Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129) - France (Ratification: 1972)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the joint observations of the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière-Work, Employment and Vocational Training (CGT-FO-TEFP); the National Confederation of Labour-Work, Employment and Vocational Training (CNT-TEFP); the National Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (SNTEFP-CGT); the SUD Union-Labour, Social Affairs; and the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training and Professional Integration SNU-TEFI (FSU) submitted on 8 March 2021, alleging the violations of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 by the French Government during the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes the information in response, provided by the Government.

Articles 3, 5(a), and 17 of Convention No. 81, and Articles 6(1) and (3), 12, 22 and 23 of Convention No. 129. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Control of workers in an irregular situation (in agriculture). In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that the Labour Code empowers labour inspectors, judicial officers and personnel, and customs officers with detecting violations relating to the employment of undocumented foreign workers. The Government also indicates that the difficulty in conducting certain inquiries may justify coordinated action, under the aegis of the State prosecutor. As the coordination of the police with the labour inspectorate allows, in certain cases, for tighter control of the inspections, this assists labour inspectors in fully performing their functions of providing information and guidance. Labour inspectors do not participate in the operations of the immigration police, who target violations related to irregular stay, but focus on identifying any infringements, such as illegal employment for which the responsibility rests with the employer and the worker is disadvantaged, in terms of social security registration, wages, hours and conditions of work, and so forth. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Articles 4, 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7, 14 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Territorial reform of the States and of French Guyana. Impact on the organization of the labour inspection system. In response to the Committee’s previous comment concerning the territorial reform of the State, the Government indicates that the Prime Minister’s circular of 12 June 2019 regarding the implementation of this reform, introduced a programme to clearly delimit the competences of the State territorial services and, in particular, resulted in the establishment of a public labour market inclusion service. This had no impact on either the competences of the labour inspectorate or the prerogatives of the central authority, the General Labour Directorate, which ensures that the envisaged pooling of departmental resources relating to property, budget and support functions does not adversely impact the tasks of the labour inspectorate. The Government refers to Decree No. 2020-1545 of 9 December 2020, which sets out that the new decentralized organization of the public labour market inclusion service does not impact the specific activities of the labour inspectorate, which maintain their hierarchical organizational structure. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

In response to the Committee’s previous comment regarding the impact on the labour inspection system of the reform of the State services in French Guyana, the Government indicates that the entry into force, on 1 January 2020, of Decree No. 2019-894 of 28 August 2019 on the organization and functions of State services in Guyana has not had any major impact on the functioning of the labour inspection services. These services fall under the General Directorate of Communities, which, while appointed by the prefect, acts under the exclusive authority of the General Labour Directorate. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Articles 6 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Independence of labour inspectors and penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that it is vigorously combating the obstruction of the duties of labour inspectors. In this regard, the Committee notes that the amount of the fine imposed for such an infringement has increased ten-fold since 2016. The Committee also notes that inquiry and interrogation methods have been optimized for the most serious incidents, and that the penalties are proportional to the gravity of the acts, with the most serious infringements prosecuted before the correctional court. In addition, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s information, the central authority, with the help of the National Council of Labour Inspection (CNIT), remains alert to the matter of handling any undue pressure or obstruction to the independence of labour inspectors, and that there seem to have been no cases that required interventions, except for simple guidance, over the course of the previous three years. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any new cases of obstruction faced by labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties, and on criminal and civil charges brought for cases of contempt, threats, assaults and violence against labour inspectors, and on the effective application of penalties.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Powers of labour inspectors, and inspections as often and as thorough as necessary. In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018, for a State that serves a trust-based society, has not compromised the prerogatives of the labour inspectors subject to the above Articles as there have been no reports since its promulgation. The Committee notes that section 32 of this Act is applicable only on a trial basis in the Hauts-de-France and Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes regions, and for a period of four years as from the issuance of the implementing decree to the Act. It notes that this trial must be subject to an assessment, particularly of its impact on administrative timelines, the results of which must be communicated to Parliament, six months before the completion of the trial period at the latest. The Committee also notes that the implementing decree, concerning the trial period on limiting the total time of inspections conducted by the administrations in certain enterprises, was adopted on 21 November 2018; and that this trial period has ended because, under section 6 of the decree, the provisions in question were applicable to inspections from 1 December 2018. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to communicate the results of the assessment of the trial period and to indicate whether section 32 of Act No 2018-727 remains in force. If so, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the scope of application of this section has been extended to other regions and, if so, to continue to provide information on the implementation of this section. It also requests information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in practice, the provisions of the above section 32 do not obstruct the powers of labour inspectors to enter workplaces, in conformity with Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129, and to inspect them as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129. Periodic reports. Further to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that the “Wiki’T” application automatizes the input of information required for activity reports and management, that the volume of data collected through this application is increasing as it improves, and that the inspection officials see the usefulness of contributing to the tool. The “Delphes” pre-formatted query tool also provides many functions. Noting that these two tools are currently being revised, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the development of their functions in order to enable a more effective application of the obligations provided for in Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Article 19 of Convention No. 129. Notification to labour inspectorate of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in Guadeloupe. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment, when the inspector is notified of an occupational accident, he or she requests the accident declaration form but that the information is difficult to obtain in cases of accidents in the informal sector, which are relatively high in the agricultural sector. Hence, over the previous three years, the inspections have focused on combating illegal labour in this sector and several legal proceedings have been initiated, with a view to securing dissuasive penalties that resonate throughout the sector. The Committee also notes that in 2019, meetings were organized to iron out the difficulties identified in the process to submit a declaration with the social security services. With regard to occupational diseases, the Committee notes that employers are not involved in the process of declaration of such diseases, and that those who initiate the process are the family doctors. As these diseases are under-declared in Guadeloupe, the Directorate for the economy, employment, labour and solidarity has committed to raising doctors’ awareness of the possible association between a pathology and an occupational cause, and to strengthening the relationships with the works doctors. This initiative concerns all sectors, not only the agricultural sector. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the results of the several approaches that have been taken are encouraging. The Committee notes, however, that although other initiatives relating to doctors were envisaged, the COVID-19 pandemic curbed them, and that, as there is no labour inspector-doctor in the Antilles, these initiatives can only be restarted at the completion of the current hiring process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the hiring of a labour inspector-doctor in the Antilles and on the development of new initiatives aimed at facilitating the notification of labour inspectors of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in the agricultural sector in Guadeloupe.

Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129. Annual report of the labour inspection service. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment, 120 personnel are appointed to the labour inspection services in agriculture (Article 27(b) of the Convention) but that the share of activity dedicated to agriculture in each department cannot be precisely determined. With regard to the statistics and causes of occupational accidents and occupational diseases in the agricultural sector (Article 27(f) and (g) respectively), the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s information, the Mutualité sociale agricole - the social security scheme for this specific sector – compiles national statistics based on declarations of occupational accidents and occupational diseases. The Government indicates that the labour inspection services do not receive these declarations directly, but that everything is implemented by the central labour inspection system to remove organizational and technical obstacles, and obtain these declarations. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to enable the labour inspection system to obtain the declarations of occupational accidents and occupational diseases (Article 27(f) and (g)).

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière (CGT-FO) on the application of Convention No. 81, and the Government’s response, received in 2016.

Territorial reform of the State. Impact on the organization of the labour inspection system. The Committee notes the Prime Minister’s circular dated 12 June 2019 on the implementation of the territorial reform of the State, which envisages the creation of a public labour market inclusion service which, at the regional level, will involve merging the Regional Directorates for Enterprise, Competition, Consumption, Labour and Employment (DIRECCTE) and the Regional Directorates for Youth, Sport and Social Cohesion (DRJSCS) into a single body. According to the circular, at the departmental level, it is also envisaged that the competences of the DRJSCSs and departmental units of the DIRECCTE, which currently include the departmental-level labour inspection services, will be merged into a new body. The Committee notes that, according to the circular, it is planned that the labour inspection service will maintain its current hierarchical organization within these new bodies. The Committee also notes that the reform envisages the pooling, at the departmental level, of office space and budgetary resources and support functions, in order to increase efficiency. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129, labour inspection shall be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority, so far as is compatible with the administrative practice of the Member. In this regard, the Committee emphasized in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraph 140, that “Attaching the labour inspectorate to a central authority facilitates the establishment and application of a single policy throughout the territory covered, and makes it possible to use available resources in a rational way by, for example, eliminating duplication of effort.” The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all organizational reforms of the labour inspection system are conducted in accordance with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to ensure that the reform is conducted in accordance with Articles 3 (duties of labour inspectors), 4 (central authority), 5 (cooperation and coordination ), 6 (status and conditions of service of public officials), 7 (recruitment and training), 10 (number of labour inspectors and material means), 11 (offices and transport), 15 (obligations of labour inspectors), 16 (number and quality of inspections) and 19 (periodical reports to the central inspection authority) of Convention No. 81, as well as the corresponding Articles of Convention No. 129 (Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 25).

Reform in French Guiana. Impact on the labour inspection system. The Committee notes that Decree No. 2019-894 of 28 August 2019 on the organization and functions of State services in Guiana, provides for the reorganization of the administration of the State in French Guiana into five general directorates, and provides for labour inspection to be placed under the authority of the General Directorate of Communities. It also notes that, in accordance with section 3 of the Decree, while the future Director-General of Communities shall be appointed further to an opinion of the prefect, for the discharge of their functions relating to labour inspection, they shall not be under the authority of the prefect of French Guiana, but under the General Labour Directorate (DGT). The Decree also envisages that, under the authority of the prefect and subject to the powers attributed to other public services or institutions of the State, the General Directorate of Administration shall be responsible for managing the pooled functions and resources of the State services placed under the authority of the prefect in various fields. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the proposed organizational changes on the application in practice of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, in particular on the application of Articles 3 (functions of inspectors), 4 (central authority), 5 (cooperation and coordination), 6 (status and conditions of service as public officials), 7 (recruitment and training), 10 (number of inspection staff and material resources), 11 (offices and transport), 15 (obligations of inspectors), 16 (number and quality of inspections) and 19 (periodic reports to the central authority) of Convention No. 81, as well as the corresponding Articles of Convention No. 129 (Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 25). The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the possible impact of the management, by the General Directorate of Administration, of the pooled functions and resources of the State services placed under the authority of the prefect in various fields, on the personnel of the labour inspection system, which is placed under the authority of the DGT.

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a) and 17 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1) and (3), 12, 22 and 23 of Convention No. 129. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Control of workers in an irregular situation (in agriculture). Further to its previous comments on the role of labour inspectors in procedures to tackle illegal work, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the labour inspection system does not have statistic on cases in which migrant workers having worked in an irregular situation have had their rights restored. However, it notes the Government’s indication that the labour inspection services report cases in which their action has led to an employer regularizing the situation of such migrant workers. The Government adds that the labour inspection service’s association with the police force offers, in some cases, labour inspectors with greater security in carrying out inspections, and does not prevent the full discharge of their duties of informing and advising workers. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, when inspecting workplaces, inspectors distribute leaflets to migrant workers who do not have permits or who are undeclared, and that migrant workers who have worked in an irregular situation have equal access to the labour inspection service, irrespective of their status under the legislation on the residence of migrants, to obtain information and advice, in particular on the possibilities of asserting their rights. The Committee also notes that, according to the labour inspection’s 2017 annual report, the labour inspection services share information and coordinate their action with the competent institutional bodies, including the police, gendarmerie, customs, the control and search brigades attached to the public finance directorates, the national anti-fraud delegation, the Unions for the Recovery of Social Security Contributions and Family Allowances, the Agricultural Social Mutual and the judicial authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on the nature of the coordinated action and the type of information shared between the labour inspection service, the police, customs and other institutional bodies responsible for combating illegal work, indicating how this sharing and coordinated action contributes to the fulfilment of the main duties of labour inspectors, as envisaged by Article 3(1) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) of Convention No. 129.

Articles 6 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Observations of the CGT and the CGT-FO. Alleged infringements of the principle of the independence of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the observations of the CGT and CGT-FO concerning a series of specific events during which, the trade unions allege that the principle of the independence of labour inspectors, under Article 6 of Convention No. 81, was prejudiced, as a company that had been inspected put undue pressure on the inspection personnel involved, and the competent authorities did not respond in a timely or appropriate fashion. In particular, the CGT and CGT-FO allege in their observations that the relevant authorities failed to condemn the undue pressure exerted by the company. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s response on the protection measures taken by the Ministry of Labour and the DGT for the inspection staff involved in that case. It also notes that section L. 8112-1 of Labour Code was amended by Act No. 2016-1088 of 8 August 2016, and explicitly provides that labour inspection officers “benefit from a guarantee of independence in the discharge of their duties within the meaning of the international Conventions on labour inspection”. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that efforts are still being made to find a solution to enable the best possible outcome to the situation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take all the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that no undue external influence, in the form of pressure against labour inspectors, is tolerated. It requests the Government to continue providing information in this regard, and to continue providing information on the effective application of penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties.

