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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), received on 20 September 2021. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Article 2 of the Convention. Exclusions. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments.

Articles 4 and 11. Valid reason for termination of employment. Period of notice. The Government indicates that the conditions of employment of public servants are defined in Decree No. 94/199 of 7 October 1994 issuing the General Public Service Regulations, which govern termination of employment on grounds of irreversible physical incapacity incompatible with the post occupied, unsatisfactory performance in terms of results and their evaluation, and termination based on special regulations providing for the reorganization of services and the elimination of posts, without the possibility of staff redeployment (Decree No. 94/199, section 119(a) and (b)). Moreover, section 121 governs the dismissal procedure further to misconduct by a public servant. However, the Committee notes that Decree No. 94/199 does not contain any provisions relating to the public employer’s obligation to notify the official in writing of the reason for termination, or any provisions specifying invalid grounds for termination (Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention). With regard to the private sector, the Committee notes the observations of the UGTC referring to an increase in the number of unfair dismissals in the wood sector, in sport (particularly at the Cameroonian Football Federation (FECAFOOT) and in domestic work. The Government indicates that domestic workers in Cameroon are governed by Decree No. 68/DF/253 of 10 July 1968, as amended by Decree No. 76/162 of 22 April 1976. The Committee notes that Decree No. 76/162 does not contain any provisions relating to the employer’s obligation to inform a domestic worker of the grounds for the termination of employment. The Committee nevertheless welcomes the Government’s indication that it has launched the process of revising the regulations governing domestic workers and that a draft decree is being finalized with the aim of further incorporate the provisions of the Convention. With respect to workers in the informal economy, the Committee refers the Government to its comments relating to the Employment Policy Convention, 1964 (No. 122). With regard to the period of notice of termination, the Government indicates that the notice period provided for in sections 34 ff of the Labour Code is clearly defined in terms of duration and conditions of eligibility through the provisions of Order No. 10/MTPS/DT of 19 April 1976. However, the Committee notes that the Order of 1976 was repealed by Order No. 15/MTPS/DT of 26 May 1993 determining the conditions and duration of the notice period, taking account of the category and seniority of the worker concerned. On the basis of this Order, employers and labour inspectors implement a reasonable period of notice of termination. The Committee also notes that, in cases of violations, labour inspectors send compliance notices to the employers concerned and, on the basis of section 4 of the above-mentioned Order, the competent court imposes the penalties provided for in section R 370, subparagraph 12 of the Penal Code. In light of the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), the Committee once again requests the Government to provide detailed, up-to-date information on the manner in which it is ensured that all the workers covered by the Convention receive a reasonable period of notice, including a written notification of the reason for termination of employment, in accordance with Articles 4 and 11 of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the revision of the regulations governing domestic workers and to send a copy of the decree once it has been adopted.

Articles 7 and 8. Procedure prior to or at the time of termination. Appeal procedure. The Government indicates that in practice section 34 of the Labour Code is enforced systematically through labour inspectors during inspections and even in the follow-up to labour disputes giving rise to attempts at conciliation. The Government indicates that nearly 4,500 inspections were carried out in 2020 by labour inspectors in enterprises. It adds that the inspection reports provide sufficient information on cases of termination of employment and the handling thereof. With regard to the termination procedure subject to authorization by the labour inspector, the Government indicates that this exclusively concerns staff delegates, whose function is protected by section 130 of the Labour Code. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the most recurrent findings, further to inspections and re-inspections, have related to non-observance by employers of the labour laws and regulations, particularly non-payment or irregular payment of wages, non-observance of clauses in contracts between parties which duly deal with the right to reclassification, to promotion and other benefits arising from the employment contract, the non-payment of social contributions, and the non-observance of health and safety measures in workplaces. The Committee also notes, with respect to labour disputes, that a total of 9,546 conciliation procedures were conducted by labour inspectors in 2019, of which less than 25 per cent resulted in non-conciliation reports leading to referral to the judicial authorities. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the number and type of violations recorded by the labour inspection authorities. The Committee also requests the Government to send copies of relevant court decisions giving effect to Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention.

