Caso de incumplimiento grave (CAS) - Discusión: 2008, Publicación: 97ª reunión CIT (2008)

Liberia

PART TWO

OBSERVATIONS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING PARTICULAR COUNTRIES

I. OBSERVATIONS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING REPORTS ON RATIFIED CONVENTIONS (ARTICLES 22 AND 35 OF THE CONSTITUTION)

A. Discussion of cases of serious failure by member States to respect their reporting and other standards-related obligations

-------------------

(b) Failure to supply first reports on the application of ratified Conventions

A Government representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis indicated that Conventions Nos 87 and 98 were enshrined in the Constitution and law of his country and that the principles and ideals of these Conventions had been actively put into practice since the 1940s. The reports pertaining to these Conventions were being prepared and would be submitted before the deadline of 1 September. He conveyed the sincere apologies of his Government for the delay in complying with the reporting obligations, which was due to a number of circumstances beyond the Government's immediate control.

A Government representative of Gambia conveyed his Government's apologies for not fulfilling its reporting obligations. This was due to capacity problems in terms of staffing at the unit of the Ministry of Employment responsible for ILO issues. Despite these problems, the Ministry had recently managed to send a report on Convention No. 29.

A Government representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia indicated that the report on Convention No. 182 was nearly ready and that although it had not yet been possible to submit it, the submission should be forthcoming by the end of the current session of the Conference. His Government had recently resumed communication with the ILO supervisory bodies after an interruption of nine years by submitting reports on Conventions Nos 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111 and 135. The Government was firmly committed to addressing the backlog in reporting and meeting its constitutional obligations. It had engaged in continued dialogue with the ILO, especially the Subregional Office in Budapest, and had received substantive assistance through a national tripartite seminar and the training of one person at the International Training Centre of the ILO so as to strengthen reporting capacities. It was hoped that all pending reports would be submitted this year.

With regard to the failure to supply reports on unratified Conventions and Recommendations noted in paragraph 25 of the report of the Committee of Experts, the speaker indicated that his Government intended to focus as a priority on the submission of reports with regard to the application of ratified Conventions, before being able to report on unratified Conventions and Recommendations.

A Government representative of Uganda expressed her Government's deep regret for the failure to fulfil reporting obligations and added that she had just submitted the report on Convention No. 138 along with four other reports. The remaining 19 were being prepared and would be provided by the deadline of 1 September. The failure to report was due to resource problems, but the recent expansion of the Department of Labour to include three additional departments would lead to the strengthening of the unit responsible for reporting to the ILO. The Government was firmly committed to strengthening its capacities in this area. Strengthening labour ministry institutions was a key outcome of one of the components of the Uganda Decent Work Country Programme, which concerned the strengthening of the social dimensions of regional integration in East Africa for a fair globalization.

The Committee took note of the information provided and of the explanations given by the Government representatives who had taken the floor, and recalled the vital importance of supplying first reports on the application of ratified Conventions. In this respect, the Committee recalled that the ILO could provide technical assistance to contribute to compliance with this obligation.

The Committee decided to note the following cases in the corresponding paragraph in the General Report:

- since 1992: Liberia (Convention No. 133);

- since 1994: Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 111);

- since 1995: Kyrgyzstan (Convention No. 133);

- since 1998: Equatorial Guinea (Conventions Nos 68, 92);

- since 1999: Turkmenistan (Conventions Nos 29, 87, 98, 100, 105, 111);

- since 2002: Gambia (Conventions Nos 105, 138), Saint Kitts and Nevis (Conventions Nos 87, 98), Saint Lucia (Convention No. 182);

- since 2003: Dominica (Convention No. 182), Gambia (Convention No. 182), Iraq (Conventions Nos 172, 182);

- since 2004: Antigua and Barbuda (Conventions Nos 122, 131, 135, 142, 144, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 161, 182), Dominica (Conventions Nos 144, 169), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Convention No. 182);

- since 2005: Antigua and Barbuda (Convention No. 100), Liberia (Conventions Nos 81, 144, 150, 182);

- since 2006: Albania (Convention No. 171), Dominica (Conventions Nos 135, 147, 150), Georgia (Convention No. 163), Kyrgyzstan (Conventions Nos 17, 184), Nigeria (Conventions Nos 137, 178, 179).