Articles 6 and 15 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 20 of Convention No. 129. Code of Professional Ethics 2017. The Committee notes with interest the adoption in 2017, of Decree No. 2017-541 of 12 April 2017 issuing the code of ethics of the public labour inspection service. It notes that, according to its preface, the 2017 Code of Ethics is based on Conventions Nos 81 and 129 and provides a reminder of the ethical principles and rules applicable to all public officials as well as the principles and rules that are specific to labour inspectors in view of the nature of their functions and powers. The Government states that the Code of Ethics guides the action of the public labour inspection service, provides for the respective rights and duties of the directors and inspectors placed under its authority and recalls, in particular, the obligations imposed on inspectors in relation to users, including neutrality and impartiality, as well as safeguarding the secrecy and confidentiality of complaints in the discharge of their duties.

Articles 7 and 10 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 9 and 14 of Convention No. 129. “Strong Ministry” reform. Training and promotion of labour inspectors. Number of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the impact of the implementation of the “Strong Ministry” reform on labour inspection. The Committee notes, in particular, the information provided on the number of personnel in the labour inspection system, training, the promotion of 980 labour controllers (assistants to inspectors) to the rank of labour inspector since 2013, increased means of intervention of the labour inspectors, and new material resources made available to inspectors, including computer tools.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Act for a State that serves a trust-based society. Application in practice. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018 for a State that serves a trust-based society which, under the terms of section 32, imposes, for a four-year experimental period, a cumulative limit on the duration of all controls carried out by the authorities on a company with fewer than 250 employees and whose annual turnover does not exceed €50 million. Section 32 also provides that this limit is not enforceable if there are precise and consistent indications of non-compliance with a legal or regulatory obligation, and does not apply to certain controls, including those ensuring compliance with the rules on the safety of persons. The Committee notes that this limit could potentially hamper the practical application of Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 (and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129), since labour inspectors would no longer be free to enter workplaces for inspection once the limit had been reached, in view of their duty of confidentiality under Article 15(c) of Convention No. 81 (and Article 20(c) of Convention No. 129), which would prevent them from disclosing that an inspection was being made following a complaint. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in practice, these provisions do not impede the power of labour inspectors to enter workplaces, in accordance with Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129, and to inspect them as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

Article 18 of Convention No. 81 and Article 24 of Convention No. 129. Safety of labour inspectors. Obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government indicating the number of labour inspection incidents in 2016, the measures taken by labour inspectors in response, and the preventive measures taken to raise the awareness of inspectors. The Government states that 48 inspection incidents were reported in 2016 and that, of the 45 incidents investigated, 21 led to charges or the intention of bringing charges for contempt, 13 to charges or the intention of bringing charges for obstruction, three to reports to the public prosecutor, within the meaning of section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (discovering of a crime or offence in the discharge of the duties of a public officer or civil servant), seven to complaints lodged by the supervising officer, and three to the employer being held in police custody three days after the incident. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the proportion of “contempt” incidents remains relatively stable compared with the number of interventions by labour inspectors. However, it notes that, according to the 2017 annual report of the labour inspection service, the number of inspection incidents increased in 2017 to 65. The Government also considers that there are still difficulties in terms of statistics on judicial sanctions, as judicial procedures for offences often last over three years, and the number of unknown outcomes remains high, even for cases referred to the prosecutor six or seven years previously. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing statistics on inspection incidents that have resulted in sanctions and on criminal and civil charges brought for reported cases of contempt, threats, assaults and violence.

Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129. Information system on the activities of labour inspection services. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication concerning the implementation of the “Wiki’T” application, the tool used by the monitoring units to register and gather information on the labour inspection service activities. However, it notes that, according to the Government, the central authority experiences difficulties in obtaining reliable and exhaustive data on the activities of the labour inspectors due to incomplete entries in the “Wiki’T” information system and the “Delphes” pre formatted query tool. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on the use of these tools, as well as the measures taken or envisaged to remedy the difficulties identified, in order to maintain compliance with the requirements to report periodically to the central authority, as provided for by Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Articles 6(1)(b), 18 and 19 of Convention No. 129. Preventive function of the inspection services in agriculture and notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe. In response to its previous comments concerning an under-reporting of accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Directorates for Enterprise, Competition, Consumer Matters, Labour and Employment (DIECCTES) of these two departments have been able to remedy this situation. The Committee also notes with interest the Government’s indication of action by DIECCTE in French Guiana, in partnership with the social security services, the regional health agency, the Red Cross and other partners, to raise the awareness of all farmers and tenant farmers on the subject of health and the prevention of occupational accidents. The Committee also notes the action taken by the DIECCTE of Guadeloupe in cooperation with the DIECCTE of Martinique on a programme to monitor occupational diseases. The Government also indicates that more regular controls have resumed in Guadeloupe, now that a position in the agricultural inspection department has been filled, and that employers have once again been made aware of their obligation to declare occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the awareness-raising activities targeting employers conducted in Guadeloupe.

Article 27 (b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129. Annual report of the labour inspection service. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, labour inspection personnel for agricultural occupations are not counted separately, as the functions of a number of labour inspection departments covering agricultural occupations have been extended to non-agricultural activities. The Committee also observes that the 2017 annual report of the labour inspection service does not contain specific information on the agricultural sector with respect to the subjects listed under Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129, concerning labour inspection personnel in agriculture and statistics on occupational accidents and their causes, statistics on occupational diseases and their causes. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports of the labour inspection service contain information on the subjects listed in Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the steps taken to ensure the visibility of labour inspection particularly vis-à-vis employers and workers (Articles 7(3) and 13 of the Convention), and on the collaboration of a prevention engineer of the regional directorate for enterprise, competition, consumer affairs, labour and employment (DIECCTE) in Guadeloupe with labour inspection staff, particularly in agriculture (Article 11).

Articles 6(1) and (3), 12 and 22. Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors. Monitoring of illegal employment. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to limit inspectors’ involvement in joint inspection operations with the police to an extent that is compatible with the objectives of the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that in agriculture joint inspections are far from being systematic operations with the police or gendarmerie and that the main partners in these operations are inspectors from agricultural social mutual funds. Monitoring any employment of undocumented foreigners is certainly not the purpose of the inspection, which is more generally concerned with illegal employment. Moreover, inspectors are mindful of their tasks of providing information and advice, particularly with regard to workers encountered in these circumstances. Accordingly, the inspection staff participating in operations conducted by the immigration police do not focus on any violations connected with illegal residence but on any infringements relating to illegal employment, the responsibility for which rests with the employer, the workers being prejudiced in terms of matters such as social security registration, wages and hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to supply statistical information on cases where the rights of foreign workers in agriculture who have been in an irregular employment situation have been restored, in the context of the application of Act No. 2011-672 of 16 June 2011, which transposes European Union Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009.

Articles 6(1)(b), 18 and 19. Preventive tasks of the inspectorate in agriculture and notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the preventive role of the labour inspectorate in agriculture. It notes the Government’s indication that blatant under-reporting of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease has been observed in French Guiana and Guadeloupe. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to rectify the situation of under-reporting of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following additional points.

