Holidays with Pay Convention, 1936 (No. 52) - Mauritania (Ratification: 1963)

Replies received to the issues raised in a direct request which do not give rise to further comments (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government, which answers the points raised in its previous direct request and has no further matters to raise in this regard.

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

Article 7 of the Convention. Records. The Committee notes that, in its report, the Government indicates that the Ministerial Order referred to in section 386 of the Labour Code of 2004 on the obligation of employers to keep up-to-date and on-site “employer records” has still not been adopted. It further notes that the Government could envisage the ratification of the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), and that, for this to be possible, legislative amendments must be made. Recalling that Article 7 of the Convention provides that a record shall be kept, in a form approved by the competent national authority, showing the date of entry into service, the duration and dates of the annual holiday with pay and the remuneration received, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the employer record form that is currently in use and to inform it when the Ministerial Order referred to in section 386 of the Labour Code is adopted. It also requests the Government to provide information on any developments with regard to the ratification of Convention No. 132.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It 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 comments.

Repetition

Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention. Records. System of sanctions. The Committee notes the comments from the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM), received on 29 August 2013 and forwarded to the Government on 19 September 2013. The CLTM indicates that to its knowledge the order referred to in section 190 of the Labour Code – and which was to determine the conditions for applying the provisions on paid holidays – has still not been adopted, which has created an important legal void and an obstacle to the application of certain provisions of the Labour Code. The CLTM also indicates that since 1980, “standard records” – documents that contain among other things data concerning holidays – have not been used, and the data for entry in the records are no longer taken into account. The CLTM further indicates that labour inspectors no longer supervise workplaces, so no penalties are imposed on the offending enterprises and establishments, and labour inspectors refuse to meet staff delegates’ requests to check the records and their data despite the insistence of the unions. The CLTM emphasizes in this connection that the basis for calculating holidays and the conditions for granting them are no longer established in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and the agreements in force, and the objections and complaints filed with the labour inspection service are for the most part unsuccessful. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of the CLTM.

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

Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention. Records – System of sanctions. The Committee notes the comments from the Free Confederation of Mauritanian Workers (CLTM), received on 29 August 2013 and forwarded to the Government on 19 September 2013. The CLTM indicates that to its knowledge the order referred to in section 190 of the Labour Code – and which was to determine the conditions for applying the provisions on paid holidays – has still not been adopted, which has created an important legal void and an obstacle to the application of certain provisions of the Labour Code. The CLTM also indicates that since 1980, “standard records” – documents that contain among other things data concerning holidays – have not been used, and the data for entry in the records are no longer taken into account. The CLTM further indicates that labour inspectors no longer supervise workplaces, so no penalties are imposed on the offending enterprises and establishments, and labour inspectors refuse to meet staff delegates’ requests to check the records and their data despite the insistence of the unions. The CLTM emphasizes in this connection that the basis for calculating holidays and the conditions for granting them are no longer established in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and the agreements in force, and the objections and complaints filed with the labour inspection service are for the most part unsuccessful. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the observations of the CLTM.

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

The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2004-1017 of 6 July 2004 issuing the Labour Code, sections 178–190 of which relating to annual holidays with pay essentially reproduce the provisions of sections 22–28 of the previous Labour Code of 1963, as amended. The Committee requests the Government to state whether the ministerial order referred to by section 190 of the new Labour Code has been adopted and, if so, to send a copy of it.

Article 7 of the Convention. Records. The Committee notes that section 386 of the Labour Code imposes the obligation on the employer to keep an up to date “employers’ register” in the workplace, which must include information concerning holidays and wages. Recalling that Article 7 of the Convention requires a record to be kept, in a form approved by the competent authority, showing the date of entry into service, the duration and dates of the annual holiday with pay and the remuneration received, the Committee requests the Government to send a specimen copy of the employers’ register currently in use and to state whether the ministerial order referred to by section 386 of the new Labour Code has already been adopted.

Part V of the report form. Practical application. The Committee requests the Government to supply general information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, including, for example, information on the number of workers protected by the legislation, extracts of the reports of the inspection services indicating the number and nature of infringements reported and penalties imposed, etc.

Finally, the Committee wishes to draw the Government’s attention to the fact that, on a proposal of the Working Party on Policy regarding the Revision of Standards, the ILO Governing Body considered that Conventions Nos 52 and 101 were obsolete and invited the States parties to these Conventions to contemplate the possibility of ratifying the Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 (No. 132), which is not considered to be fully up to date but remains relevant in certain respects (GB.283/LILS/WP/PRS/1/2, paragraph 12). Acceptance of the obligations of Convention No. 132 in respect of persons employed in all economic sectors, including agriculture, by a State party to Conventions Nos 52 and 101 entails ipso jure the immediate denunciation of both these instruments. This procedure appears to be all the more desirable inasmuch as Mauritanian legislation, which provides for annual paid holiday of one-and-a-half days per month of work, is considerably more favourable than the provisions of Conventions Nos 52 and 101 and appears to reflect most of the requirements of Convention No. 132. The Committee requests the Government to contemplate the ratification of Convention No. 132, adopting any legislative amendments that are necessary, and to keep the Office informed of any decisions taken in this regard.