(c) Failure to supply information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts

A Government representative of Barbados acknowledged the failure of his Government to submit information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts. A lack of human resources capacity, the need to retrain new staff members following the transfer of several officials, and a delay in receiving inputs from the relevant stakeholders were responsible for this failure. He assured the Committee that a mechanism had been put into place to ensure that the Government fulfilled its reporting obligations for the present year - a recurrence of the failure to submit information was not anticipated.

A Government representative of Cambodia thanked the Office for the continued technical assistance it has provided. The Government had made great progress as a result of this assistance; it hoped to be able to thoroughly fulfil its reporting obligations in the next two years.

A Government representative of Congo indicated that, in 2007, his Government transmitted to the Office 18 of the 29 requested reports. As for the comments of the Committee of Experts, they were only received at the beginning of May 2008, shortly before the beginning of the Conference. Hence, there was not enough time to supply the requested complementary information. A team was currently working to prepare the required replies, and the Government had committed itself to forwarding these replies to the Office before 1 September 2008, after duly consulting the social partners and gathering their observations.

A Government representative of Ethiopia stated that her Government had consistently sought constructive engagement with the ILO supervisory bodies and took its reporting obligations extremely seriously. It was surprised, therefore, that the Committee of Experts' report indicated that it had failed to submit any replies. Following a consultation with the Office regarding this matter, the Government now understood that, although reports respecting Conventions Nos 87 and 98 had been received, those Conventions were cited in paragraph 35 of the General Report due to the insufficiency of the information contained in those replies. The Government had therefore not defaulted in its obligation to supply information to the Committee of Experts. It would, however, continue to address any concerns raised with respect to its reporting obligations and incorporate them into communications to be sent to the Committee of Experts as soon as possible. As concerned Convention No. 156, the Government would provide the relevant report as soon as possible.

A Government representative of France expressed her Government's regret at not having been able to meet the deadline for replying to the Committee of Experts' comments. As regards the territory of Réunion, the current internal organizational structure led to regularly observed problems as far as the dispatch of scheduled reports for overseas territories was concerned. In this respect, the Government had undertaken a process of revising these procedures in cooperation with the authorities concerned with a view to remedying the present malfunctions and respecting deadlines in the future. In addition, as far as the application of Conventions Nos 98 and 111 to crews of ships registered in the French Southern and Antarctic Territories, the Government undertook to forward the information requested in the near future. She concluded by saying that a law of 3 May 2005 subjected the crews of the ships concerned to the French international register, thus putting an end to the existence of a maritime register for this territory.

A Government representative of Gambia expressed regret at his Government's failure to submit the replies requested by the Committee of Experts. The Government would continue to solicit the technical assistance of the Office, as it had last year, so that the Labour Ministry's reporting capacity could be strengthened.

A Government representative of the Solomon Islands ac- knowledged his Government's failure to submit replies to the comments of the Committee of Experts. This failure was due to the difficult situation the Government had experienced, and was continuing to endure. Nevertheless, steps were being taken to address this matter: new staff had been trained and financial resources had been allocated to allow the Government to fulfil its reporting obligations.

A Government representative of Ireland apologized for the non-submission of several reports to the Committee of Experts. He explained that his department had been extremely busy in preparing for the review of the ten-year National Social Partnership, which would last until 2016, and that the importance accorded to the National Social Partnership Agreement required that his department give absolute priority to this task. The Government intended to fulfil its reporting obligations in full in the future.

A Government representative of Lesotho acknowledged his Government's failure to submit reports in the previous year. The Government's lack of capacity was to blame for the non-submissions. In this respect, the Government had, at every opportunity, consistently been requesting the technical assistance of the Office to aid it with its reporting obligations: the last training concerning reporting was provided in 2001, and the staff who were trained had since moved on or assumed new responsibilities. He indicated that a special request for training had been made to the ILO Office in Harare in 2005. The training did not take place, as the relevant specialist was not available, and furthermore that specialist has since left the Harare Office. He urged the ILO to fill the specialist post, so that the Government could receive the required training on reporting and thereby fulfil its reporting obligations.

A Government representative of Mali expressed her Government's regret at not having fulfilled its obligation to communicate scheduled reports as well as replies to the Committee of Experts' observations. Nevertheless, reports under the Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 6), the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), and the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), had already been sent electronically and there were doubtless technical reasons why the ILO had not received them. The Government had undertaken to provide new copies by the end of the Conference at the latest.