Article 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. Severance allowance and other income protection. The Government indicates that, in practice and following the texts in force, establishing misconduct is essentially a task for the judge. The Government adds that it is from this perspective that section 36(2) of the Labour Code stipulates that it shall be the competent court which assesses the seriousness of the misconduct in all cases of termination and it is for the employer to supply proof of the legitimacy of the alleged reason for termination (section 39(3) of the Labour Code). The Committee notes the examples of case law in this field provided by the Government. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing examples of case law relevant to the application of the Convention, and also information on the role of collective agreements in granting a severance allowance and other income protection to the worker concerned.

Articles 13 and 14. Consultation of workers’ representatives. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. With regard to the consultation of representatives, the Government indicates that recourse to terminations of employment for economic reasons still involves in practice the participation of labour inspectors, who have competence for enforcing the provisions of section 40 of the Labour Code and those of Order No. 21/MTPS/SG/CJ of 26 May 1993establishing procedures for termination for economic reasons, section 3(1) of which provides in particular that the employer must send the staff delegates a list of the workers that he proposes to dismiss and that the delegates are required to send their replies to the employer within eight days. The Government adds that a tripartite consultation framework, involving the employer and staff delegates backed by the competent labour inspector, is generally put in place to accompany the termination process in question, in accordance with the relevant rules in this field. With regard to termination, the UGTC reiterates its previous observations concerning the dismissal of 14,000 workers, which was announced during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Employers’ Association of Cameroon (GICAM), without consultation with the UGTC or the Government. The Government indicates that the labour inspectors handled the requests for termination on economic grounds or for temporary lay-offs on a case-by-case basis in enterprises. Some requests were clearly refused on grounds of violation of the procedure. In this regard, the Committee notes that the GICAM, in its Bulletin No. 80 of November 2020, reported on the negative impact of the pandemic on Cameroonian enterprises and on employment, particularly with regard to the temporary laying off of some 54,000 workers and the dismissal of some 14,000 persons. It also notes the observations of the UGTC indicating that the Government has not yet responded to the issues arising from these terminations, particularly as regards support measures for the dismissed workers. The Committee requests the Government to send detailed information on the consultations held with staff delegates and labour inspectors, particularly in the context of temporary lay-offs and terminations of workers’ employment on economic grounds during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee also requests the Government to include in its next report statistics on the activities of the labour inspectorate and the courts with regard to terminations of employment, particularly the number of requests for termination examined by the labour inspectorate in relation to collective dismissals. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on support given to dismissed workers and on the steps taken to mitigate the effects of terminations on economic or similar grounds, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166).

Application of the Convention in practice. COVID-19 pandemic.The Committee requests the Government to continue providing detailed, up-to-date information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice, and on the consultations held with the social partners concerning issues relating to the application of the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to send copies of recent court decisions concerning issues relating to the application of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

The Committee notes the information contained in the report of the Government received in September 2020.

The Committee also notes the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), received on 6 November 2020. The Government is requested to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Categories of workers excluded. In its reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that with the exception of public servants governed by the General Public Service Regulations, a worker is any person working under the authority of an employer in exchange for remuneration and is protected by the Labour Code of 1992. In its observations, the UGTC asserts that men and women domestic workers are often subject to wrongful dismissal. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of the legislative texts that apply to domestic workers in relation to the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which it ensures adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention to workers in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the conditions of employment of public servants afford those concerned protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Convention.

