Cas individuel (CAS) - Discussion : 2025, Publication : 113ème session CIT (2025)

Convention (n° 94) sur les clauses de travail (contrats publics), 1949 - Burundi (Ratification: 1963)

Discussion by the Committee

Chairperson – I have the honour of inviting the honourable representative of the Government of Burundi, the Director-General of Labour and Employment, to take the floor.

Government representative – The Government welcomes the collaboration which has been established regarding the application of standards in our country. As regards in particular the application of the Convention under examination, the Trade Union Confederation of Burundi (COSYBU) sent observations to the Committee of Experts alleging the violation of certain provisions of the Convention.

A short time ago, we had a discussion on this subject with our social partners. After reviewing the allegations, the Articles of the Convention and other texts at our disposal, we found no cases of violations regarding labour clauses in public contracts.

We would like to have more information on the Articles of the Convention that the Government has allegedly failed to observe. The Government is willing to engage in dialogue with the social partners to correct any issues of application. As the ILO is an umbrella institution for social dialogue, I know that it favours dialogue between the tripartite constituents. We have several bodies dedicated to social dialogue and we can find a solution to the current situation. All issues directly related to the lives of workers and employers are discussed within the National Committee on Social Dialogue (CNDS). Contentious issues are discussed within the National Labour Committee (CNT). Issues that are not discussed within the CNDS are referred to the CNT. We doubt that the allegations we are examining have been considered by these national bodies.

I am therefore convinced that even if it turns out that Burundi has not complied with certain provisions of the Convention, we can find solutions together. We are willing to listen and take steps to resolve the issue. I reiterate that we have not found any violation of the provisions of the Convention and we would like to receive specific and clear information so that we can find an appropriate solution.

Employer members – We thank the Government for its statement. However, we would have liked to receive information in writing, before today’s discussion, as this would have enabled a more effective interaction.

Today is the first time that the Committee is dealing with the application of the Convention by Burundi, which ratified this technical Convention in 1997. We note that, to date, the Committee of Experts has already made 13 observations on the Convention. Unfortunately, several reports requested by the Committee of Experts have not been provided by the Government in recent years. The Committee has therefore been bound to reiterate its observations, in particular on the Convention under examination.

Until 2008, that year’s General Survey on this Convention indicated that the national legislation in Burundi followed “to the letter the provisions of Convention No. 94 with respect to the scope of its requirement for a labour clause, covering public contracts for the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of public works; the manufacture, assembly, handling or shipment of materials, supplies or equipment; or the performance or supply of services.”

However, it can be deduced from the above-mentioned General Survey that the situation in practice was already not in conformity with the Convention. The General Survey indicated as follows:

• (page 50/paragraph 145): “… no provision is made for labour clauses in terms of the Convention, but the posting of notices concerning the working conditions is required.”
• (page 41/paragraph 114): “… the Government has announced its intention to rectify the situation and undertake concrete action in the framework of the forthcoming examination of the new draft Code on Public Contracts.”

The Code on Public Contracts (Public Procurement Code) was amended in the meantime by an Act of 2008. Further to an observation by COSYBU, the Committee of Experts noted that two decrees were repealed at the same time that the new Public Procurement Code came into force, but that no effective measures have been taken to ensure the inclusion and the observance of labour clauses in public contracts.

The Employer members underline the importance of observance of the Convention by States. The raison d’être for the adoption of the Convention and the Labour Clauses (Public Contracts) Recommendation, 1949 (No. 84), was based on the idea that the public authorities must endeavour to ensure the observance of socially acceptable standards in work performed for the State. This Convention was visionary in 1949, and now the issue of the inclusion of labour clauses in public contracts is once again a major social concern.

Article 2(1) of the Convention provides that public contracts shall include clauses ensuring to the workers concerned wages (including allowances), hours of work and other conditions of labour which are not less favourable than those established by collective agreement, arbitration award, or national laws or regulations for work of the same character in the trade or industry concerned in the district where the work is carried out.