A Government representative of Nigeria stated that two factors were responsible for his Government's failure to submit first reports on the Conventions cited in paragraph 31 of the General Report. Firstly, the desk officers in the newly created National Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NAMASA) lacked the capacity to report on the Maritime Labour Convention. Secondly, the Department of Policy Analysis, Research and Statistics (PARS) of the Federal Ministry of Labour had just assumed responsibility for the submission of all reports under articles 19 and 22 of the ILO Constitution; there had been no reporting delays while this responsibility laid with the Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations Department. He stated that technical assistance from the Office would be required to permit the newly posted desk officers to report on Conventions Nos 137, 178 and 179, and that the Government would be submitting a request for such assistance in due time.

As concerned the failure to submit the replies requested by the Committee of Experts, the Trade Union Services Department mentioned above had indeed supplied reports on a reasonable number of the Conventions cited in paragraph 35 of the General Report; reports on three Conventions were outstanding, and they would soon be submitted by the PARS Department. He indicated that the Government's reporting obligations would systematically be fulfilled once the capacity of the responsible officers had been sufficiently developed, and reiterated the need for the technical assistance of the Office.

A Government representative of Uganda stated that a report had, in fact, been submitted on Convention No. 162. As reporting on Conventions required that information be obtained from several line ministries, there was a great need for support to establish a mechanism to coordinate the inputs of the various ministries. Nevertheless, the Government would submit and finalize the reports requested for the present year in a timely manner.

A Government representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo expressed his bitterness at having to justify the difficulties met in the communication of reports. Organizational difficulties existed due to the fact that ILO documents belatedly reached the Ministry of Labour because they first passed through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As for the elaboration of reports, the lack of sufficient trained staff prevented the reports from being provided on time. In this regard, the ILO should set up a tripartite programme to strengthen human resource capacities to ensure the timely preparation of these reports. As for failing to supply replies to the comments of the Committee of Experts, notably last year, some elements of reply were provided. Finally, as for reports on Conventions that were not ratified, five reports were provided last year, and the Government committed itself to supplying all overdue reports before the end of this Conference session.

A Government representative of the United Kingdom stated that his previous comments concerning paragraph 25 applied equally to paragraph 35 of the General Report.

A Government representative of Saint Kitts and Nevis stated that this was the first time his Government had participated in the International Labour Conference since gaining membership in 1996. The Government fully subscribed to the ILO's principles and values, and as such had ratified all eight core Conventions as well as one priority Convention. He expressed regret for the Government's failure to fulfil its constitutional reporting obligations in a timely fashion. This delay was due not to a lack of interest on the Government's part but rather to the limited resources at its disposal, which posed a considerable challenge to its ability to discharge its reporting duties fully. He assured the Committee that the processes necessary to address this matter had been initiated, and that the reports requested for the present year would be duly delivered. He indicated that the Government intended to request technical assistance from the Office to aid it in its reporting obligations, and concluded by affirming his Government's commitment to tripartism and the values upheld by the ILO.

A Government representative of Zambia acknowledged his Government's failure to submit the replies requested by the Committee of Experts. He explained that the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had undergone restructuring during the period 2003-06 in order to permit the Department of Labour to address effectively the emerging challenges related to labour administration. Further to this restructuring process, new staff had been hired who lacked sufficient knowledge of and training on ILO reporting procedures. He assured the Committee that measures would soon be taken to ensure the submission of reports to the Committee of Experts in a timely manner.

The Committee took note of the information provided and of the explanations given by the Government representatives who had taken the floor. The Committee underlined the vital importance, to permit ongoing dialogue, of clear and complete information in response to observations of the Committee of Experts. It recalled that this was one element of the constitutional obligation to supply reports. In this respect, the Committee expressed serious concern at the large number of cases of failure to supply information in response to the observations of the Committee of Experts. The Committee recalled that Governments could request technical assistance from the Office to overcome any difficulty that might occur in responding to the observations of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee requested the Governments of Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, France (Réunion, French Southern and Antarctic Territories), Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malaysia (Sabah), Mali, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat and St Helena) and Zambia, to make all efforts to transmit as soon as possible the required information. The Committee decided to note these cases in the corresponding paragraph in the General Report.