Article 11 of the Convention. Collaboration of experts in the work of labour inspection in agriculture. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a campaign for the inspection of outlets selling plant protection products has been conducted in Guadeloupe and that, as part of the campaign, all inspections have been conducted on a joint basis, with the labour inspector and the prevention engineer dealing directly with the product sales manager. The Government declares that the findings of the campaign have tended to be negative: only three out of nine sales outlets inspected are fully aware of the risks posed by these products and inform their customers accordingly about precautions to follow regarding use; there is no awareness of the relevance of safety data records for the safe use of products; none of the inspected outlets systematically distributes safety data records to customers; and there is widespread ignorance of the risks posed by substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that all these findings are particularly true of the banana sector. The Committee further notes that all enterprises have employees who hold certification for the distribution of plant protection products and it also notes the texts of decrees establishing individual certification procedures. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any form of collaboration between labour inspection staff and duly qualified technical experts and specialists who might help to solve problems demanding technical knowledge, on the impact of this collaboration in the light of the objectives of the Convention, and on any obstacles encountered.

Article 19. Notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, the overseas departments (DOM) have adopted at the local level the objectives of national plans, namely the “Occupational health plan No. 2”, the “National plan for health and the environment” and in particular the “Ecophyto 2008–18 national plan”. The latter plan includes a special component for the DOM containing measures designed to ensure safe plant protection practices in terms of health and the environment and, in particular, training and awareness raising with regard to good plant protection practices. It also notes that new measures were due to be taken into account in a new component adopted at the end of 2011, entitled “User health and protection”. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, in the absence of any reported case of leptospirosis, no specific inspection actions were conducted for the prevention of this disease in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Réunion or Martinique, but that the general social security funds, in conjunction with the enterprise and employment directorates (DIECCTE), engaged in awareness raising with regard to the need for risk evaluation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to send information on any progress made in this field and also on the notification of cases of occupational disease in agricultural undertakings.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

The Committee refers to its comments relating to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), in so far as they also concern the application of the present Convention.

Articles 6(3) and 22 of the Convention. Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors in the context of combating the illegal employment of foreign workers. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that is common to the reports on the Convention and Convention No. 81. It also notes that, in 2011, according to the annual report, out of a total of 250 reports of infringements recorded in agricultural undertakings, 113 related to illegal work, 73 were concerned with safety and health, 40 with employment contracts and 14 with the work of the labour inspectorate (obstacles, abuse, prerogatives and resources). The Committee requests the Government to refer to its observation under Convention No. 81, and again asks it to take the measures requested with a view to limiting inspectors’ involvement in joint inspection operations with the police to an extent that is compatible with the objectives of the Convention.

Article 7(3). Integration of the system of labour inspection in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The Committee notes the statement that, although the downward trend in the number of inspections in agricultural undertakings recorded in 2010 and 2011 following the merger of the departments remains a source of concern, the trend has reversed slightly, with a small increase in activity in 2011 following the measures taken. It further notes that the labour inspectorate in the overseas departments (DOM) has not been affected by the merger of departments and that the number of inspections increased over the 2010–11 period. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the drop in activity was not primarily attributable to the departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate was not maintained or set up but rather to an under-evaluation of recorded activity relating to agriculture and the fact that dealing with the new sectors inspected took more time for the officials concerned than had been saved through the reduction in workload.

The Committee also notes that, according to the record of the meeting of the agriculture social partners attached to the Government’s report, the latter wish to have an up-to-date list of agricultural sections, and that the Labour Directorate-General (DGT) undertakes to update the list of contact officials for agriculture. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspection services remain visible and accessible to employers and workers in the agriculture sector, particularly in departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate has not been maintained or set up (including Alpes-de-Haute Provence, Hautes-Alpes, Ariège, Corse-du-Sud, Creuse, Haute-Loire, Lozère, Nièvre, Hautes-Pyrénées, Territoire de Belfort and Val-d’Oise). The Government is also requested to provide statistical information on labour inspection in agriculture for the period covered by the next report.

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

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

With reference to its 2004 observation, the Committee notes with satisfaction the publication in February 2010, after validation by the National Council of Labour Inspection, of a collective work on “Principles of Deontology for Labour Inspection” the preparation of which had been initiated in 2004 under the direction of the Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR) and had continued with ILO technical support. The working group which elaborated this tool was mainly composed of representatives of the labour inspection at various levels, as well as other structures of the Ministry of Labour. The ILO and the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) were also represented. The Committee notes with interest the statement made in the book’s preface by the Minister of Labour, social relations, family, solidarity and cities, that “deontology reinforces the coherent action of the labour inspection agents at all hierarchical levels ... as it protects the citizens themselves from the risks of arbitrariness”. The Committee also notes that according to the Minister, “the principle of independence of labour inspection does not signify only a right for the agents concerned, but also a guarantee for the citizens who are able to benefit from an organized public service which is not subject to any undue external influence”.

Article 6(3) of the Convention. Duties additional to the supervision of working conditions and the protection of workers. Involvement of the labour inspectorate in combating illegal work. The Committee notes that a series of communications from the Single National Union-work, employment, training and professional integration SNU-TEF (FSU), including one received at the ILO on 6 July 2010 about the involvement of labour inspectors in joint operations to combat illegal work pursuant to the interministerial circular of 2 June 2010 No. NOR-IMIM1000102NC concerning the combat as it affects foreign nationals, concern the application of the Convention. Furthermore, it notes the information sent by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous comments and to the matters raised by the abovementioned organization regarding the circular, the provisions of which likewise concern workers with no residence permit employed in agricultural undertakings. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its observation under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and asks it to take the measures requested and to provide, in so far as it concerns the application of this Convention, relevant information on the reshaping of interinstitutional cooperation on the policy to combat the illegal employment of foreigners without residence permits and the role of labour inspectors in agricultural undertakings.

Article 7(3). Integration of the system of labour inspection in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The Committee notes that the process to merge labour inspectorates (agriculture, maritime, transport, labour) has been speeded up since 1 January 2009. It notes that one of the Recommendations made as a result of the merger experiment conducted in two departments, was to maintain or create an inspection sector for agriculture in each department. According to the Government, the number of visits to agriculture undertakings should be maintained.

The Committee notes, however, that according to section R8122-9 of the Labour Code, one section in each department is responsible for supervision of agricultural occupations unless an order or the ministers responsible for agriculture and labour provides otherwise. The Government states that such an order was issued on 23 July 2009 allowing a waiver from the obligation to create or maintain an agriculture section in 14 departments (Alpes de Hautes Provence, Hautes-Aples, Ariège, Corse-du-Sud, Creuse, Haute-Loire, Lozère, Nièvre, Hautes-Pyrénées, Territoire de Belfor, Val d’Oise, Guyane, Martinique, La Réunion.).

