Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2001, publiée 90ème session CIT (2002)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Algérie (Ratification: 1962)

The Committee refers the Government to its observation and notes that the report does not reply to the Committee’s requests in its previous comments concerning the reasons for the reduction of the number of occupational accidents in recent years; statistics on establishments subject to inspection; possible specialization of men and women inspectors’ jobs. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to respond in its next report and that it will also provide additional information on the following points.

1. Conditions of service of inspection staff (Article 6 of the Convention). The Committee notes with interest that, according to section 13 of Executive Decree No. 91 44 issuing special regulations for labour inspectors, labour inspectors are provided with accommodation for the purposes of service. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate the instances and the number of inspectors to which this provision applies.

2. Strength of the inspection staff and resources available to them (Articles 10, 11 and 16). The Committee notes from the Government’s report that there are 71 vehicles for the 951 inspectors operating nationwide, which amounts to over 13 inspectors to each vehicle. The Committee further notes that 4,111,000 Algerian dinars (DA) are earmarked for labour inspectors’ travelling expenses, i.e. an average of 4,322 DA per year or 360 DA per month per inspector. The Government further indicates in its report, under Article 16, that inspection visits are carried out at least once a year to workplaces employing fewer than nine workers, and more frequently for medium and large establishments. The Committee notes, however, that the number of workplaces subject to inspection is given neither by the Government nor in the annual inspection report for 1998 99. The Committee points out that this information is essential to an evaluation of how efficient the inspection services are in the light of the requirements. With reference to the criteria for determining the size of the labour inspectorate listed in Article 10, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would state the number of establishments liable to inspection and give particulars of arrangements for the use of transport to carry out inspection visits.

The Committee further recalls that, according to Article 11, paragraph 1(b), the competent authority must make the necessary arrangements to supply labour inspectors with the transport facilities they need for the performance of their duties where suitable public facilities do not exist and that, according to paragraph 2 of the same Article, arrangements must also be made to reimburse labour inspectors any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the arrangements for using the overall allocation earmarked for the inspection service to cover the occupational travel costs of each inspector.

3. Sufficiently dissuasive sanctions (Article 18). According to section 24 of Act No. 90-03 of 6 February 1990, the penalty for obstructing a labour inspector in carrying out his duties or persons assisting him is a fine of from 2,000 to 4,000 DA. The value of these amounts having been eroded significantly by the currency devaluations of the last decade, they are no longer sufficiently dissuasive to instil greater respect for the labour inspectorate in employers, and in some cases are negligible by comparison with the amount that would have to be spent to fulfil the labour inspector’s prescriptions. This also applies to the fines established by sections 37 et seq. of Act No. 88-07 of 26 January 1988 for breaches of the health and safety prescriptions which can have particularly serious consequences at both individual and social level. The Committee expresses the firm hope that measures will soon be taken to review the amount of the abovementioned pecuniary sanctions so as to adapt them to present economic circumstances as a means of ensuring respect for labour inspectors in the performance of their duties and the prescriptions which they supervise.