(d) Written information received up to the end of the meeting of the Committee on the Application of Standards (Endnote_1)

Armenia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first reports on Conventions Nos 111 and 176.

Congo. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent most of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

Denmark. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Djibouti. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Equatorial Guinea. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent one of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

France. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

France (French Guiana). Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

France (Guadeloupe). Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

France (Martinique). Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

France (St Pierre and Miquelon). Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Gambia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent the first report on the application of Convention No. 29.

Iraq. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions and replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Kiribati. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions and replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Liberia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent some of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions.

Malawi. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Malaysia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to all of the Committee's comments.

Papua New Guinea. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Peru. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

San Marino. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Senegal. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Slovenia. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent replies to most of the Committee's comments.

Uzbekistan. Since the meeting of the Committee of Experts, the Government has sent all of the reports due concerning the application of ratified Conventions and replies to all of the Committee's comments.

-------------

III. REPORTS ON UNRATIFIED CONVENTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION)

(a) Failure to supply reports for the past five years on unratified Conventions and Recommendations

A Government representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia referred the Committee to his previous statement.

A Government representative of Kiribati presented her Government's apologies regarding its failure to submit reports under article 19 of the ILO Constitution. She noted that ILO technical assistance had been provided recently, including the training of a staff member in Turin.

A Government representative of Uganda expressed the hope that ILO technical assistance would be forthcoming and promised delivery before the end of the next reporting period.

A Government representative of the Russian Federation stated that non-compliance with obligations was due to issues of an administrative and technical nature, but that all was being done to submit responses as soon as possible before the end of the current reporting period.

A Government representative of San Marino stated that this year his country was able to rectify the delay accumulated in 2004, 2005 and 2006 in supplying the reports due under article 22 of the Constitution, as it had provided 15 of the 20 overdue reports. Unfortunately, the workload faced by the administration to reach this result had prevented it from meeting its obligation under article 19 of the Constitution, namely providing reports on the Conventions that are not ratified and on the Recommendations. The San Marinese administration committed itself to rectifying this situation.

A Government representative of Yemen recalled that Yemen had ratified 29 Conventions, including eight core Conventions. Regretting the failure to submit reports, he gave assurances that the Government would respond on non-ratified Conventions. He appealed for documentation to be made available in Arabic in order to improve the process of submission.

A Government representative of Sudan stated that his Government was attempting to comply with its obligations. However, the ongoing situation in his country had prevented these obligations from being met successfully.

The Committee took note of the information provided and of the explanations given by the Government representatives who had taken the floor. The Committee stressed the importance it attached to the constitutional obligation to supply reports on non-ratified Conventions and Recommendations. In effect, these reports permitted a better evaluation of the situation in the context of the General Survey of the Committee of Experts. In this respect, the Committee recalled that the ILO could provide technical assistance to help in complying with this obligation.

The Committee insisted that all member States should fulfil their obligations in this respect and expressed the firm hope that the Governments of Antigua and Barbuda, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gambia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Russian Federation, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Yemen would comply in future with their obligations under article 19 of the Constitution. The Committee decided to mention these cases in the corresponding paragraph of the General Report.

The Worker members concluded by pointing out that, in the face of these serious failures, a mere show of good will by States was not sufficient. Furthermore, certain Governments had not even expressed themselves. Those who did referred to many reasons explaining their failure to meet their obligations, namely crisis situations, conflicts, a lack of trained staff, insufficient resources and administrative reforms. The commitments and promises that were made must be noted and this Committee, as well as the Office, must stress to member States that they have to take the necessary measures to meet their obligations, and remind them of the possibility of obtaining technical assistance.

The Employer members noted that the activities of the ILO were the result of a common agreement. It did not make sense, therefore, to request that these activities be brought closer to the real needs of member States when these States did not show the basic and necessary willingness to understand, analyse and follow through the implementation of the Conventions they had ratified through dialogue. Some of the explanations given by various States were insufficient and did not contribute to the improvement of the efficiency of this Committee and the Organization in general.

Finally, they emphasized the importance of highlighting in this Committee the seriousness of many of these failures and insisting on the need to continue to reinforce, in the future, as over the last two years, the discussions on the failure to comply with reporting obligations and the non-submission of adopted instruments to the competent authorities.

Endnote 1

The list of the reports received is in Appendix I.