The report on the activities of labour inspection in agriculture shows that the total number of interventions in the sector dropped in 2008 to 23,368, as compared to 24,342 previously. A drop was noted in particular in the regions where the departments exempted from the obligation are located (Rhône-Alpes: ‑130 inventions, Pays de la Loire: -126 interventions). No information has been provided on non-metropolitan territories (overseas departments and St Pierre and Miquelon). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that interventions in agricultural undertakings are maintained at a level at least equal to that prevailing prior to the merger, particularly in departments where an agricultural inspection section has not been maintained or created. The Government is asked to include figures showing the activities of the labour inspectorate for the period covered by the next report, including figures for the overseas regions covered by the Convention. The Committee furthermore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspection services remain visible and accessible to employers and workers in the agriculture sector, particularly in departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate has not been maintained or set up.

Articles 11 and 19. Associating experts in the work of labour inspection in agriculture. In its previous observation concerning Guadeloupe, the Committee requested the Government to provide details of the reasons underlying the enquiries into the use of pesticides in banana plantations. It notes that according to the Government, there were 61 interventions in Guadeloupe, of which 54 were controls. Furthermore, nine controls targeted sales outlets for phytosanitary products. It does not, however, indicate either the reasons for the enquiries into pesticides, or the results of the inquiries or the content of the 97 observations on safety and health to which the Government refers. The Committee requests the Government to send in its next report the results of the enquiries and research conducted on the use of pesticides. The Government is also asked to specific the measures taken for the safety and health of all workers particularly for the purpose of eliminating all risks to the safety and health of workers in banana plantations.

Article 19. Occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest the campaigns carried out in Réunion to alert farmers to phytosanitary risks, and the controls carried out in the use of phytosanitary products in the overseas territories. The Government refers to the particular risk facing agriculture workers in Réunion but also all workers in the overseas territories, which are wet zones, where exposure to leptospirosis is high. The Committee notes that occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease are clearly under reported in Guyana. The Government is asked to provide information on:

–           the impact of the information campaigns and controls carried out on the use of phytosanitary products in the agricultural undertakings of the overseas departments covered by the Convention;

–           the measures taken to alert employers, workers and members of health professions to the need to observe procedures for reporting occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease;

–           the follow up to the controls of sales outlets for phytosanitary products.

The Government is also asked to take specific measures for preventing the risk of leptospirosis infection for agricultural workers and to provide information on these measures and on the activities of the labour inspectorate in this area.

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

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received on 8 September 2008, accompanied by information in reply to its previous comments, as well as the annual report on the organization, operation and work of the labour inspectorate in agriculture for 2007. It notes with interest the quality of the information provided.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the General Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Personnel (FO-ITEPSA) on 14 January and 29 July 2008, which were forwarded to the Government on 4 April and 4 September 2008, respectively, and the Government’s comments on the matters raised by the union.

Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Integration of the labour inspection system in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The FO-ITEPSA, in its communication of 14 January 2008, challenges the decision to merge the labour inspectorates, considering that this measure represents a severe threat to the survival of the labour inspectorate in agriculture. It indicates that, as a sign of protest, it decided as the principal organization of the labour inspection services in agriculture, and with the support of the federations of agricultural employees of Force Ouvrière and the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), on a collective action to boycott the transmission of the annual activity reports for 2007 to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Furthermore, the Secretary-General of the FO-ITEPSA, in his personal capacity, sought an opinion on the matter from the National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT). He provided the Office with a copy of the notification from the CNIT dated 4 July 2008 of the opinion finding his request irreceivable.

In communications dated 28 April and 14 July 2008, the Government provided the Office with information on the reasons for the decision to merge the labour inspection systems beginning in 2009 with a view to their operational merger as of 1 January 2011. It indicated that this decision had been preceded by a trial, under the terms of a circular of the Prime Minister dated 2 January 2006, consisting of bringing together the labour inspection services in agriculture and the Departmental Directorates of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training in 2006 and 2007 in two departments (Dordogne and Pas-de-Calais). According to the Government, the trial was positive and resulted in the development of synergies and complementary action between the inspection services and to improving the transparency and quality of the service provided to users. One of the recommendations made following this trial was to establish an agricultural section in each department. This section would have to be recognized as such by the social partners in the agricultural sector, who would thereby maintain their natural and customary counterpart. It would also allow the central administration to maintain an easily identifiable structure. It is also planned to maintain the general nature of the labour inspectorate in agriculture (with overall competence for action in the fields of individual and collective labour relations, conditions of work, occupational safety and health, and the various types of employment) in compliance with the Convention. The Government gives the assurance that the number of inspections and related measures each year will be at least equal, if not greater than those undertaken in 2006 and 2007. The Government adds that the call for a boycott announced by the union has been raised and that all the services provided their annual activity report to the central labour inspection authority in agriculture. It notes that the arrangements for the merger of the labour inspectorates will require close dialogue with all the trade union organizations.

The Committee notes these clarifications and recalls that the Convention does not impose a single form of organization of the labour inspection system in agriculture. Indeed, Article 7, paragraph 3, provides that labour inspection in agriculture might be carried out for example: (a) by a single labour inspection department responsible for all sectors of economic activity; (b) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal functional specialization through the appropriate training of inspectors called upon to exercise their functions in agriculture; (c) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal institutional specialization by creating a technically qualified service, the officers of which would perform their functions in agriculture; or (d) by a specialized agricultural inspection service, the activity of which would be supervised by a central body vested with the same prerogatives in respect of labour inspection in other fields, such as industry, transport and commerce. Remaining attentive to the changes in the organization and functioning of the labour inspectorate as a whole, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the ILO duly informed of the developments occurring in this respect during the period covered by the next report, while at the same time continuing to provide separate information on labour inspection in agriculture, as required by the Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 3. Further duties in addition to those relating to the inspection of conditions of work and the protection of workers. With reference to its comment on the application of Convention No. 81 in relation to the matters raised by other trade union organizations concerning the additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors in agriculture are not involved in the joint operations undertaken in the workplace under the control of other public authorities in the framework of the policy to combat illegal immigration. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on these measures and their impact on the volume and quality of enforcement activities in relation to conditions of work in agricultural undertakings.

Support measures by the Government for labour inspectors. The Committee also refers in this regard to its comments under Convention No. 81 concerning the action taken by the Government following the murder in September 2004 of two labour controllers with a view to providing inspection officials with constant logistical and psychological support.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received in August 2006 and the annual inspection report for 2005 containing all the information requested by virtue of Article 27 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments, in particular on the points raised by the Association L.611-10 in a communication sent to the ILO on 20 September 2004, and the observations made by the union SNU-TEF (FSU) on 13 January 2005 and 13 July 2006, which were forwarded to the Government on 2 March 2005 and 4 September 2006, respectively.

