Caso de incumplimiento grave (CAS) - Discusión: 2014, Publicación: 103ª reunión CIT (2014)

Ghana

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

The Employer members noted a general improvement in terms of compliance with reporting obligations, with an increase of around 6 per cent as compared to last year. They noted in particular the efforts made by eight countries with persistent difficulties in previous years (Grenada, Ireland, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles and Sierra Leone), which had now complied with their constitutional obligations vis-à-vis ratified Conventions. Despite this progress, the Employer members believed that the reporting situation was still not satisfactory given that more than a quarter of all due reports on the application of ratified Conventions were not received by the time of the meeting of the Committee of Experts (only 34.1 per cent were received on time). Further steps were therefore needed to address the problem at its roots. As far as ratifying countries were concerned, the Employer members stressed that these countries should not just rely on the offer of technical assistance but take their responsibility for reporting seriously. Even before ratifying an ILO Convention, countries needed to consider whether they would be able to discharge their reporting obligation and, if need be, reinforce their reporting capacities. From a wider perspective, there was a need to consolidate and simplify ILO Conventions and thus focus reporting on the essential. Identifying ways to do so would be a task for the standards review mechanism. The Employer members trusted that it would soon be operational.

The Worker members stated that although some countries had made an effort, an effective supervisory system implied that each State had to meet its obligations. Submitting instruments to the competent authorities was therefore part and parcel of the process. Unless that was done, the competent authorities could have no knowledge of the ILO’s instruments and of the action taken by the Organization. As to the failure of some countries to respond to the Committee of Experts’ comments, the latter had to be able to analyse government reports on the subject. It was essential that there be fewer and fewer cases each year of countries failing to meet their standards-related obligations.

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

A Government representative of Ghana stated that his country’s report supplying information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts would be finalized in the course of the Conference and submitted to the Office.

A Government representative of Afghanistan noted the comments made by the Committee of Experts concerning his country’s failure to supply first reports on the application of four ratified Conventions. He indicated that work was currently being undertaken with a view to providing the first reports but problems were being experienced in consolidating the information received from different government entities. To address this issue, consideration was given to establishing a unit working exclusively on reporting under ILO Conventions. He requested ILO technical assistance to help in such endeavour and to build the capacity of the members of such a unit so as to be able to provide the reports due on time.

A Government representative of Cambodia recognized that his Government was late in supplying information in reply to comments made by the Committee of Experts on Conventions Nos 87 and 98, although the reporting obligation concerning many other Conventions had been discharged on time. The technical assistance of the ILO had been requested to strengthen the capacity of the members of the Inter-Ministerial Committee that had been set up to collect and provide information and draft comments on these matters. On 29 April 2014, ILO technical assistance on reporting obligations had been provided as the starting point of a capacity-strengthening process. He hoped that this fruitful cooperation would allow fulfilling the reporting obligation in the near future.

A Government representative of Mauritania recalled that Mauritania, member State of the ILO since 1961, had ratified around 40 Conventions and was strongly attached to the values of social justice and peace. Between 2008 and 2012, the reports had always been submitted within the deadlines. The delays in sending reports in 2013 had been due to problems relating to human resources. ILO technical assistance from the ILO Country Office in Dakar had been requested in that regard.

A Government representative of Thailand said that her Government had taken measures with regard to reporting on ratified Conventions in response to the comments made by the Committee of Experts. According to the General Report, there were five reports pending. However, prior to the publication of this report, the Government had submitted its reports on Convention Nos 14 and 105. She confirmed that the remaining reports on Conventions Nos 19, 122 and 182, along with the reports due this year, would be submitted by August 2014.

A Government representative of Angola indicated that the Ministry of Public Administration, Work and Social Security was concerned about the issue of submission. The problem had been that submissions could not be made since the instruments had not been translated into Portuguese. The above Ministry, supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had undertaken to translate those instruments. In that respect, he reiterated the request for technical assistance. It was envisaged that the process would be completed by the end of the year and that the Office would be informed of any action carried out.

A Government representative of Eritrea indicated that in 2012, his Government had sent the required reports on the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98) on time. It was unfortunate that they had not been received, and he apologized for the inconvenience caused. However, his Government had prepared a new detailed report based on the comments made by the Committee of Experts on the two Conventions, as well as on other Conventions for which it was due to report on this year, which would be submitted on 1 June 2014. Moreover, the Labour Proclamation had been amended in light of the Committee of Experts’ comments. Regarding the allegation made by the International Trade Union Confederation that in practice there was no collective bargaining in Eritrea, he stated that the Labour Proclamation declared trade unions to be legal entities with the right to elect their representatives according to their constitutions and without the interference of public authorities. To date, there were more than 230 workers’ associations, and the Government had registered more than 110 collective agreements, figures which indicated that trade unions were in fact exercising their rights freely. The ILO’s technical assistance was of paramount importance to improving the implementation of standards.

A Government representative of Guyana said that in 2012, the Government had been severely behind with regard to the discharge of its reporting obligation and had explained at the time some of the constraints it was facing and had expressed its commitment to corrective measures. His Government had since submitted 16 of the reports that were outstanding and was working to complete the rest by the deadline of 1 September 2014. Part of the reason for not submitting reports was however a lack of capacity, and the Ministry of Labour had addressed the issue by employing additional staff who would assist in preparing the reports. Also since 2012, Guyana had ratified the Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) and the Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189). The Government was dedicated to fulfilling its reporting commitment, and in that regard it was working with the ILO Regional Office in Trinidad and Tobago to train young officers to be able to produce reports.

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 comments of the Committee of Experts. In this respect, the Committee expressed serious concern at the large number of cases of failure to transmit information in response to the comments 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 comments of the Committee of Experts.

The Committee urged the Governments of Burundi, Cambodia, Comoros, Croatia, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Malaysia – Peninsular, Malaysia – Sarawak, Malta, Mauritania, Rwanda, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan and Vanuatu, to make all efforts to transmit as soon as possible the required information. The Committee decided to note these cases in the corresponding paragraph of the General Report.