Article 2(2) defines other means of protecting working conditions in the context of the performance of public contracts by providing that, in the absence of a collective agreement, arbitration award or national legislation applicable to the region, reference should be made to the instruments applicable in the nearest region, or to the general level observed in the same trade or industry.

On reading the Committee of Experts’ observation, as formulated in 2024, we note that the Government has allegedly frozen bonuses and allowances for workers in the public and parapublic sector since 2016. Furthermore, according to COSYBU, companies providing services to the State are not subject to collective agreements or negotiated pay scales, which seriously undermines the effectiveness of social dialogue.

At first glance, these practices appear to us to be contrary to the fundamental principle of freedom of collective bargaining. The ILO supervisory bodies have been very clear on this subject, notably by authorizing the Government to temporarily suspend the application of collective agreements, provided that this restriction on collective bargaining meets very strict conditions:

If, as part of its stabilization policy, a government considers that wage rates cannot be settled freely through collective bargaining, such a restriction should be imposed as an exceptional measure and only to the extent that is necessary, without exceeding a reasonable period, and it should be accompanied by adequate safeguards to protect workers’ living standards. (Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, paragraph 1456).

In the present case, the Government should explain this situation, even if this issue is not directly linked to the application of the Convention.

At all events, the Convention has resolved the situation when no specific working conditions are stipulated for work of the same character in the trade or industry concerned. According to the Convention, the public authority should, in such cases, apply the wages and conditions of work applicable in the nearest region, or at the general level observed in the same trade or industry.

In conclusion, we urge the Government to fully play its role in protecting workers and ensuring a level playing field, that is to say, fair conditions of competition with respect for conditions of work among all economic actors. The necessary measures to ensure this protection and this fair competition must be taken in law and in practice.

Worker members – We are here to examine the case of Burundi. This is an important case, as we note several critical elements in the report of the Committee of Experts. Previous reports on community development work and the Penal Code, which enable forced labour and lead to violations of the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), and of the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105), remain unanswered. A total of 18 requests for reports have been made, and only three have been received so far. We welcome the fact that the Government is here today to provide further explanations.

But at the heart of this case is the violation of Convention No. 94, which requires the inclusion of labour clauses in public contracts, thereby ensuring that workers enjoy wages, working hours and other conditions of work at least as favourable as those established for work of the same nature by collective agreements, arbitration awards or national laws and regulations.

This is an important Convention. Its objectives are both to prevent labour costs from being used as an element of competition between bidders for public contracts and to ensure that these contracts do not drive down wages and working conditions. Both of these objectives are essential for guaranteeing the rights and dignity of workers. It obliges contractors to provide fair contracts to public authorities, but above all to their workers. Public procurement must ensure the creation of decent jobs.

Based on the Committee of Experts’ observations, we note that Burundi has not been complying with the Convention for some time. As long as 17 years ago, in 2008, the Committee of Experts raised the issue, asking whether the legal basis for guaranteeing minimum conditions for workers employed by a public contractor was still in place, and how its application was ensured. Although the Government expressed its intention to remedy this situation, this has still not been done. This delay is of deep concern to us, as the current situation exposes workers to exploitation. Without a labour clause in public contracts, labour becomes a factor in price competition and ultimately a commodity. Without a labour clause, it becomes more difficult to verify whether conditions of work are being respected. This is all the more applicable, given that the Committee of Experts’ report also contains several requests to the Government concerning labour inspection, particularly in relation to recruitment, training and resources.

Fraud is often an indicator of worker exploitation. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burundi presented to the UN Human Rights Council in 2024 indicates that corruption is present within the public administration, including in public procurement, which is an additional ground for concern regarding respect for workers’ rights in public contracts.

It is clear that the Public Procurement Code put in place by Burundi is not sufficient. We emphasize that the Committee of Experts has clearly stated, as early as the 2008 General Survey, that the Convention cannot be considered to have been implemented simply because national labour legislation is generally applicable and therefore covers work related to public procurement. Specific conditions of work in public procurement are essential.

In many cases, national laws on wages, working hours and other conditions of employment only set minimum standards. Collective agreements often offer better conditions. This is also the case in many sectors and industries in Burundi. As indicated by the Committee of Experts, the Convention implies that among the three sources – sectoral agreements, arbitration awards and national laws and regulations – the most favourable conditions must be applied.

