Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Madagascar (Ratification: 1971)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the documents attached, received on 5 November 2009. It also notes the comments of the Autonomous Trade Union of Labour Inspectors (SAIT), dated 2 February 2010, concerning the application of this Convention and the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129). These comments were sent to the Government on 6 April 2010 but it has not provided any information on the points raised.

Articles 6 and 11 of the Convention. Conditions of service and work of labour inspectors. In its previous reports, the Government mentioned the poor conditions of work of labour inspectors and the lack of equipment and transport facilities owing to the meagre budgetary resources allocated to the labour administration, but the Committee noted in its previous observation that section 235 of the Labour Code provides that the competent authorities are obliged to adopt the necessary measures to provide inspectors with local offices which are suitably equipped in accordance with the requirements of the services and accessible to the persons concerned, and with the transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties where no suitable public transport facilities exist, and are also obliged to make arrangements to ensure that labour inspectors are reimbursed for any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the discharge of their duties. The Committee further noted that, under the same text, the implementation of these measures is covered by the state budget. It therefore requested the Government to supply any information, together with any relevant legal, administrative, or financial text, or any document describing the measures taken for the purposes referred to in section 235 of the Labour Code and the impact of these measures on the operation of the labour inspectorate in practice.

However, in its report received in November 2009, the Government indicates that the procedure for the submission to the competent authorities of the draft text on the special conditions applicable to labour inspectors has been suspended due to political instability. The Committee understands that this text is designed to improve the conditions of work of inspectors, including travelling and incidental expenses and hours of work. With regard to the lack of means in relation to the labour inspectorate’s operational needs, the Government merely acknowledges that major efforts need to be made and mentions the possibility of the cooperation of other bodies without giving further details. Furthermore, the Government’s indications concerning the distribution of labour inspection staff are extremely contradictory in that it states on the one hand that in general, a labour inspection service operates with two labour inspectors, one controller, a secretary and an office junior, but refers on the other hand to a table in the 2009 biannual activity report which indicates that Antananarivo has a single inspection service operating with 53 inspectors, Antsirabe has a service operating with two inspectors, Toliary has a service operating with three inspectors and other regional services operate with one or two inspectors.

According to the SAIT, the Government has taken no steps to make the slightest improvement to the situation of the labour inspectorate, which it describes as wholly inadequate, with dilapidated infrastructure, furniture and other equipment allocated to the services and extremely precarious living and working conditions of labour inspectors and controllers, which are far removed from the concept of decent work, the promotion of which comes within the remit of the labour inspectorate. The SAIT states that labour inspectors are often required to finance the operational needs of the service using their own funds due to the failings of the administration. This includes the provision of office equipment and the funding of travelling costs incurred when visiting workplaces. Furthermore, the political crisis has apparently triggered an upsurge in action designed by those responsible to hinder the operation of the labour inspection services and harass labour inspectors and controllers.

The union indicates that a trade union demonstration was organized on 27 November 2009 as a sign of protest against the politicization of the labour administration and to stress the urgent need to modernize the labour inspectorate in the face of the crisis. According to the SAIT, in response to this demonstration, in which a large number of labour inspectors and controllers participated, the Labour Minister encouraged labour controllers to rise up against labour inspectors and dismissed several labour inspectors who had participated in the demonstration and who occupied senior posts within the Ministry, while transferring a number of other labour inspectors who had until then been working in the capital to posts several hundred kilometres away, with no regard for the inconvenience caused to their families, in particular to their children of school age, or to their trade union duties and imminent retirement.

The SAIT further indicates that, following the invitation it extended in vain to the Minister to engage in dialogue, it decided to report the situation described above to the Office while confirming the commitment of its members to assume their share of the responsibility for the efforts to implement the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda.

The Committee notes the following documents attached to the union’s comments:

(1)   labour inspectors’ communication dated 27 November 2009;

(2)   three individual service notes ordering national directors to hand over their functions;

(3)   four individual decisions concerning the assignment of labour inspectors, two of whom hold trade union office;

(4)   a copy of Decree No. 2004-841 of 31 August 2004 concerning the conditions governing the assignment and transfer of public servants;

(5)   a copy of Decree No. 2006-432 of 27 June 2006 implementing the system of quotas for recruitment competitions in the public service;

(6)   report on the election of the officers of the trade union of labour inspectors dated 25 April 2007 (which includes the names of the public servants who are the subject of the above individual decisions);

(7)   a document containing extracts from Ordinance No. 60-149 concerning the conditions governing the exercise of trade union rights and the defence of the occupational interests of public service employees and public servants; and

(8)   a copy of the SAIT’s comments to the ILO dated 4 June 2008 concerning the application of the Convention, which were not received, as a result of which the Committee was unable to examine them, in which the SAIT reports the appalling conditions of service and work of labour inspectors which are discriminatory compared to those enjoyed by other public servants with the same qualifications and similar responsibilities.

The Committee expresses deep concern at the situation described not only by the Government but also by the SAIT concerning the severe lack of material means available to the labour inspectorate in relation to the numerous and complex duties that inspectors are required to carry out. Furthermore, this situation seems to be exacerbated by a clear lack of consideration on the part of the authorities towards labour inspection staff and seems to have resulted in a weakening of the public institution of which they form part and the role of which is to enforce the labour legislation. Inspectors are therefore discredited in the eyes of the social partners due not only to the severe lack of means available to them, but also, and above all, to their precarious status compared to the status of other public servants with similar qualifications and responsibilities.

The rare information provided by the Government concerning the operation of the labour inspectorate in practice indicates a clear lack of understanding of the value and socio-economic role of this public institution. The independence of labour inspectors from any change of government and from any undue external influence is one of the key principles laid down in the Conventions concerning labour inspections. The documents provided by the SAIT concerning the dismissal and transfer of labour inspectors to very remote locations in December 2009, which took place in the month following their participation in industrial action by means of an administrative transfer, would seem to confirm the SAIT’s opinion that these measures were designed to punish trade union membership or activity.

The Committee urges the Government to provide detailed information in its next report in reply to the points raised by the SAIT. Furthermore, it requests it to take measures as a matter of urgency to restore normal operations within the labour inspectorate, including ensuring that an investigation using all legal means is carried out to verify the legitimacy of the grounds for the decisions to transfer members of the inspection staff who participated in the industrial action of 27 November 2009 and that any occupational and trade union rights which have been violated are restored.

The Committee also requests the Government to keep the ILO duly informed of the process of adopting the draft text relating to the special conditions applicable to labour inspectors and to provide a copy of the draft or final text, as applicable.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.