In its observation of 13 January 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU), as well as the Association L.611-10, which the Government states is not a trade union, referred to the assassination by a farmer in Dordogne in September 2004 of two labour inspection officials while engaged in their functions and pointed to the lack of commitment by the Government in situations in which labour inspection officials are facing difficulties. According to the union, the Government’s attitude has contributed to the development of a climate of lack of respect and consideration from employers towards labour inspection officials, thereby encouraging the violation of labour laws. Noting that many of the points raised by the union concern the application of Convention No. 81 by the Government, the Committee refers to its observation under that Convention on issues of application that are common to the two instruments, and requests the Government to supply any comments it may wish to make on the matters raised.

With regard to issues related specifically to the application of the present Convention, the union criticizes the Government for not taking measures or issuing instructions relating to the obstacles and aggressions perpetrated against labour inspection officials while engaged in their duties. In contrast with labour inspectors in industrial and commercial establishments, labour inspectors in agriculture do not benefit from psychological and legal support structures following incidents of aggression. Moreover, the only step taken by the Ministry of Agriculture consisted of entrusting the general inspectorate with the mission of reducing inspections, particularly by the labour inspectorate for agriculture, in order to improve the experience of farmers subject to inspections. The labour inspection services in agriculture saw this step as a denial of their daily supervisory work.

The Committee however notes with interest the measures announced by the Government with a view to strengthening the authority needed by inspection officials in their relations with employers and workers in the agricultural sector.

1. Effective cooperation of judicial authorities. In a joint letter, the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion, the Vice-Minister for Labour Relations and the Minister of Agriculture requested the Minister of Justice to give instructions to public prosecutors to pursue with the greatest severity cases of threats and aggression against labour inspectors. This request was followed by a letter sent by the Minister of Justice on 12 May 2005 to public prosecutors in appeal courts calling for the strict application of law, focusing systematically, where appropriate, on the aggravating circumstance of the victim being responsible for discharging a public service, with special attention to labour inspectors. The Government refers by way of illustration to the case of an employer who opposed an inspection and who was given a suspended prison sentence and a 4,000 euro fine, following the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister of Justice.

2. Improving security conditions for labour inspectors and controllers. A working group has been formed to review inspection proceedings and regional meetings of labour inspectors have been organized with a view to exchanging experience of practice and finding solutions. These were followed by the adoption of practical measures: initial and continued training of labour inspection officials on the management of difficult inspections; the establishment of an immediate psychological support procedure in the case of aggression or obstacles to inspections; the strengthening of the legal protection of inspection personnel; the improved coordination of the inspections and their follow-up in order to improve relations between the administration and farmers.

3. Improvement of the training of labour inspection officials and cooperation between the various labour inspection services. The director of the National Institute of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training has been entrusted with the mission of reviewing the functioning and the organization of labour inspection. The mission will focus on trends and the organization of inspections, the management of conflicts and the initial and further training of labour inspection officials. According to the Government, an instruction issued by the Prime Minister on 2 January 2006 proposes closer collaboration, as an experiment, between labour inspectorates in agriculture and labour inspectorates in industry, commerce and services. The Committee requests the Government to supply any additional information that it considers useful on the matters raised by the organization in its successive comments.

Moreover, the Committee notes the following information provided by the Government relating to the resources and activities of the labour inspectorate over the past two years.

4. Labour inspection staff in agriculture. The Committee notes with interest the information concerning the ratio of the number of labour inspection officials compared to the number of agricultural undertakings liable to inspection and the number and categories of workers covered in terms of annual working time. It also notes with interest that for 2005, the budgetary allocations covered 227 labour inspectors and 149 labour controllers. It would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the strengthening of the human resources of the labour inspectorate and indicate the enforcement activities relating to working conditions and the protection of workers in comparison to the other activities entrusted to labour inspection officials.

5. Importance of inspections of illegal employment in the work of labour inspection. The Committee notes that the large proportion of inspections covering illegal employment (41 per cent of all inspections in 2005) reflects the fact that this is considered by the Government to be a priority issue. However, these controls are also intended to verify conditions of work of workers (wages, leave, hours of work, accommodation, etc.). The Committee notes that the observation of the SNU-TEF (FSU), received by the ILO on 13 July 2006 and forwarded to the Government on 4 September 2006, raises the issue of the incompatibility of this activity with the mission of protecting the conditions of work of all workers without consideration of the question of the legality of their employment relationship. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on how it is planned, where appropriate, to respond to the concerns expressed by the union as to the role of labour inspection in the field of protecting the conditions of work of foreign workers who are illegally resident in the country.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a report for the period 2002-04. However, it notes that the annual inspection report for 2002 for the agricultural sector contains certain of the information requested by the report form under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, as well as the information and statistics required under points (a) to (g) of Article 27 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes a communication of 20 September 2004 from the Association L611-10, which defines itself as grouping together inspection officials of the labour inspectorate with the objective of defending the supervisory mission entrusted to the inspectorate. A copy of this communication received on 29 September 2004 by the ILO was transmitted to the Government on 8 October 2004. It mainly refers to the murder by a farmer, in September 2004, of two labour inspectors who were engaged in performing their duties and describes an increase of the phenomenon of acts of violence by employers against inspectors while carrying out inspections.

The Association expresses concern at the slowness of the reaction by the public authorities to this tragic event. Deploring the indifference of the authorities with regard to matters of safety and the legitimacy of labour inspection, the Association calls for the Government to comply in full with its obligations under the present Convention, particularly as concerns the following provisions:

Article 6 of the Convention (Relation between the principal functions of the labour inspectorate relating to conditions of work and any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors).

Article 12 (Arrangements to promote effective cooperation between the inspection services and other services or institutions engaged in similar activities).

Article 14 (Adequacy of the numbers and qualifications of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of their duties). The Association indicates in this regard that the number of officials assigned exclusively to labour inspection duties (1,500) is insufficient with regard to the number of employees covered by the legislation (15 million).

Article 16 (Prerogatives and powers of investigation of inspectors on the occasion of inspections). The Association deplores the inertia of the public authorities in relation to acts of intimidation, threats or acts targeting the physical integrity of control inspectors.

Article 21 (Number, frequency and thoroughness of inspections).

Article 22 (Prompt proceedings and the discretion of inspectors as to whether to give warning and advice before initiating procedures). The Association indicates that the public authorities tend to undervalue the enforcement functions of labour inspection in favour of an exaggerated emphasis on its advisory functions.

Article 24 (Effective imposition of adequate penalties for violation of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide in its next report full information, clarifications or comments on the above points.