Furthermore, we can read in the Committee of Experts’ report that national sectoral collective agreements have been unilaterally repealed. After the removal of all benefits granted to workers, a wage policy has been imposed, setting wages without any prospect of career advancement. It therefore appears that, rather than applying the most favourable conditions in labour clauses, it is the conditions themselves which have been made worse. This is unacceptable.

This calls for further investigation to determine the broader impact of this measure, including on other Conventions.

We note that no official report has been sent by the Government on how it intends to resolve this issue, nor has the Government responded to other requests made by the Committee of Experts. We urge the Government to clarify and rectify this violation of the Convention, and to work with the social partners to ensure the proper implementation of Conventions.

Lastly, we would like to indicate to the Government that it can count on the ILO to provide it with support, technical assistance and advice as regards bringing its legislation into line with international labour Conventions.

Worker member, Burundi – On behalf of COSYBU, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about the reality experienced by workers in Burundi in relation to the application of the Convention.

As a reminder, the services covered by public contracts are governed, on the one hand, by the Public Procurement Code with regard to the procedures for awarding, executing, and monitoring public contracts entered into by state institutions, local authorities, and public enterprises and, on the other hand, by the Labour Code with regard to the conditions of work of all workers bound by an employment contract, including those hired by private contractors providing services to the State.

COSYBU points out that Article 2 of the Convention requires contracts financed by public funds to include clauses guaranteeing workers at least the conditions of remuneration, work and protection provided for by national legislation, collective agreements and recognized practices in the trade or region.

COSYBU wishes to express its concern at the persistent failure to comply with the fundamental principles of this Convention, ratified by Burundi, which requires that all contracts financed by public funds guarantee workers employed by contractors remuneration at least equal to that provided for by law or collective agreements, conditions of work in line with national standards, and respect for trade union and social rights.

This situation constitutes not only a violation of the Convention under examination but also an affront to the principles of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100).

The principles of Convention No. 100 should be incorporated into the wage policy document and the General Civil Service Regulations, as in the case of Act No. 1/11 of 24 November 2020 amending Decree-Law No. 1/037 of 7 July 1993, section 184 of which in itself amends the Labour Code .

Furthermore, the non-application of the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98), is evident in the circumvention of sectoral collective agreements. State contractors are not subject to collective agreements or negotiated wage scales, which seriously undermines the effectiveness of social dialogue in our country.

Added to this is another source of frustration linked to the freeze on all bonuses and allowances for public and parapublic sector workers since 2016. This freeze, which was not negotiated with the social partners, has led to a considerable loss of purchasing power and undermined the morale of employees and managers of state and parastatal enterprises. By maintaining this situation, the Government is violating the spirit of collective bargaining, exacerbating inequalities in treatment, and compromising the very principle of decent work.

Currently, the remuneration of workers in the public and parapublic sectors no longer corresponds to the provisions of Article 2(1) of the Convention, which provides that the clauses to be included in contracts shall ensure to the workers concerned:

• wages (including allowances);
• hours of work; and
• other conditions of labour which are not less favourable than those established by collective agreement or other recognized machinery of negotiation between employers’ and workers’ organizations representing substantial proportions of the employers and workers in the trade or industry concerned.

This is illustrated by the unilateral setting of wages and the freezing of bonuses and allowances since January 2016 without taking into account the sectoral and national agreements concluded between the Government and the workers’ organizations concerning workers’ acquired rights.

COSYBU points out that the existing tripartite bodies do not provide for meetings to discuss the implementation of Conventions which have been ratified or are due to be ratified, despite the ratification of the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144).

The workers’ organizations are calling for a fair wage policy that takes into account the sectoral and national agreements concluded between the Government and workers’ organizations regarding workers’ acquired rights and the opening of genuine negotiations between the most representative confederation in Burundi – COSYBU – and the Government.

