CMNT_TITLE

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Honduras (RATIFICATION: 1983)

Other comments on C081

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

The Committee notes the comments of the Honduran National Business Council (COHEP) 6 October 2010, as well as the Government’s reply. It also notes the comments of the Honduran United Confederation of Workers (CUTH), dated 31 August and received by the Office on 19 September 2011 respectively, as well as the Government’s reply dated 9 November 2011.

Legislation. In its comments of 2008, the Committee had noted that the draft revision of the Labour Code was being discussed by the Government and the social partners. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on progress made in the aforementioned revision process.

Articles 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the Convention. Functioning of the Labour inspection system. The COHEP notes that: (i) the staff of the Labour Ministry is insufficient and does not have the qualifications necessary for the carrying out of labour inspection visits in workplaces; (ii) the budget allocated to the labour inspection is insufficient; (iii) the inspection services do not have access to vehicles or petty cash; (iv) according to the data provided by the General Labour Inspectorate, its activity has been focused on special inspections or on complaints received, which represent between 80 and 90 per cent of the inspections carried out in the last few years; (v) the inspection has salary limitations due to the low ranking of inspectors within the civil service and the fact that anyone who can read and write is hired; (vi) inspectors have a biased attitude towards the worker and the General Labour Inspectorate does not always respond to requests by employers to check worker wrongdoings; (vii) although section 629 of the Labour Code stipulates that labour inspectors will have the assistance of technical experts during inspections, in practice multi-purpose or multidisciplined inspections are not carried out.

The Government states that: (i) the General Labour Inspection currently has 108 inspectors at the national level, 22 of which are lawyers, ten are interns and 76 have a title of secondary education; (ii) all the organs of the State, including the ministries, must comply with the provisions of the national budget and do not have the right to exceed the limits set in the budget; (iii) the central headquarters of the General Labour Inspectorate has sufficiently equipped units and four vehicles are distributed among the different regional units, even though there is no budgetary allocation to cover travel expenses for labour inspectors, and in the regional units in the rest of the country there is a lack of logistical support and budget to cover transportation costs; (iv) regular general inspections are carried out, at six month intervals; (v) General Labour Inspection officials are governed by the Civil Service Act and its regulations and, although they do not have their own statute, they enjoy job security, as it is unusual for them to be dismissed when governments change; (vi) recruitment of labour inspectors is carried out once candidates have passed the examination provided for in the aforementioned legislation; (vii) the project aimed at strengthening public administration systems to ensure the inspection service is professional, unified and polyvalent, undertaken by the ILO with the financial cooperation of USDOL, conducted a study into posts and salaries and standardized the posts of inspectors I, II and III into two categories of inspectors and supervisors; (viii) the Ministry of Labour and Social Security has occupational doctors and safety and health technical experts, who have responsibility for monitoring compliance with legal provisions in the area of occupational health and safety through visits to workplaces.

The Committee highlights that the issue of establishing the budget share allocation for the functioning of the labour inspection system, so as to take into account the clearly specified needs and requirements of the Convention, has been raised in its comments since 2006. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the actions and measures taken, with ILO technical assistance, to carry out a needs assessment of the labour inspection services in the areas of human resources and training, and financial and material resources, and to ensure that the budget share allocation for labour inspection within the national budget is set in proportion to the priority that must be accorded to labour inspection. It also requests the Government once again to provide precise information on the arrangements for the use of the vehicles (four) allocated to the different regional units for labour inspectors while performing their professional duties.

The Committee also points out that for a number of years it has been asking the Government to ensure that legal provisions are adopted rapidly to guarantee that the conditions of service of inspection staff are such as to ensure they have job security and that they are independent of any changes in government and of any improper external influences. The Committee requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to complement national legislation with the inclusion of specific legal provisions to guarantee inspection staff job security and independence of any changes in government and of any improper external influences.