The Committee notes that the statistics supplied in the 2002 annual report show that the majority of the reports of violations drawn up by labour inspectors concern employment legislation. The number of warnings issued in the same field also appear to indicate that inspection in agricultural enterprises is focused mainly on illegal work to the detriment of conditions of work. The prison sentences imposed by the courts are related in the same proportion to breaches of the legislation relating to employment and that on occupational safety and health conditions (12 each). The reports issued concerning violations of the legal provisions on conditions of work, including occupational safety and health, are in many cases not followed up by legal proceedings, in contrast to those relating to illegal employment.

These figures indicate that the supervisory and prevention activities of labour inspectors in the area of conditions of work and the protection of workers appear to be suffering from the increasing importance given to their investigation and prosecution activities relating to illegal and clandestine work. They also reflect the image of a judicial system that is more concerned with penalizing illegal employment and clandestine work than the protection of workers’ rights (Articles 22 and 24).

The annual inspection report, which indicates that in 2000 the number of inspection staff in agriculture was 361 (204 inspectors and 157 controllers), does not make any assessment of the adequacy of their numbers in relation to the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the workers covered (194,565 and 1,621,012, respectively) (Articles 14 and 16). While taking into account the fluctuating number of workers in agriculture, including permanent, as well as seasonal or occasional workers, the Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate the proportion of the working time of labour inspectors and controllers that is devoted to the functions of supervision and the provision of advice and technical information to employers and workers on conditions of work, and the time allocated to the enforcement of legislation relating to illegal employment and clandestine work or to procedures for the settlement of collective disputes (Article 6, paragraph 3).

The function of a "controller of illegal employment" with which inspectors are entrusted by law, by its nature hardly propitious to the establishment and maintenance of the climate of confidence and cooperation necessary in their relation with employers and workers. The Committee nevertheless considers that information relating to situations of illegal employment and clandestine work should be systematically brought to the labour inspectorate’s attention, as these situations generally involve a high likelihood of the violation of legal provisions respecting conditions of work. The intervention of labour inspectors, within the framework of their powers and prerogatives, would allow them to take appropriate measures against the employers concerned.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility, preferably in consultation with the social partners, of a readjustment of the functions of the labour inspectorate and keep the ILO informed in this regard.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes the Government's report in reply to its previous comments. It draws attention, however, to the following matters.

Article 20(c) of the Convention. The Committee notes that the memoranda of 31 May and 5 July 1985 sent with the report for the purpose of showing the effective application of the principle of confidentiality regarding the source of complaints do not cover the particular aspect of correspondence exchanged between users and the regional and departmental labour inspection services. According to the indication given in the memorandum of 5 July 1985, this matter seems to be covered by circular No. 7 001 of 29 March 1985. The Government is therefore requested to send a copy of this circular with its next report in order to allow the Committee to appreciate its scope in regard to this article of the Convention.

Annual inspection reports. The Committee notes that, despite the information contained in the Government's report, the annual inspection reports for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are not available at the ILO. It would be grateful if the Government would send copies of them at the same time as those relating to subsequent years.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the working of the labour inspection system in the agricultural sector following the reforms in the organization and powers of the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry introduced by Decrees on 28 December 1994 and subsequent legislation. The Committee notes that, in the opinion both of the trade unions and the Government, the texts in question are not in themselves an obstacle to carrying out labour inspection tasks in the agricultural sector in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; however, the Committee notes that, in practice, secondary budgetary and administrative measures have been such as to undermine observance of certain fundamental provisions of the Convention.

1. Practical application of the Convention

Article 15, paragraph 1(b). Under the terms of a circular dated 18 June 1991 from the Director of Agriculture and Forestry (Central Region), prior authorization from the Director is required for any official travel in the service of the Regional Directorate, including for the purpose of labour inspection in agriculture, and any such request must indicate the cost. None of the reference budget sections referred to in the circular relate specifically to expenditure connected with monitoring activities. The Government also confirms that all operational budget allocations of the Ministry of Agriculture are spread among the regional and departmental directorates, and the central authority does not intervene in the distribution of these allocations among the decentralized services, including those for agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy services. The Government also indicates that the determination of budget allocations on a decentralized basis is done following consultations with all the heads of the decentralized services at a budget conference in which the Inspection Mission of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) takes part. The Committee points out that the very nature of the inspection service implies a high level of routine mobility, but also the need to undertake unplanned journeys both to workplaces liable to inspection and to institutions and bodies upstream or downstream of the inspection process. The Committee emphasized in its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection that excessive red tape (special permits, time restrictions, check in and check out) could be detrimental to the effectiveness of inspectors' movements (paragraph 243) and that, under Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the competent authority should make the necessary arrangements to reimburse to labour inspectors in agriculture any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties. It would be desirable, in order to ensure that labour inspectors enjoy the freedom of movement which is essential for the performance of their duties, for any allocations relating to expenditure incurred on inspection visits to be provided for under a specific budget heading. Supervision of the activities of regional and departmental inspection services by the central authority and the production by that central authority of budget forecasts in preparation for its participation in the conference held to determine the distribution at the regional and departmental levels of budget allocations among the services would also thereby be facilitated. The Government is therefore asked to take the necessary measures to maintain throughout its territory a system of labour inspection in agriculture such that, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1, inspectors and assistant inspectors are able to carry out their tasks under the supervision and control of the central authority to which they are operationally subordinate, and to ensure that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, they are independent of any improper external influences. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide information on the specific measures taken to that end in its next report.

Article 20, subparagraph (c). The Committee notes the general information provided by the Government in reply to the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture alleging failure on the part of the decentralized authorities to respect the principle of confidentiality of sources of complaints. This information is not sufficient to allow the Committee to assess the application of this provision under which, subject to possible exceptions allowed under national legislation, labour inspectors in agriculture must treat as absolutely confidential the sources of any complaint bringing to the notice of defect, a danger in working processes or breach of legal provisions, and must give no intimation to the employer or his representative that the visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the measures taken in particular with a view to ensuring that mail addressed to the inspection services or labour inspectors reaches them directly, without any risk of it being opened beforehand by a general mail distribution service in the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF and DRAF).

Further to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that the Government was asked to describe the practical functioning of the inspection mission of the ITEPSA, which is the central authority within the meaning of Article 7, and to provide information on the manner in which the central authority proposes to deal with the complaints contained in the communications of the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the application of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention.

2. Transmission of annual inspection reports

Articles 26 and 27. The Committee notes the communication of the annual inspection activities reports for the years 1993 and 1994. It asks the Government once again to provide such reports in future within the specified time-limits.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Further to its observation, the Committee hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the report has not been received. It refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. The Committee notes the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning application of the Convention and the responsive comments made by the Government in its report; it recalls previous comments noting observations made by the same Union. The Union states that the situation in the labour inspectorate has further deteriorated; it raises the requirement that all travel must be authorised by a regional centre and asserts that this sort of management makes labour inspection in agriculture impossible. The Government responds that the centralisation of authority cited by the Union is useful for appreciating in a more global fashion the needs of the inspection service and that, generally, the Union's claims are overstated.