Article 8. Procedure of appeal. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the Cameroon United Workers Confederation (CTUC), which considered that the terminations of workers in certain enterprises were not in conformity with the procedure established under national legislation, since no authorization for termination had been sought or granted by the labour inspector. The Government reiterates that the procedure for the dismissal of workers is established in section 34(1) of the Labour Code and the implementing regulations thereto and indicates that field labour inspectors ensure compliance with this provision day and night. The UGTC alleges that although the Government claims that labour inspectors conduct inspections day and night, labour inspectors do not carry out monitoring at night, even though they are allowed to do so by law. Furthermore, according to the UGTC, inspectors wait until complaints from workers reach them before instituting conciliation procedures instead of carrying out preventive monitoring in enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this Article, including with regard to the procedure for the authorization of terminations.

Article 11. Notice period. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in practice, employers terminate the employment of workers without observing the obligation to give a notice period as established by section 34(1) of the Labour Code. The Government refers once again to section 34 of the Labour Code and Order No. 15/MTPS/SG/CJ of 26 May 1993 determining the conditions and duration of the notice period, taking into account the seniority and occupational classification of the worker. The Government indicates that in the event that this provision is violated, the party that feels aggrieved may refer the matter to the labour inspectorate, which, during conciliation, endeavours to reach a solution. The Committee notes that the report of the Government does not reply to the observations of the CTUC. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that workers are provided with reasonable notice of termination.

Article 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that serious misconduct was not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. It notes the Government’s indication that serious misconduct is defined in the internal regulations of enterprises and that, in the event of a dispute, the labour inspectorate is sufficiently competent to arbitrate. Nevertheless, in its previous comments the Committee noted the observations of the CTUC that, in national practice, the employer unilaterally defines the degree of seriousness of the misconduct, whereas under Cameroonian law only the judge is empowered to do so. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the question of the definition of serious misconduct in practice. It also reiterates its request to the Government to provide examples of judicial decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Article 12(3) of the Convention in practice, and the courts’ assessment of “serious misconduct”.

Articles 12–14. Severance allowance. Consultation of workers’ representatives. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the dismissed workers had been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on all measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Committee noted that section 40(3) of the Labour Code establishes an obligation for the employer to call a meeting of staff delegates and the labour inspector to try to avoid any termination on economic grounds. It also noted that section 40(9) of the Labour Code provides that any worker whose employment has been terminated shall be given priority status, where skill levels are equal, for two years with regard to recruitment in the same enterprise. The Government indicates in its report that in order to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals for economic reasons, it encourages employers to use the measures contained in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation No. 166. In its observations, the UGTC refers to the dismissal of 14,000 workers by a group of enterprises due the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that neither the unions nor the government were notified prior to these dismissals. Furthermore, the UGTC alleges that some were dismissed without being paid their entitlements. The Committee once again requests the Government to send the Office a copy of Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the application of these Articles of the Convention, and on the measures taken to alleviate the effects of dismissals for economic or similar reasons, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation No. 166.

Application of the Convention in practice. COVID-19 pandemic. The Government indicates that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cameroon recorded 14,000 dismissals for economic reasons in 2020. In reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government indicates that the Minister of Justice is awaiting the judicial decisions allowing an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention and that they will be submitted as soon as possible. It indicates that dismissal procedures were observed for enterprises whose managers were approached by labour inspection services. It informs the Committee that in the Centre and Littoral regions, the total number of conciliation reports is higher than that of partial conciliation and non-conciliation reports. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of these Articles, including statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds. Referring to its previous comments on valid and invalid grounds for termination and the defence procedure prior to termination, the Committee requests the Government to send examples of judicial decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It is therefore bound to repeat its previous comments.

Repetition

The Committee notes the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), received on 17 October 2016, and the Government’s reply, received on 15 February 2017. It also notes the observations of the Cameroon United Workers Confederation (CTUC), received on 22 November 2016. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Exclusions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy belong to the categories of workers that are subject to special regulations or a special scheme. The Government added that workers subject to special regulations are not considered as workers covered by the Labour Code of 1992. The Committee therefore asked the Government to continue to take all possible steps to ensure that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy enjoy adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that the Convention is applied uniformly in Cameroon and that no category of wage employees is excluded from its scope. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the legislative texts that apply to domestic workers in relation to the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which it ensures adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention to workers in the informal economy.