COSYBU solemnly calls on the Government to:

• guarantee equal pay for work of equal value;
• respect the social dialogue commitments provided for in Convention No. 98, by lifting the freeze on bonuses and allowances and reopening negotiations with the representative trade unions on the remuneration of staff involved in public procurement;
• take the necessary measures to bring the legislation into full conformity with the Convention;
• ensure that all public contracts falling within the scope of Article 1 of the Convention contain labour clauses, whether or not these contracts are assigned through a bidding process;
• take, without delay, the necessary measures to ensure that all public contracts to which the Convention applies contain labour clauses in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention;
• transmit the text of the new general conditions concerning public contracts and indicate the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee decent working conditions for workers employed under a public contract, once these have been adopted.

We also ask the ILO, through the Committee of Experts, to maintain heightened vigilance regarding the case of Burundi and to encourage the Government to respect its international commitments relating to social justice.

Employer member, Burundi – Thank you for allowing the representative of the employers’ organization of Burundi to give his views on the issue currently under discussion.

The provisions of the Convention were incorporated into our Labour Code in the 1980s. Our country tries, to the best of its ability, to comply with the provisions included in the Labour Code. Of course, these same provisions have not yet been incorporated into the Public Procurement Code, but in practice we have a system of social dialogue that works well, even very well. Our organization has good relations with the most representative trade union confederation. We also work in harmony with the Government through the Ministry of Labour.

The issue of the violation of the agreement has not yet been submitted to our country’s social dialogue bodies, the National Committee on Social Dialogue (CNDS) and the National Labour Committee (CNT). The latter body is chaired by a former President of the Republic, who was due to attend the Conference and would have been able to testify that this issue has not been submitted to the national social dialogue bodies. Indeed, if these provisions are already part of the Labour Code, there is no reason why they should not be included in the Public Procurement Code.

In any case, our organization is available to participate in national consultations to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Convention. I have taken note of this willingness on the part of the government representatives. They are ready, as are the workers’ representatives, who are asking for these issues to be discussed. I think there is a consensus on this willingness to engage in national consultations so that improvements can be made at this level. In any case, the preliminary consultation we have already conducted here, between all parties, indicates a convergence of views on the need to consult at the national level so that these issues can be resolved. The Worker representative would agree with me in saying that, before referring the matter to the ILO, the issues concerning this single Convention have not been submitted to the competent national authorities.

Several Conventions have been cited, including Convention No. 98 and Convention No. 144, and our organization is ready to participate in discussions at the national level to ensure that the Convention is fully respected. The Government has expressed its willingness to do so, as have the employers and the workers. I believe that with the assistance of the Office, which asked us back in the 1980s to include these provisions in the Labour Code, we have no concerns about the issue being resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Employer member, Democratic Republic of the Congo – We are going to set limits to the issue because it is about Convention No. 94 and not about other Conventions:

• Firstly, according to the observations of COSYBU received by the Committee of Experts, all sectoral agreements were unilaterally repealed by imposing a wage policy after removing all benefits allocated to workers. We consider that, objectively speaking, this statement is too bold, because there is no evidence to support it, and therefore no tangible proof of this allegation.
• Secondly, the Decree of 11 July 1986 on specific measures to be taken to guarantee minimum conditions for workers under public contracts and the Decree of 18 August 1990 on the general conditions of contracts ceased to apply with the entry into force of the Act of 4 February 2008 issuing the Public Procurement Code. However, with this Act, the Government had to adopt new measures to guarantee the protection of conditions of work in the context of the execution of public contracts. However, as things stand, the Public Procurement Code refers more generally to the Labour Code with its provisions relating in particular to minimum working conditions, wages and employment contracts.

But the big question is whether the mere fact that national labour legislation applies to all workers exempts States that have ratified the Convention from taking the necessary steps to ensure that public contracts contain labour clauses.

The answer to this question is “no”. But we must not forget the considerable efforts made by the Government of this sister country. On this aspect, we nevertheless agree with the legal position of the Committee of Experts: the mere fact that national legislation applies to all workers does not exempt States, such as Burundi, that have ratified the Convention from taking the necessary steps to ensure that public contracts contain labour clauses, and we have followed the statement of the Employers, who have shown their willingness if the subject were to be submitted to the national authorities with a view to adopting provisions in the Public Procurement Code. We see the efforts being made by the Government. Given the situation in Burundi as it stands, there is every reason to believe that it considers itself exempt, but the Government indicates that it can incorporate these clauses into the Public Procurement Code even though they are already in the national labour legislation.