Articles 12(1)(a) and (2) and 18. Free access for labour inspectors to workplaces liable to inspection. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that, according to the Government, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security had taken firm measures to extend the right of health and safety inspectors to enter workplaces. In the Inspection Protocols and Labour Inspection Handbook of Procedures, attached to the Government’s report form, the Committee finds, however, that the situation has failed to progress sufficiently in practice in that regard. It therefore draws the attention of the Government to the provisions of the Convention pursuant to which the labour inspectors who are provided with proper credentials must be empowered to enter freely and without previous notice, at any hour of day or night, any workplace liable to inspection (Article 12(1)(a)) and, on the occasion of an inspection visit, they must notify the employer or his representative of their presence, unless they consider that such a notification may be prejudicial to the performance of their duties (Article 12(2)). The Committee also highlights that pursuant to Article 18, national legislation must set forth appropriate penalties, which must be effectively applied in cases where labour inspectors are obstructed in the performance of their duties. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that both law and practice are brought into line with the requirements of the Convention in that regard.

Furthermore, noting that the Government has not responded to its previous comments on the number of joint visits carried out by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Minister for Security and the Procurator General, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would specify the purpose of, and nature of, the participation of each of the above authorities in these inspections.

Article 14. Notification of occupational diseases to the labour inspectorate. The Committee recalls that, the need to complement legislation through a provision stipulating the obligation to notify cases of occupational disease to the labour inspection services has been addressed since the 1990s, and draws the Government’s attention to paragraph 118 of its Labour Inspectorate General Study of 2006, in which the importance of establishing a systematic information mechanism to enable the labour inspectorate to have access to the data necessary to determine which activities present a risk and the categories of workers most at risk, and to investigate the causes of occupational accidents and diseases in workplaces and companies under its control. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the steps taken or envisaged to ensure that national legislation provides for the conditions and the manner in which cases of occupational disease should be notified to the labour inspectorate.

Article 15. Obligations and limits to be respected by labour inspectors. The Committee notes with interest the ministerial decision attached to the Government’s report which contained the Labour Inspectorate’s Code of Ethics and was signed on 28 June 2011. It notes that the text includes the expression of values and commitments to which all members of the labour inspectorate must adhere and in particular those prohibiting them from accepting any gifts, presents, subscriptions, favours, gratuities, promises or special advantage and rejecting any kind of direct or indirect offering of bribery, sale or financial profit from workers or employers that might interfere with the fulfilment of their duties. The Committee notes, however, that this text does not take on board the comments that the Committee has been raising since the 1990s concerning the need to specifically prohibit labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that specific provisions are adopted without delay establishing the prohibition of labour inspectors from having any direct or indirect interest in undertakings under their supervision, pursuant to Article 15(a) of the Convention.

Articles 17 and 18. Appropriate penalties. COHEP considers that the penalties provided for in article 625 of the Labour Code are obsolete, hence they have not been amended since its entry into force. According to the Government, the aforementioned article of the revised Code sanctions the offences listed below with fines varying between 50 and 5,000 lempiras, depending on the individual circumstances of each case, its recurrent character and the capacity of the offending company to pay: (i) non-respect of the orders issued by labour inspectors, within the limit of their legal authority; (ii) obstructing the fulfilment of the duties that labour inspectors are legally entitled to carry out; (iii) physical and psychological aggression towards labour inspectors; (iv) violation by employers of the legal provisions that are not subject to any special penalty. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide a copy of the revised text of article 625 of the Labour Code referred to by the Government in its report form.

Articles 19, 20 and 21. Periodical reports and drawing up and publication of an annual inspection report. The Committee notes with regret that since the ratification of the Convention in 1983, no annual report on the activities of the inspection services has been communicated, as stipulated in Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide information on the measures adopted or envisaged to ensure that the local inspection units produce periodical reports on the results of their activities, as stipulated in Article 19, and that these reports enable the central inspection authority to produce an annual report in accordance with Articles 20 and 21. In that regard, the Committee reminds the Government of the guidance provided in Part IV of Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), on how the information required under Article 21 may be broken down.

Labour inspection and child labour. In its comments of 2006, the Committee had noted that inspectors specializing in child labour were operating in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro de Sula and had requested the Government to specify why it had decided to appoint child labour inspectors to carry out duties in these locations, and to provide information on the results of their activities. As the Government has not made this information available, the Committee requests it once again to communicate it and to provide statistical information on the number of visits carried out by labour inspectors, in particular in these regions, the offences found and penalties imposed, and on the advice and information that may have been provided on the matter to employers and workers.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.