Article 8. Procedure of appeal. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC, which considers that the terminations of workers in certain enterprises were not in conformity with the procedure established under national legislation, since no authorization for termination had been sought or granted by the labour inspector. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations of the CTUC regarding the termination of workers’ employment.

Article 11. Notice period. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in practice, employers terminate the employment of workers without observing the obligation to give a notice period as established by section 34(1) of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not reply to the CTUC’s concerns. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide its comments on the observations of the CTUC, indicating the manner in which it is ensured that workers are provided with reasonable notice of termination.

Article 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee previously noted that serious misconduct was not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in national practice, the employer unilaterally defines the degree of seriousness of the misconduct, whereas under Cameroonian law only the judge is empowered to do so. The CTUC adds that a number of companies have engaged in this practice and therefore invites the Government to revise the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations of the CTUC, clarifying the definition of serious misconduct. It also requests the Government once again to provide examples of court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Article 12(3) of the Convention.

Articles 12–14. Severance allowance. Consultation of workers’ representatives. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the dismissed workers had been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on all measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Government indicates in its report that section 40 of the Labour Code of 1992 refers to this subject. Accordingly, the Committee notes that section 40(3) of the Labour Code establishes an obligation for the employer to call a meeting of staff delegates and the labour inspector to try to avoid any termination on economic grounds. It also notes that section 40(9) of the Labour Code provides that any worker whose employment has been terminated shall be given priority status, where skill levels are equal, for two years with regard to recruitment in the same enterprise. As regards consultation of workers’ representatives in the event of terminations on economic grounds, the Government indicates that Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds gives effect to Article 13(1) of the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the communication from the UGTC indicating the termination of the employment of a number of young persons at the National Social Security Fund (CNPS) without prior notification in writing or payment of damages. In its observations of 2016, the UGTC indicates that the situation of the dismissed CNPS workers has not changed and that there has been a resurgence of terminations, particularly in a number of local companies. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government once again to indicate whether the workers dismissed from the CNPS and from the local companies referred to in the observation of the UGTC have been paid their severance allowance. It also requests the Government to send a copy of Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds. The Committee further requests the Government to continue providing information on any measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation, No. 166.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government once again to supply statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds. It also requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the application of the Convention in practice. Referring to its previous comments on valid and invalid grounds for termination and the defence procedure prior to termination, the Committee requests the Government to send examples of court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the near future.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), received on 17 October 2016, and the Government’s reply, received on 15 February 2017. It also notes the observations of the Cameroon United Workers Confederation (CTUC), received on 22 November 2016. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this regard.

Article 2 of the Convention. Exclusions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the Government’s indications that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy belong to the categories of workers that are subject to special regulations or a special scheme. The Government added that workers subject to special regulations are not considered as workers covered by the Labour Code of 1992. The Committee therefore asked the Government to continue to take all possible steps to ensure that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy enjoy adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that the Convention is applied uniformly in Cameroon and that no category of wage employees is excluded from its scope. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of the legislative texts that apply to domestic workers in relation to the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which it ensures adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention to workers in the informal economy.

Article 8. Procedure of appeal. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC, which considers that the terminations of workers in certain enterprises were not in conformity with the procedure established under national legislation, since no authorization for termination had been sought or granted by the labour inspector. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations of the CTUC regarding the termination of workers’ employment.

Article 11. Notice period. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in practice, employers terminate the employment of workers without observing the obligation to give a notice period as established by section 34(1) of the Labour Code. The Committee notes that the Government’s report does not reply to the CTUC’s concerns. The Committee reiterates its request that the Government provide its comments on the observations of the CTUC, indicating the manner in which it is ensured that workers are provided with reasonable notice of termination.