In conclusion, what can we say? In the situation in which Burundi finds itself, there is an urgent need for this sister country to take useful measures to ensure the inclusion in public contracts of labour clauses referring, among other things, to wages, working hours and other conditions of work that are no less favourable than the conditions established for work of the same character in the trade or industry, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention. We must nevertheless take into account the efforts made by the Government.

Worker member, Republic of Korea – Burundi ratified the Convention in 1963. Up to now, the Government has not brought its legal system in line with the ratified Convention and has also failed to meet its obligation to report regularly on its implementation efforts.

Since 2009, the Committee of Experts has repeatedly expressed its regret over the Government’s non-compliance with reporting obligations. It has repeated the same recommendations that the Government adopt the necessary measures without delay to ensure the inclusion of labour clauses in all public contracts to which the Convention is applicable, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, and send a copy of the new general conditions governing contracts, indicating the measures taken to ensure minimum conditions for workers employed under public contracts.

As the Committee of Experts documented, Burundi has systematically dismantled required labour protections. In 2008, the Public Procurement Code deleted existing labour protection clauses. The Government allowed Presidential Decree No. 100/49 of 1986 and Decree No. 110/120 of 1990, which protected public contract workers, to cease without replacement measures. This deliberate legislative regression created a protection vacuum. Workers in public projects face exploitation, while contractors make working conditions worse, knowing that specific labour clause requirements no longer exist.

I would like to emphasize the significance of the basic principle on which the Convention is based. The Convention establishes that all public contracts concluded by governments, local authorities and public enterprises must include mandatory labour protection clauses covering construction, manufacturing and services. These clauses must guarantee wages at or above the minimum wage or collective agreement levels, regulated working hours, occupational safety, leave entitlements and social security coverage.

The Convention embodies the principle that public expenditure must fulfil social responsibility. Governments investing public funds bear an obligation to create quality employment and promote decent work standards. This challenges lowest-cost procurement, requiring consideration of social value in bidding processes to prevent deterioration of working conditions and to block unfair competition exploiting workers in low-wage jobs. That is why various international financial institutions adopt this principle in their policies.

The Asian Development Bank requires borrowers to establish project-specific labour standards and grievance mechanisms, including wage protections and occupational safety measures aligning with the Convention. Similarly, the African Development Bank incorporates labour standards into procurement requirements, recognizing that sustainable development requires protecting, not sacrificing, labour standards.

Therefore, Korean workers echo the Committee of Experts’ repeated request to the Government on inclusion of labour clauses in public contracts. We also demand that the Government first engage in social dialogue with its social partners to ensure that labour protection clauses are part and parcel of the contract. Burundi must strengthen its labour inspection system to ensure compliance with labour clauses in public contracts. Furthermore, we demand that workplace collective bargaining be respected together with the right to freedom of association for workers in companies awarded public contracts.

Worker member, Kenya – According to credible information, public contracts in Burundi are shrouded in secrecy and only known by the Government and its contractors, leaving out its social partners. A lack of transparency is a recipe for corruption. According to the Transparency International report of 2024, Burundi is ranked number 165 out of 180 countries on the corruption index. I am calling for transparency in the award of public contracts with the inclusion of social partners to ensure that labour clauses are included in all public contracts.

The Committee of Experts noted that, in implementing the Convention, the Government does not provide specific laws guaranteeing the protection of labour rights for employees recruited to implement public projects. This has left workers exposed to poor working conditions and exploitation. Although the Government submitted that workers’ rights are protected by the Labour Code, the Convention still requires specific clauses in public contracts.

There is a growing concern over human and labour rights because most companies often recruit casual labour with high decent work deficits. These workers are just used as statistics on those gainfully employed. Without specific labour provisions, the ordinary dispute resolution system takes time to provide remedies in the event of violations.