2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture which protect the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate (Article 8), and the arrangements made to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with properly located and furnished offices and transport facilities (Article 15).

3. With regard to its previous comments concerning the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)), the Committee notes information provided by the Government concerning general confidentiality of correspondence. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would in addition ensure that the important principle of confidentiality is maintained with respect to the source of complaints and, in particular, describe the practical application of this Article of the Convention.

4. Articles 26 and 27, and Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the annual report on labour inspection for 1990. The Committee asks what measures are envisaged or have been taken to incorporate within the report statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g). The Committee would also be grateful to learn of any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

5. The Committee has also noted that further comments were received from the Union during its current session. It would be glad if the Government would respond also to these comments in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on the application of the Convention. It notes a subsequent observation dated 21 June 1990 by the union stating that the situation has worsened and that resources available for inspection in agriculture are quite inadequate. It has also noted the Government's response to the Committee's earlier comments.

Article 7 of the Convention. The Government has referred again to the administrative organisation of labour inspection in agriculture. While it agrees that the functioning might be improved, it does not consider further controls of inspectors' work possible.

Article 8. The Government refers to information provided earlier. It states that the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate are protected through the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture. The Committee hopes the Government's future reports will include all available information in this respect.

Article 15. The Committee notes the Government's explanation of the division of responsibilities between the various inspection offices. It indicates that, although all the difficulties have not been resolved, progress has been made in ensuring a better allocation of resources. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will supply all available information as to the implementation of this Article, specifically concerning arrangements to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with (a) properly located local offices and suitable means of communication, and (b) transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties where suitable public facilities do not exist; and with respect to reimbursement of travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 20(c). The Committee notes the Government's reference to Circular DAS/7001 of 28 March 1985 concerning the confidentiality of correspondence within the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to include in future reports information on the practical application of these provisions, particularly as they relate to the sources of complaints brought to the attention of the service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", as a result of the Decrees of 28 December 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF) and the Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DRAF).

The union considers that the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, which took place in 1984, has given rise to major difficulties in the operation of the ITEPSA resulting in the "quasi-paralysis" of the inspection services in agriculture. According to the union's memorandum, these difficulties arise essentially from the institutional measures that were adopted.

The union points out that prior to the reform the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy was very adequately structured into departmental, regional and national services and that total independence had been recognised at the departmental and regional levels. In the opinion of the union, the Decrees of 1984 marked a rupture in the functioning of the inspection services. They provided for a rearrangement of the various external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, including the ITEPSA, under the direction of the DRAFs and DDAFs with the result that the regional directors and the heads of departmental inspection services were "demoted" in their positions and duties and that, as regards the inspectors, a long tradition of individual independence, responsibility to take decisions and independent representation of the administration in social matters was abandoned. The union considers that the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs and the specific natures of the duties and decision-making powers of inspectors, as set out in the Labour Code, the Rural Code and the Social Security Code, amount to a contradiction that the circulars to apply the 1984 Decrees (which, however, provide for the independent decision-making powers of inspectors in their specific areas) cannot reconcile. In short, the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has resulted in a form of "dependence" for the inspection services that is in contradiction with the nature of their duties.

Furthermore, the union states that the 1984 reform broke up the hierarchical relations between the regional service and the departmental services of the ITEPSA. The incorporation of these services into the organisational system of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has been shown to be totally inadequate for relations between the heads of the departmental services and the heads of the regional services of the ITEPSA, which has had the consequence that the unity in the management of the inspection services has disappeared and the action taken by them varies widely in practice. Moreover, the heads of departmental and regional services of the ITEPSA encounter serious difficulties in their relations with prefects due to the fact that they come up against the barrier formed by the DDAFs and the DRAFs.

Finally, the union points out that the career prospects of the staff of the ITEPSA are different, and indeed discriminatory, in relation to the prospects for the staff of the inter-ministerial labour inspectorate.

In annex to its memorandum, the union enumerates the principal facts, attitudes and situations that it considers to be a result of the 1984 reform and to be in contradiction with the principles of law, and the texts and directives that are in force. Among these texts is Convention No. 129, which, according to the union, has been violated on the following points:

- the existence of a hierarchical structure outside the inspection services which prevents the independence of ITEPSA missions, the suppression of the vertical hierarchical relationship between the regional and departmental levels of the ITEPSA and the obligation to transmit files to the central administration through the DRAFs (Article 8);

- the reduced budget, particularly for travel by the inspectors and the operation of the services (Article 15);

- the insufficient numbers of auxilliary staff allocated to the ITEPSA;

- the opening of mail sent to the ITEPSA by another department of the DDAFs and DRAFs (Article 20(c)).

In conclusion, the union calls for either the ITEPSA to be maintained within the Ministry of Agriculture, although within a framework of total independence as regards the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, or for it to be attached to the Ministry of Labour.

In its reply to the above comments, the Government refers, firstly to the Decrees of 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, to the general circulars and to the specific circular issued to apply these Decrees. These texts clearly lay down that the staff of the ITEPSA, when exercising their specific functions of inspecting and supervising labour legislation, do not come under the hierarchical authority of either the regional and departmental prefects, or the regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry. The Government also supplied a long extract of the reply to a written question raised in 1985, on this subject, by a parliamentarian, and a copy of the Order issued by the Council of State on 6 May 1988 in which it rejects the claims put forward by the CGT-FO Union of staff of the labour and employment service, by the National Federation of Unions of Labour Inspectors and by the Union of Inspection Personnel of Labour Laws in Agriculture, demanding that the Decrees of 28 December 1984 be repealed. The Council of State noted, among other questions, that no provision in the Decrees in question could be considered as having the purpose or effect of prejudicing the application of the provisions of the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

The Committee notes all the explanations supplied by the Government. It also notes, from the letter addressed by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on 15 December 1988 to the Director-General of the ILO, that the difficulties that have been encountered in the work of the ITEPSA are not a result of the texts, but rather of their application by the regional directors of agriculture and forestry. The Committee considers that while the problems of hierarchy, management, co-ordination and, in general, relations with the regional and departmental administrative authorities appear to be at the origin of the discontent within the ITEPSA, the latter also gives the impression of suffering from the absence of supervision and control of a central body, as provided in Article 7, paragraph 3(d), of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, information on the measures that have been taken to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application of Articles 8, 15 and 20(c) of the Convention which, according to the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture, are not fully observed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", and the observations made on this subject by the Government. It is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain points concerning the application of the Convention deriving from the comments made by the above union.