Article 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee previously noted that serious misconduct was not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. The Committee notes the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in national practice, the employer unilaterally defines the degree of seriousness of the misconduct, whereas under Cameroonian law only the judge is empowered to do so. The CTUC adds that a number of companies have engaged in this practice and therefore invites the Government to revise the Labour Code. The Committee requests the Government to reply to the observations of the CTUC, clarifying the definition of serious misconduct. It also requests the Government once again to provide examples of court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Article 12(3) of the Convention.

Articles 12–14. Severance allowance. Consultation of workers’ representatives. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether the dismissed workers had been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on all measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Government indicates in its report that section 40 of the Labour Code of 1992 refers to this subject. Accordingly, the Committee notes that section 40(3) of the Labour Code establishes an obligation for the employer to call a meeting of staff delegates and the labour inspector to try to avoid any termination on economic grounds. It also notes that section 40(9) of the Labour Code provides that any worker whose employment has been terminated shall be given priority status, where skill levels are equal, for two years with regard to recruitment in the same enterprise. As regards consultation of workers’ representatives in the event of terminations on economic grounds, the Government indicates that Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds gives effect to Article 13(1) of the Convention. In its previous comment, the Committee noted the communication from the UGTC indicating the termination of the employment of a number of young persons at the National Social Security Fund (CNPS) without prior notification in writing or payment of damages. In its observations of 2016, the UGTC indicates that the situation of the dismissed CNPS workers has not changed and that there has been a resurgence of terminations, particularly in a number of local companies. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee requests the Government once again to indicate whether the workers dismissed from the CNPS and from the local companies referred to in the observation of the UGTC have been paid their severance allowance. It also requests the Government to send a copy of Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds. The Committee further requests the Government to continue providing information on any measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation, No. 166.

Application of the Convention in practice. The Committee requests the Government once again to supply statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds. It also requests the Government to provide up-to-date information on the application of the Convention in practice. Referring to its previous comments on valid and invalid grounds for termination and the defence procedure prior to termination, the Committee requests the Government to send examples of court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2019.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Collective dismissals. Severance allowance. The Committee notes the detailed information supplied in the Government’s report received in September 2011 in reply to its previous comments. It notes a communication from the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), which was forwarded to the Government in November 2010, in which the UGTC informed the National Social Security Fund (CNPS) of the dismissal of a number of young workers without prior notification and without any payment of damages. The union also emphasized that the former employees of several local companies had still not received any severance pay after several years. In its observation of 2009 the Committee noted the establishment in July 2006 of a tripartite committee responsible for assessing the balance of social rights of the former employees of liquidated or restructured state companies. The tripartite committee completed its work and the Government gave assurances that the procedure for the settlement of those entitlements was under way. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the dismissed workers have been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on the measures taken to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Government is also requested to supply statistics relating to the activities of appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds (Part V of the report form).

Article 2. The Government indicates that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy belong to the categories of workers that are subject to special regulations or a special scheme. Workers subject to special regulations are not considered as workers covered by the Labour Code of 1992. As regards domestic workers, the Government indicates that the legislation dating from 1967 does not appear to be applied properly. The Committee recalls that the Government did not list in its first report the categories of workers excluded under Article 2(4) of the Convention. The Government is requested to include in its next report copies of the particular provisions that apply to domestic workers. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the new standards concerning domestic workers adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2011 (Convention No. 189 and Recommendation No. 201). It also requests the Government to continue to take all possible steps to ensure that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy enjoy adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention.

Articles 4 and 5. Valid and invalid reasons for termination. The Government indicates that section 34 of the Labour Code requires the existence of grounds for termination. In a ruling of 2 November 1996, the appeals court of the Littoral region stated that, in addition to giving the worker written notification of the termination, the grounds for termination had to be established, proven and legitimate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up to-date information in its next report on the application of the Convention in practice (especially court decisions relating to valid and invalid reasons for termination).

Article 7. Procedure prior to termination. The Government indicates in its report that, in accordance with the right of defence, employers are required to notify the workers concerned of the grounds for termination of their employment. The Government also indicates that, in cases where the worker’s conduct or competence constitute grounds for termination, the worker has the right to prove otherwise. The Committee requests the Government to send examples of court decisions which implement this Article of the Convention.