It has been noted that international companies are often the beneficiaries of public projects and do not respect trade unions that seek to fight for the rights of workers. Freedom of association and collective bargaining must be found in all public contracts.

Burundi is a party to the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). This Convention requires consultations with social partners. However, in Burundi, such consultations are very weak, and the Government does not consult with its social partners before awarding public contracts to ensure workers’ rights and the protection of the environment in which they live.

I urge the Government of Burundi to promote transparency when negotiating public contracts to eliminate avenues that could foster corruption and human rights violations.

Observer, International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) – I would begin by stating that, as you are all aware, public contracts are critical instruments that drive economic development, create infrastructure and provide essential services to citizens. In Burundi, as in many other countries in Africa, public contracts are a key avenue through which government resources are allocated to private-sector entities. However, there are several challenges that emerge during this process, particularly in terms of infrastructure, transparency, fairness, and the safeguarding of workers’ interests.

While public contracts between governments and investors or contractors create employment, which is a good economic trend, the Government remains duty-bound to consult the tripartite partners under Convention No. 144, especially while dealing with issues that concern labour and employment.

As we have heard from the Burundi workers, and as supported by the Committee of Experts, Act No. 1/01 of 4 February 2008, issuing the Public Procurement Code, contains no provisions that provide for the protection of workers’ rights. In many instances, trade unions and worker representatives are not sufficiently involved in the negotiation or monitoring of public contracts. As a result, workers may not have a voice in the conditions under which they operate, and they also do not negotiate or have the ability to demand better terms and conditions of employment.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Government some of the attributes that arise from such circumstances. One is that the design of any government procurement processes may, in one way or the other, create employment, but it does not involve direct participation of the tripartite partners. First of all, it falls short of the requirements of ILO standards. In particular, processes that stay blind about the provisions on protection of workers’ rights are bound to have the following pitfalls. One of them is indecent jobs.

With concern, we realize and note that the Government creates indecent and/or precarious jobs after using a lot of resources through the procedures in place. This situation manifests through casualization of labour and deployment of labour brokers who then offer jobs that do not make it possible for the said workers to even contribute to social security funds and also get salaries that do not qualify them to even earn a living wage or to even pay tax on the “pay as you earn (PAYE)” basis, which could be an additional income to the GDP of Burundi.

Moreover, Government procurement contracts of such a kind do not require or even provide for labour impact assessments, which largely contribute to inaccurate labour market information as the investors will convince the Government that, for example, there is a project that will employ 500 workers, but without specifying and/or verifying the types and durations of employment, the type of employment these people are going to create, and how long the employment shall take. In some cases, you find that this employer is employing one person for three months as a casual worker, and after three months that job is done. They look for another person. Then you also find that these people do not qualify for PAYE in their employment. Under the circumstances, it is important that such matters be regulated at the point of contracting.

Then we also have inadequate labour inspection. It is also apparent that there is inadequate labour inspection in Burundi, thus making it even more difficult for labour inspectors and workers’ organizations to monitor the working conditions of the workers in such projects. Governments allocate resources for the benefit of the citizens, but in reality, workers only survive and grow in age, not in terms of economic benefit as envisaged in the projects at the initial stage.

Our observation is that public contracts, in the real sense, benefit the investors and/or contractors involved in the procurement process more than the Government and the workers.

In conclusion, we urge the Government to take action and also act on the guidance and the recommendations of the Committee of Experts in this important matter. This includes reviewing the relevant law to ensure the participation of the tripartite partners and to provide for employment contracts and other provisions for the protection of workers’ rights in the public procurement process.

Government representative – There have been many statements, some of which overlap. We duly note the allegations, some of which are easy to explain, while others are baseless.

