Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2007, publiée 97ème session CIT (2008)

Convention (n° 156) sur les travailleurs ayant des responsabilités familiales, 1981 - Niger (Ratification: 1985)

1. Article 3 of the Convention. Recalling the Committee’s comments since 1995 regarding the need to frame and adopt a national employment policy that would take into account the points raised in Article 3, the Committee notes from the Government’s report that it has not yet adopted such a policy but that it is continuing to work towards this end. It draws the Government’s attention to paragraphs 54–95 of the 1993 General Survey on workers with family responsibilities which may be of assistance in formulating such a policy. The Committee reminds the Government of the importance of adopting a national policy in accordance with Article 3 using measures compatible with national conditions and possibilities, and asks the Government to keep it informed on progress made in this regard.

2. Article 4(b). Recalling that section 119(4) of the Labour Code provides for supplementary annual leave for women with dependent children but that the same leave is not available to men, the Government indicates in its report that it has not made any provision for male workers with family responsibilities. The Committee points out that, under the Convention, special measures of protection or assistance taken to reduce inequalities between men and women that target women alone, are not necessarily discriminatory. Nonetheless, the aim of national policies under the Convention is to promote full coverage of both men and women workers in all programmes concerning workers with family responsibilities (paragraph 35 of the 1993 General Survey). The Committee, therefore, asks what measures the Government is taking or considering to extend the benefits currently available to women workers with family responsibilities to male workers as well.

3. Article 5. The Committee notes the Government’s adoption of Decree No. 0079/MSP/ICE/MEF on 26 April 2006 granting free prenatal consultations as well as care for children up to 5 years of age under the public health system. It recalls nonetheless the Government’s indication that many cooperatives providing childcare and family services faced difficulties, often resulting in their closure. The Committee  asks the Government, therefore, to provide information on how the needs of workers with family responsibilities are taken into account in community planning, particularly concerning the provision of childcare and family services and facilities, and draws the Government’s attention in this regard to Paragraphs 24–26 of Recommendation No. 165.

4. Article 6. The Government states that in the context of the project to support the implementation of the ILO Declaration (PAMODEC), it has organized awareness-raising and information seminars for the benefit of trade unions, teachers, civil society and other interested groups to achieve a greater understanding of the ILO’s fundamental Conventions. The Committee welcomes this ongoing work and asks the Government to provide specific information on what is being done in the context of PAMODEC, or otherwise, to educate the public about the problems faced by workers with family responsibilities and to create a climate of opinion conducive to overcoming these problems.

5. Article 7. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that the social plans negotiated between workers and employers in the event of staff reductions take into account the particular problems facing workers with family responsibilities by, for instance, granting social insurance to such workers for a negotiated period of time as well as taking into account a worker’s family situation in the determination of severance pay. In this context of staff reductions and dismissals, the Committee recalls the importance of vocational training and employment programmes to assist workers with family responsibilities to enter and re-enter the labour market. Given the Government’s earlier indication that this matter would be taken up in its national employment policy, the Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any progress achieved in this regard.

6. Article 8. In its previous comments on this Article, the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether it would consider, if the occasion arose, amending its Labour Code to explicitly prohibit termination on the ground of a worker’s family responsibilities. In response, the Government reports that it stands by its comments on this matter contained in its previous report received on 10 June 2002. In that report, the Government referred to section 74 of Ordinance 96-039 of 29 June 1996 concerning the Labour Code, instructing employers to take into account their employees’ family situation when prioritizing the dismissal of workers for business-related reasons. It also referred to sections 84 and 85 of the Labour Code stating that, apart from dismissals for business-related reasons, a contract of employment can only be terminated by the employer where there is some fault committed by the employee in the performance of his or her work. From this information, the Committee infers that the Government is of the view that the Labour Code sufficiently protects workers from dismissal on the basis of their family responsibilities. The Committee, therefore, asks the Government to provide information on how employees are protected in practice from dismissal on the basis of their family responsibilities including the number and outcome of judicial cases dealing with such claims.

7. Part V of the report form. The Committee recalls the importance of gathering information that would allow both the Government and the Committee to appreciate the progress made and difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention. The Committee hopes the Government will make its best efforts to provide such information, where possible, in its next report including for example, extracts from reports, studies or inquiries relevant to the matters covered by the Convention, and statistics on workers with family responsibilities in employment and on existing or needed childcare and family services.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2009.]