Article 8(3). Time limit for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates that, as regards the time limit for lodging an appeal, if there is no communication from the labour inspector, the appeal is rejected and the matter is referred to the competent authorities, once a period of three months has elapsed Ordinance No. 72/6 of 26 August 1972 establishing the structure of the Supreme Court). The Committee previously noted that section 74(1) of the Labour Code stipulates a limitation of three years for an action to recover wages or compensation for termination of a contract. The Committee requests the Government to include cases in its next report which show that the time limit for exercising the right of appeal against termination is three years.

Articles 11 and 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee notes that serious misconduct is not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. The Government indicates that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, is serious misconduct of an extremely grave nature which, according to customary practice at work, makes it intolerable to maintain the contractual link. Depending on the circumstances, it may also entail deliberate misconduct or negligence which is extremely detrimental to the employer (theft, assault, defamation, prolonged and unjustified absence). The Committee requests the Government to include in its next report examples of relevant court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 11 and 12(3) of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Severance allowance. Collective dismissals. The Committee previously noted a communication of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), forwarded to the Government in October 2008, in which the UGTC referred to the dismissal of 215 workers in a shipyard enterprise without consultation. The Government indicates that the restructuring process of the reorganized or liquidated state enterprises has led to the creation of several committees in which representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security participated. At the end of this process, a total of 22,553,594,820 Communauté Financière Africaine francs (XAF) was paid to 13,310 former employees of 49 companies. The Committee notes Decision No. 06/1438/CF of 10 July 2006 on the creation, organization and operation of the tripartite committee set up to assess the balance of social rights of the former employees of the liquidated or restructured state companies. The severance allowances of the workers dismissed from the liquidated or restructured state companies were assessed by a tripartite committee. Once that work had been completed, the Committee sent a report to the minister responsible for finance and the procedure for the settlement of those entitlements is now under way. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the dismissed workers are paid their severance allowance and to provide information on the measures taken to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166).

Article 4. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. The Government indicates that full effect is given to the provisions of Article 4 through the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, which are reproduced in collective agreements. The Committee notes several court decisions handed down by the High Court in which the reasons given were not regarded as valid reasons, namely:

–           termination of employment for early retirement which is not based on the worker’s will or a negotiated agreement;

–           termination of the employment of a staff representative without requesting the opinion of the joint managers and without the authorization of the competent labour inspector; and

–           termination of employment not justified by professional misconduct on the part of the worker.

The Committee requests the Government to continue providing up to date examples of court decisions on cases of wrongful dismissal.

Article 5(c) and (d). Invalid reasons for termination. The Government indicates that the reasons set out in section 39 of the Labour Code are not exhaustive and that paragraph 2 of that section provides that the competent court may rule that a dismissal was wrongful following an investigation into the causes and circumstances of the termination of the employment contract and that the reasons which may be mentioned in the court decision include race, colour, sex and marital status. The Government also indicates that sections 9 and 10 of Act No. 2005/006 of 29 July 2005 on the status of refugees in Cameroon strengthens the protection of refugees against termination of employment. The Committee recalls that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c)), as well as race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin of the worker (Article 5(d)) do not constitute valid reasons for termination. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of court decisions relating to invalid reasons for termination.

Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Committee notes the extracts of the collective agreements applicable to certain categories of workers, such as those working in insurance, road transport and pharmacies, in which workers are given the right to justify themselves before termination of their employment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that all workers, particularly those not covered by collective agreements, have the possibility of defending themselves against allegations made against them with regard to their conduct or performance before their employment is terminated.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government once again indicates that any appeal against unjustified or wrongful termination automatically results in a claim for wages or damages for breach of contract. The Committee notes that section 74(1) of the Labour Code stipulates a limitation of three years for an action to recover wages or compensation for breach of contract. The Committee asks the Government to communicate the judicial decisions ensuring that the time limit for the appeal procedure against an unjustified dismissal is three years.

Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Definition of serious misconduct. The Government indicates that it does not currently have the material resources to make inquiries to the competent courts to obtain the court decisions handed down relating to termination of employment for serious misconduct. A collection of the leading judgements in labour case law is in the process of being produced under the programme to support the implementation of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (PAMODEC). The Committee observes that the principal manner in which these important provisions of the Convention are made effective is by means of court decisions. The Committee hopes that progress will be made with the assistance of the ILO and that the Government will be able to provide up to date information on the application of the Convention in practice (particularly court decisions), as well as statistics on the number of terminations for economic reasons, the number of appeals against terminations and the compensation granted (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the September 2006 comments of the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC), received in November 2006, and the new comments of the UGTC of August 2007, sent to the Government in September 2007. The Government states that, when the liquidation or privatization of a state enterprise is announced, the Minister for Labour and Social Security is always careful to set up tripartite ad hoc committees responsible for dealing with the social component of this structural reorganization, under the umbrella of social dialogue. For its part, the UGTC states that the restructuring, liquidation and privatization of state enterprises continues to be responsible for increasing the number of cases in which workers are dismissed without being paid their entitlements and that, in the same sense, private enterprises carry out unfair dismissals, sometimes without providing any explanation at all. The UGTC states that the failure to respect legal and regulatory provisions, in particular as far as staff delegates and trade union representatives are concerned, and lengthy administrative and judicial proceedings against dismissals constitute a violation of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee points out, once again, that compliance with the principles set forth in the Convention may facilitate the development of socially responsible economic activity when taking decisions relating to collective dismissals. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons must be consistent with the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, particularly in respect of the consultation of workers’ representatives and notification to the competent authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the manner in which compliance with the provisions of the Convention has been secured during the restructuring of enterprises referred to by the UGTC. Moreover, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided the report requested in the Committee’s previous observation. The Committee trusts that the Government will shortly provide a report in reply to the August 2007 comments of the UGTC and the main points already raised in the Committee’s 2006 observation, which are outlined below.

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

3. Article 5(c) and (d). Invalid reasons for termination. In its previous report, the Government indicated that the application of Article 5 is ensured by sections 39(1) and 84(2) of the Labour Code, which the Committee had already noted in its previous comments. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c)), as well as the race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin of the worker (Article 5(d)), do not constitute valid reasons for termination of employment. Please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

4. Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Government indicated that collective agreements and internal rules give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defence prior to termination of employment is ensured for all workers, in particular by providing copies of the relevant provisions of any collective agreement or internal rules that are available, and any recent judicial decision, most notably concerning the dismissal of staff delegates or trade union representatives.

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

6. Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the concept of “serious misconduct” is left to the appreciation of national jurisdictions. In paragraph 250 of its 1995 General Survey, the Committee already noted that, since this definition is fairly general, it is only by looking at the application in practice, and in particular case law, that an assessment can be made of the extent to which the provisions of the Convention are observed. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions so as to enable it to examine the application of Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

7. Parts IV and V of the report form. Application of the provisions of the Convention in practice. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the importance of regularly providing information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice so as to enable the Committee to examine the application of its provisions, and particularly Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, paragraph 3, 11 and 12, paragraph 3. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain relevant and up to date information on the application of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report and the observations of the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC) received in September 2006. The UGTC indicates that, under the pretext of complying with the conditions imposed by the international financial institutions, the country has embarked upon dismissals in companies that are to be liquidated or privatized. Over 5,000 workers have been dismissed in certain state enterprises. The UGTC indicates that the restructuring operations may continue into 2007. The Committee points out that compliance with the principles contained in the Convention may facilitate the development of socially responsible economic activity when taking decisions relating to collective dismissals. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons have to be in compliance with the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, particularly with regard to the consultation of workers’ representatives and notification to the competent authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the manner in which compliance with the provisions of the Convention has been secured during the restructuring of enterprises referred to by the UGTC.

