Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1992, Publication: 79th ILC session (1992)

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Paraguay (Ratification: 1967)

A Government representative, the Vice-Minister of Labour, referred to the comment made by the Committee of Experts concerning Article 13 of the Convention and the powers of labour inspectors. In practice, the following procedure was applied: at the request of an interested party or officer, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health undertook a first inspection and, if the safety and health conditions were not adequate, the employer would be granted a reasonable period of time to remedy the situation. After this, a second inspection was carried out and if the situation was still unsatisfactory, sanctions would be imposed by means of an administrative resolution. Under the Health Code, which is enforced by the Ministry of Public Health and Welfare, in cases of immediate danger the operational licence of an establishment may be withdrawn. Furthermore a national tripartite Occupational Safety and Health Board had been created by Decree No. 10.836 of 6 September 1991. In conformity with section 280(b) of the Labour Code presently in force, a general technical manual containing standards concerning conditions in the workplace was provided to employers' and workers' organisations for consideration. This manual would soon be mandatory in the entire country and a copy would be transmitted to the ILO shortly. Furthermore, the Government had quintupled the budget of the Occupational Safety and Health Department as compared with last year. The Government was presently reviewing the possibility of technical and financial assistance from the ILO in order to evaluate the national situation with respect to working conditions and occupational safety and health. The Government representative admitted, as was pointed out in the Committee of Experts' comments, that the information provided by the Government was insufficient and stated that the necessary measures were being taken to overcome this difficulty by providing different workshops under the auspices of the ILO and through the horizontal cooperation which had begun with the ILO Office in Buenos Aires. With respect to Articles 10, 16, 20 and 21 of the Convention, while the number of inspectors was insufficient, the Minister intended to present in 1993 a new request to the Treasury for a substantial increase in the number of inspectors and an improvement in the conditions necessary for their effective functioning. Finally, he added that Decree No. 43, which established an increase in the fines applicable for non-compliance with labour provisions, was passed by Executive Order on 31 March 1992.

The Employers' members welcomed the information provided by the Government representative which led one to believe that the legislation would soon be in line with the Convention, but noted that action was also necessary to ensure compliance in practice. They noted the Government's indication that the resources necessary for inspection would be increased, but wondered whether the resources obtained would actually be sufficient and therefore urged the Government to make its best efforts to ensure that this would be the case. They further noted that additional powers would be given to labour inspectors and that a reasonable amount of time would be provided to employers to resolve problems before drastic sanctions would be imposed. They requested the Government to indicate how long a period of time would be given to employers to enable them to take the necessary action before sanctions would be applied. They noted the Government's indication of its intention to communicate the number of inspection visits carried out, but recalled that, under the Convention, an annual inspection report was to be published in order to permit a review of the national situation, the type of remedies used and to assess their effectiveness. Nevertheless, they were encouraged by the Government's statement and noted that the information provided in the next years would demonstrate whether the measures taken were sufficient.

The Workers' members recalled that there were two main problems with respect to the application of this Convention: (1) insufficient powers for labour inspectors; and (2) incomplete information provided in the inspection reports. They noted the Government's assurances that measures would be taken to improve the situation but stressed, as had been noted by the Employers' members, the importance of the practical application of the Convention. They urged the Government to communicate, as soon as possible, further information on the measures taken to improve the situation concerning the above two points for examination by the Committee of Experts.

The Government representative stated that the normal practice for labour inspection visits was to first carry out an initial visit, noting the irregularity, and then granting the employer a period of time to overcome the difficulties. Once this period had elapsed, a second visit was undertaken to verify the situation and, if the anomalies had not been corrected, an adminsitrative resolution would impose the fine established by law. He further noted that new standards existed with respect to non-compliance with labour law in areas other than those of occupational safety and health, and recalled once again the existence of Decree No. 43. Finally, he noted that the results of this Decree were encouraging and promised to inform the Office of the effects of its implementation.

The Committee noted the information provided by the Government. It stressed the importance of the Labour Inspectorate and the annual publication of its reports, in conformity with the Convention. It therefore expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary steps to ensure the application of the Convention in the near future.