I would like to return to the issues relating to the wage policy, which, according to the Workers’ comments, has called into question certain workers’ rights. As you know, the quest that guides the ILO is social justice for all – Burundi has its own history in that it has gone through almost a decade of social unrest that has affected the world of work. The Government’s primary mission is to rectify the situation by looking at how to apply provisions in favour of social justice. The wage policy had no other objective than this. With the crisis we have been through, we ended up with special statutes for each sector. We found ourselves in a state of wage anarchy, with wage disparities that called into question the principle of social justice for all and equal pay. This is the situation that the measures taken by the Government sought to rectify. In the absence of a national wage policy, we proceeded in this manner. In order to establish a basic policy that sets the principle of wage equity, the current wage policy was developed by a tripartite commission composed of worker representatives, including COSYBU. The country has many trade unions comprising around 120,000 workers, with the education sector accounting for around 80,000 workers. They are represented by trade unions and federations which were part of the tripartite technical commission that developed the above-mentioned policy.

As labour director-general for ten years, I have observed how the commissions have worked and, while there may have been misunderstandings, we have been guided by the objectives of equity and social justice to ensure that there are as few disparities as possible in terms of wages. It is not perfect, but it is this spirit that has guided the implementation of a wage policy, initially in the public sector. It is possible that this has affected the application of one or other provision of the Convention, but the National Labour Committee (CNT) and the National Council on Social Dialogue (CNDS) are bodies designed to hold discussions whenever an issue arises, so that we can find solutions.

The policy was adopted within this framework, and the suspension of annuities and allowances, which are emoluments forming part of wages, was caused by the need to suspend certain specific allowances, particularly in the justice and health sectors. To date, there have been financial adjustments as well as adjustments to grade progression. All changes are systematically made with the unions and employers. There is therefore no danger, and if there are still misunderstandings, we will discuss them in order to find a suitable and appropriate solution.

With regard to community work that is deemed equivalent to forced labour, the Government has explained itself at length on this subject, and we are now in a position to prove that this practice is not forced but voluntary, and carried out by the population. It’s nothing to do with the workers’ unions. In 2008, we had just signed agreements to end the fighting and hostilities. The country was still in the process of reconstruction and the sociopolitical situation was difficult. I believe that the current community work is not of the same nature and that it has never really been akin to forced labour. The Government has explained this at length, and we are able to provide further written and oral testimony if necessary. We are ready to respect the principles of social justice for all and fairness in terms of compliance with standards. As indicated by the Employer member, we must not create confusion by mentioning the Tripartite Consultation (International Labour Standards) Convention, 1976 (No. 144). It was not out of bad faith that we could not respond to all correspondence. We did ask ourselves questions, but very late in the process. The first speaker said that, since 2008, there have been about 13 pieces of correspondence requesting responses regarding the application of the Convention. I am surprised. I told you that, in more than ten years in the secretariat of the National Labour Committee, we have never discussed any violation of this Convention. We discussed offences relating to work, but none relating to public procurement – and I can tell you that public procurement is not managed by the Ministry of labour but by the Ministry of Finance. I see that we do not have a culture of integrating these aspects into labour administration. I take due note of this aspect, and we will take account of it in the future. We are in the process of developing a national employment policy. For example, we have had discussions saying that persons with disabilities are discriminated against in the labour market, and we want to take measures for their inclusion. The policy states that, when awarding public contracts, the contract will be awarded to those who have included clauses promising to include people with disabilities in the labour market. This is the Government’s policy. So we will do everything we can to correct this. I therefore ask the social partners to take these aspects into account, as these issues have never been discussed within national tripartite bodies before. I think that is really what I take away from this session. Aspects relating to the Convention should be taken into account in future tripartite discussions.

What the Employer member of Burundi said is correct: before these allegations were referred to the Committee of Experts, they should have been discussed within the competent national bodies. If misunderstandings persist, dialogue will be prioritized.

We have set up bodies after lengthy discussions, so we must make the most of dialogue. The Government is willing to do so. If there is the political will to put these frameworks in place, it is to clean up all aspects of the world of work. If the Convention has not been respected – I say this under the supervision of my social partners who are here – we have never initiated any discussion on public procurement. We must fulfil this obligation, we must begin to include these issues into our discussions and take all possible measures to ensure that compliance with standards is incorporated into our public procurement rules. Public procurement is managed by the Ministry of Finance, and we have been promised support with the technical aspects. We need the technical aspects to strengthen the application of the Conventions in the context of public procurement contracts. Today, Burundi has not yet signed a major public procurement contract involving the employment of thousands of workers. Soon, we will be setting up a railway network. I think that with such projects we will be very vigilant about incorporating these provisions into the relevant contracts. I think a standard contract could help us, because we currently do not have a model to use. No examples are cited in the allegations. Otherwise, we would have discussed it and already found solutions.