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

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

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

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

6. Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the concept of “serious misconduct” is left to the appreciation of national jurisdictions. In paragraph 250 of its 1995 General Survey, the Committee already noted that, since this definition is fairly general, it is only by looking at the application in practice, and in particular case law, that an assessment can be made of the extent to which the provisions of the Convention are observed. It once again asks the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions so as to enable it to examine the application of Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2007.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending September 2000. It also notes the communication from the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC), a copy of which was forwarded to the Government in March 2001. The Committee would be grateful for additional information on the following points.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the reasons which are considered valid for termination of employment are not set out in national laws or regulations. It recalls that, under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention, in so far as the provisions of the Convention are not made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, they have to be given effect by national laws or regulations. The Government is therefore requested to provide copies of the decisions of arbitration boards or tribunals or collective agreements setting out reasons for which termination of employment is permitted.

Article 5(c). The USLC indicates that the reasons given for the termination of employment are in most cases without legal basis, particularly in the case of dismissals of staff delegates. The Committee notes that, under the terms of the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, termination of employment is considered to be abusive when it is by reason of opinions held by workers, their membership or otherwise of a trade union (section 39 of the Labour Code), their position as staff delegates (section 130) or during the maternity leave of women workers (section 84). The Government is however requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the fact of having filed a complaint or participated in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or adopted recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c) of the Convention) do not constitute valid reasons for termination.

Article 5(d). Under the terms of this provision, race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin do not constitute valid reasons for termination. In this respect, the Committee refers to its direct request of 2000 on the application of Convention No. 111, in which it noted the Government’s statement that it is difficult in legal terms to establish that a worker has been dismissed because of his or her political activities, since employers contrive to find some professional or economic pretext for the dismissal. The Committee requested the Government to illustrate its comments by providing further information on appeals lodged in recent years against wrongful dismissals. The Committee notes that in its last report on the application of Convention No. 158 the Government states that all the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention are incorporated into the laws and regulations respecting termination of employment. It requests the Government to provide with its next report on the application of Convention No. 158 copies of judicial decisions setting out the principles relating to the reasons for termination of employment enumerated in Article 5(d) of the Convention and to indicate the provisions of national laws or regulations which have been adopted or are envisaged to give full effect to Article 5(d).

Article 7. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defend themselves prior to termination, as required by Article 7, is ensured for all workers. The Government is requested to supply copies of judicial decisions, model employment contracts, internal regulations and collective agreements which illustrate the manner in which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made by the USLC to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. The Committee notes that under the relevant provisions any dispute concerning the reasons for termination cannot be brought to the courts unless an agreed settlement has not been possible (section 139 of the Labour Code). It also notes Circular No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, which emphasizes the need to treat applications for authorization to dismiss staff delegates with greater care and recalls certain protective principles. It requests the Government to inform it of any cases or judicial decisions demonstrating that the protection set out in law is ensured in practice.

Article 8, paragraph 3. The Government is requested to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention by indicating the time limits within which a worker must exercise his or her right to appeal against termination of employment.

Articles 11, and 12, paragraph 3. The Government indicates in its report that case law defines grave misconduct as a serious act involving the will to harm and making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. It also states that it is the responsibility of the competent jurisdiction to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of decisions by competent authorities setting out principles relating to the definition of grave misconduct.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with regret 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 direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

-  circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

-  circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

-  circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

-  circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

-  copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

-- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

-- circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

-- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

-- circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

-- copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

- circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

- circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

- copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

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

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 direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would communicate, in accordance with point I of the report form, copies of the legislation and administrative regulations, etc. mentioned in the report, so that the Committee may examine them at its next session.

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

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would communicate, in accordance with point I of the report form, copies of the legislation and administrative regulations, etc. mentioned in the report, so that the Committee may examine them at its next session.