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

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Cameroon (Ratification: 1988)

1. Collective dismissals. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made by the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC) and the General Confederation of Labour–Liberty of Cameroon (CGTL) referred to in the observation of 2007. In its reply received in February 2008, the Government states that the procedure laid down in section 40 of the Labour Code was observed in the dismissals in public and semi-public companies. The dismissals occurred only after measures to avoid them had been exhausted. The compensation claims of the workers dismissed from the state companies were examined by a committee chaired by the Minister of Finance. The Committee again points out that compliance with the principles set forth in the Convention can facilitate the development of socially responsible economic activity when decisions are made regarding collective dismissals. Terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature must be consistent with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention on consultation with the workers’ representatives and notification to the competent authority. In a new communication forwarded to the Government in October 2008, the UGTC raised concerns over the dismissal of 215 workers without consultation. The Committee asks the Government to report on decisions taken to ensure the provision of a severance allowance and other income protection for workers dismissed by their employers. It would like to be in a position to ascertain whether such measures to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissals have been taken pursuant to Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the observation made by the UGTC in November 2008.

2. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not reported on the following matters contained in the observation of 2007. It trusts that the Government will provide a report replying to the matters already raised in the Committee’s observation of 2006, which read as follows:

Article 4. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that effect is given to Article 4 by section 34(1) of the Labour Code, which is reproduced in collective agreements and provides that “a contract of employment for an indefinite period may always be terminated at the will of one of the parties. Such termination is subject to notice given by the party taking the initiative to end the contract and shall be notified in writing to the other party with an indication of the reason for termination”. The Government indicates that the reasons considered to be valid grounds for termination are generally determined by the internal rules of each enterprise. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 1 of Recommendation No. 166 contemplates “workers’ rules” as a method of implementation but, as the Committee observed in paragraph 30 of the 1995 General Survey on protection against unfair dismissal, it may prove difficult to rely on internal work rules to give effect to the provisions of the Convention when they only cover the enterprise to which they apply. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure, in a manner consistent with its national practice, that full effect is given to the obligation established by Article 4 of the Convention that the employment of any worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service. Please also provide copies of recent court decisions by which the tribunals have given effect to this important provision of the Convention.

Article 5(c) and (d).  Invalid reasons for termination set out in the Convention. The Government indicates that the application of Article 5 is ensured by sections 39(1) and 84(2) of the Labour Code, which the Committee had already noted in its previous comments. The Committee refers to its 2002 direct request relating to Article 5(c) and (d), as well as the comments that it made in 2004 on the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 111. It once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c)), as well as the race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin of the worker (Article 5(d)), do not constitute valid reasons for termination of employment. Please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Government indicates that collective agreements and internal rules give effect to the provisions of Article 7. The Committee refers to the observations made in 2001 by the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USCL) to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defence prior to termination of employment is ensured for all workers, in particular by providing copies of the relevant provisions of any collective agreement or internal rules that are available, and any recent judicial decision.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates that the time limits available to workers to exercise their right of appeal against termination of employment can be inferred from section 74 of the Labour Code, which provides in subsection 1 that “legal action respecting the payment of wages is subject to a three-year prescription”. The Committee notes that section 74 deals with legal action concerning payment of wages. It therefore requests the Government to indicate how section 74 of the Labour Code ensures the right to appeal against unfair dismissal within a reasonable period of time after termination, as required by Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates that the time limits available to workers to exercise their right of appeal against termination of employment can be inferred from section 74 of the Labour Code, which provides in subsection 1 that “legal action respecting the payment of wages is subject to a three-year prescription”. The Committee notes that section 74 deals with legal action concerning payment of wages. It therefore requests the Government to indicate how section 74 of the Labour Code ensures the right to appeal against unfair dismissal within a reasonable period of time after termination, as required by Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

Parts IV and V of the report form. Application of the provisions of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that copies of court decisions relating to questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention will be forwarded subsequently. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of providing information regularly on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice so as to enable the Committee to examine the application of its provisions, and particularly Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, paragraph 3, 11 and 12, paragraph 3. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain relevant and up to date information on the application of the Convention (Parts IV and V of the report form).