labour inspection system and the judicial bodies; the communication of several legal texts already available at the ILO, as well as Decrees Nos 817/04 and 272/06 issuing regulations under certain provisions of Act No. 25.877 of 2 March 2004 on the employment system; and a list of enterprises prosecuted and fined for violations of the labour legislation.

Lack of information on the functioning of the labour inspection services in agriculture. The Committee notes that the above list of enterprises contains no details as to the legal provisions violated by these enterprises, nor the branch of activity to which they belong. The Committee infers that these were proceedings brought against enterprises infringing social security legislation, but the Government has not provided details allowing it to know whether agricultural employers were on this list. The Government refers in its report to labour legislation applicable to the agricultural sector (in particular Act No. 22.248 of 1980, approving the national agricultural employment system), already submitted for examination to the Committee, as well as to other texts that do not specifically apply to labour inspection in agriculture; it also refers to the minimum conditions that must be fulfilled in the context of MERCOSUR for assuming the functions of labour inspector, in relation to the principle of equality between men and women at the recruitment stage. The Government also mentions the National Committee of Agrarian Work (CNTA) and its responsibilities, as well as the existence of a national register of rural workers and employers (RENATRE). However, no information is provided on human resources on the facilities available to labour inspectors to discharge their duties (Articles 14 and 15 of the Convention), concerning the enforcement of legal provisions relating to conditions of work in agricultural undertakings (Articles 6, paragraph 1(a), and 21). There is nothing to indicate that labour inspectors in the agricultural sector receive any specific training in prevention and the enforcement of the legislation covered by the Convention (Articles 9, paragraph 3, and 17). With regard to Article 11 concerning the association of duly qualified technical experts and specialists, the Government confines itself to stating that inspectors are qualified and that they have the necessary knowledge to solve problems of a technical nature that might arise. Furthermore, it would not seem that any provisions have been adopted to give effect to Article 19 on the notification to the labour inspectorate of employment accidents and cases of occupational disease (paragraph 1), or to associate the labour inspection services in agriculture with any inquiry into the causes of the most serious accidents or diseases that have affected a number of workers or had fatal consequences (paragraph 2).

The documents provided on regional cooperation among inspection services in the context of MERCOSUR, examined by the Committee in its comments concerning Convention No. 81, do not contain any information on the extent of this cooperation in relation to labour inspection in agricultural undertakings.

With respect to Article 27 of the Convention concerning the information that should be contained in the annual report on labour inspection in agriculture, the Government refers to a national census carried out in 2002 which identified 335,533 establishments liable to inspection. It states that 1,530 inspections were carried out in 2007, covering 18,848 workers, of which 38 per cent were not registered in the integrated retirement and pension scheme (SIJP), which would seem to infer that all these visits were focused on the situation of employers and workers in relation to their social security obligations. In terms of the statistics on employment accidents and occupational diseases, the Government refers to previous information without any further details. The Committee would like to draw the Government’s attention to the specific characteristics of agricultural work, and particularly the occupational hazards linked to the use of machinery, equipment and the handling or spreading of toxic products and substances, which are faced by the workers concerned, as well as the members of their family living on the undertaking. It is bound to reaffirm the need to provide labour inspection services in agriculture with adequate human resources and means with a view to protecting the population covered by the Convention. It requests the Government to take the necessary measures for this purpose and, in its next report, to provide information that is as detailed as possible on the way in which effect is given in practice to all the above provisions of the Convention, as well as to the relevant national legal provisions to ensure the protection of agricultural workers and members of their family. It would be grateful if the Government would communicate information on these measures and on their results.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to provide details on the action undertaken in the context of MERCOSUR with respect to labour inspection in agriculture.