In conclusion, we promise to take account in future discussions of the aspects of public procurement which have been discussed.

Worker members – I would like to thank all speakers for their contributions, particularly the Government. However, it is clear that the lack of action, and even information, regarding the application of the Convention over the years remains problematic. Although it was on the long list, the Government did not provide any information in this regard.

We emphasize that the Convention is an essential instrument for ensuring adequate conditions of work for workers in public procurement. Without it, there is no transparency regarding conditions of work in these public contracts. This opens the door to the exploitation of workers. The Government has a clear responsibility to ensure that appropriate social clauses are included in these public contracts. It has neglected to do so for far too long.

The information provided here by the Government should be forwarded to the Committee of Experts for in-depth examination, particularly with regard to the Government’s actions relating to the cancellation of collective agreements and their link to the obligations arising from the Convention.

We therefore call on the Government, in consultation with the social partners, to take the necessary steps without delay to ensure that social clauses are included in all public contracts.

This must clearly apply to all public contracts covered by the Convention, in accordance with Article 1. Once these measures have been adopted, we ask the Government to send the Committee of Experts a copy of the new general conditions governing public procurement, as well as to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to guarantee minimum conditions for workers employed under a public contract.

We also call on the Government to strengthen labour inspection in terms of recruitment, training, capacities and resources, as has been requested, in order to ensure that compliance with labour clauses is properly monitored.

We request that social dialogue and collective bargaining be respected, including in the public sector.

Furthermore, we urge the Government to respond fully to the various other requests made by the Committee of Experts which remain unanswered.

Lastly, we ask the Government to accept the visit of an ILO direct contacts mission and to inform the Committee of Experts by 1 September 2025 of the measures taken to implement the recommendations made by the latter.

Employer members – We have taken note of the explanations provided during the session by the various speakers. Governments should not award public contracts for which conditions of work fall below a certain threshold of social protection. This applies in particular to Burundi, which ratified the Convention in 1963. On the contrary, governments that have ratified this Convention should set an example by complying with the law.

We therefore recommend that the Government take the necessary measures without delay to ensure that labour clauses are included in public contracts to which the Convention applies, to send the ILO the text of the new general terms and conditions of public contracts under the new Public Procurement Code, and to indicate the measures taken or envisaged in consultation with the social partners to guarantee minimum conditions of work for workers employed under a public contract.

Conclusions of the Committee

The Committee took note of the oral information provided by the Government and the discussion that followed.

The Committee regretted that the Government did not provide the requested reports and urged it to comply with its reporting obligations in the future.

Taking into account the discussion, the Committee requested the Government in consultation with the social partners to take effective and time-bound measures to:

• ensure the inclusion of labour clauses in all public contracts and provide a copy of the new general conditions governing contracts;
• indicate the measures planned or taken to ensure minimum conditions for workers employed under a public contract;
• strengthen the labour inspection to guarantee compliance with labour clauses;
• respect social dialogue and collective bargaining, including when setting the terms of clauses to be included in public contracts; and
• address any pending request from the Committee of Experts.

The Committee requested the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance and to provide a detailed report on the measures taken to implement the above recommendations by 1 September 2025.

Chairperson – I invite the representative of the Government of Burundi, the DirectorGeneral of Labour and Employment, to take the floor.

Government representative – The Government reiterates its thanks to the ILO for its collaboration and its technical support to ensure better observance of international labour standards in our country. We affirm that we duly record and note the observations and recommendations made with regard to our country concerning observance of the Convention. We promise that we will work closely with the social partners to identify all current defects in the drawing up of public contracts and to analyse together the Public Procurement Code with a view to adapting the Labour Code to the provisions of the Convention. We will also produce the necessary reports as requested by the Committee, respecting the deadline of 1 September 2025.