Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2019, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 81) sur l'inspection du travail, 1947 - Fédération de Russie (Ratification: 1998)

The Committee notes the observations made by the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), received on 26 September 2019. The Committee requests the Government to provide its comments in this respect.

Articles 3(1), 6, 10 and 16 of the Convention. Number of labour inspectors and coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits. In its previous comments, the Committee observed that the number of labour inspectors had continuously decreased over a number of years from 2,680 to 2,102 between 2012 and 2016. It also noted from the 2016 report of the Federal Service of Labour and Employment (Rostrud) that the number of labour inspectors was insufficient to achieve sufficient coverage of workplaces by labour inspection visits, which often resulted in the verification and control of documents from the offices of the Rostrud rather than the conduct of actual labour inspection visits in workplaces. The Committee notes with concern from the information provided by the Government in its report that the actual number of labour inspectors continued to decrease to 1,835 inspectors in 2018. The Committee notes from the 2018 report of the Rostrud that the turnover of staff affects the efficiency of labour inspection activities. The Committee urges the Government to take the necessary measures to guarantee the recruitment of an adequate number of labour inspectors to ensure that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to enable the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the number of labour inspectors. The Committee also requests information on the conditions of service of labour inspectors (including salary, benefits, and career prospects) in comparison to public servants exercising similar functions within other government services (such as tax inspectors and the police) as well as on the reasons for the high attrition rate of labour inspectors.

Articles 7, 17 and 18. Enforcement of labour law provisions. In its previous comment, the Committee noted a disparity between the number of cases reported by the labour inspectorate, the number of investigations initiated and the number of convictions. It noted the Government’s indication that criminal cases were often not pursued as criminal intent could not be established. With respect to administrative cases, the Committee noted the Government’s indication that they were sometimes not pursued due to the lack or incomplete nature of documents in non-compliance reports prepared by the labour inspectorate and that decisions on the closure of administrative cases were often communicated too late for the labour inspectorate to submit appeals within the prescribed time limits.

The Committee notes that, based on the information provided by the Government, there is still a significant discrepancy between the number of files sent to the prosecutor’s office by the federal labour inspectorate (7,580) and the number of criminal cases instituted (518), and that the Government’s report is silent on the number of actual convictions. The Committee also notes that there have been a significant number of cancellations of acts of inspections, orders, decrees, conclusions and other decisions of labour inspectors by the judicial authorities in 2018 (1,206). The Committee once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure the effective enforcement of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to address the deficiencies identified, such as training for labour inspectors on the establishment and completion of non-compliance reports, including the collection of the necessary evidence; the improvement of communication and coordination activities with the judiciary on the required evidence to establish and effectively prosecute labour law violations, as well as the need for timely communication of the outcome of cases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee requests the Government to provide concrete statistics on the administrative and criminal cases reported by the labour inspectorate, including the relevant legal provisions, the investigations and prosecutions initiated, and the penalties imposed as a result. The Committee also requests information on the reasons for the significant number of cancellations of the decisions taken by labour inspectors.

Articles 12 and 16. Labour inspection powers and prerogatives. In its previous comment, the Committee noted that section 357 of the Labour Code only gives labour inspectors the power to interview employers (and not workers) and that Federal Law No. 294-FZ, the Labour Code and Regulation No. 875 provide for numerous restrictions on the powers of labour inspectors, including the free initiative of labour inspectors to undertake inspections without prior notice (sections 9(12) and 10(16) of Law No. 294-FZ), and the free access of labour inspectors to workplaces (without an order from a higher authority) at any hour of the day or night (sections 10(5) and 18(4) of Law No. 294-FZ). It also noted limitations with regard to the grounds on which unscheduled inspection visits may be undertaken (section 360 of the Labour Code, section 10(2) of Law No. 294-FZ and section 10 of Regulation No. 875). The Committee further noted that pursuant to section 19(6)(1) and (2) of the Code of Administrative Offenses, labour inspectors may incur administrative liability where they fail to observe certain of these restrictions, for example where they undertake labour inspections on grounds other than those permitted in law. It urged the Government to take the necessary measures to bring these legislative Acts into compliance with Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention.

The Committee notes the Government’s reference to the introduction of a risk-based approach in the work of the labour inspection services. In this respect, it notes that resolution No. 197 of February 2017 on the introduction of changes to certain acts of the Russian Federation, provides that depending on the assessment of risks, planned inspections may not be carried out more often than: (i) once every two years for workplaces considered to be high-risk; (ii) once every three years for workplaces considered to have a significant risk; (iii) once every five years for workplaces considered to have medium risk; and (iv) once in six years for workplaces to be of moderate risk. Moreover, for workplaces considered to have a low level of risk, planned inspections are not permitted. In this respect, the Committee notes that pursuant to the amendments introduced by Federal Law No. 480-FZ of 25 December of 2018 to the Federal Law No. 294-FZ, inspections cannot be scheduled for low-risk small and medium enterprises. The Committee also notes that in 2018, 37 cases were brought under section 19(6)(1) against officials of the state labour inspectorates for violating the requirements regarding the procedure for state supervision. Recalling and emphasizing the importance of fully empowering labour inspectors to make visits without previous notice in order to guarantee effective supervision, the Committee once again urges the Government to take the necessary measures to bring the national legislation into conformity with Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. Particularly, it urges the Government to ensure that labour inspectors are empowered to: (i) make visits without previous notice, in line with Article 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention; (ii) to interrogate both employers and staff, in accordance with Article 12(1)(c)(i); and (iii) to allow for the undertaking of labour inspections as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16. The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the risk-based inspection system on the coverage of workplaces by labour inspection. In this regard, it requests that the Government provide statistics on the number of labour inspections undertaken in each year since the implementation of this system, indicating the number of inspections in small, medium-sized and large enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the cases brought under section 19(6)(1) of the Code on Administrative Offenses, indicating the requirements of the legislation on state control that were violated, particularly specifying violations related to undertaking labour inspections on grounds other than those permitted in law, and any penalties assessed against inspectors based on such violations.

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

[The Government is asked to reply in full to the present comments in 2020.]