CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report, the information replying in part to its previous comments and the documentation attached to the report. It also notes the comments made by the National Association of Labour Inspectors (ANIT) on the application of the Convention sent to the Office on 21 February 2003 and the information provided by the Government on the points raised.

According to ANIT, the right of inspectors, employers, workers and their organizations to have the Convention applied in good faith has not been respected. ANIT alleges that the human, material and logistic resources at the disposal of the inspection services and its users are insufficient and that labour inspectors are subjected to constant harassment by the Government, which seriously undermines their authority and credibility vis-à-vis the social partners and public opinion in general. The organization also objects to the lack of an inspection policy and of opportunities for negotiation as recommended by the MATAC/ILO programme (Modernization of Labour Administration in Central America).

1. Lack of human resources. According to ANIT, the labour inspectors have an excessive workload because of the many tasks assigned to them over and above their inspection duties. Furthermore, conciliation, which is incompatible with the principles of authority and impartiality underlying the relationship between inspectors and the social partners, is a duty for which the law gives competence to another body. Due to the lack of office staff, the inspectors have to spend approximately 20 per cent of their working hours serving notifications. In response, the Government states that conciliation duties are assigned to inspectors only in very specific cases, which are set forth in sections 43, 46 and 99 of the Organic Act of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. In view of the training they have received, labour inspectors should therefore have no difficulty organizing their work schedules to accommodate the various functions. The Committee notes that, under the terms of these provisions, the labour inspectors’ participation on behalf of workers in conciliation procedures is envisaged in all cases where distance prevents the workers concerned from going in person to the Office for occupational matters and administrative conciliation procedures (currently called the Department of Labour Relations). As one office serves the entire country, it would appear obvious that only workers living or working in its vicinity are able to go there, to the exclusion of workers everywhere else in the country. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would reconsider the issue raised by ANIT in the light of paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Convention which provides that "any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of their primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers", and would provide information on any measures adopted to this end.

2. Lack of material means. According to ANIT, the offices of the inspection services lack the minimum they need in order to operate. The portion of the budget allocated to transport costs has even been reduced and bureaucratic obstacles have hindered the payment of the per diems to cover inspectors’ duty travel. Furthermore, the offices have no officially allotted vehicles and inspectors are not reimbursed for expenses incurred in the course of their duties. In response the Government states that the resources necessary for the operation of the labour inspection services have been provided, in so far as is really feasible under the budget, to all regional offices and ANIT’s allegations concerning the allocation of funds for travel expenses and the reimbursement to inspectors of service-incurred expenses are unfounded. According to the Government, eight vehicles and 12 motorcycles are shared by the regional offices, which also have one computer and printer each, and efforts are constantly made gradually to satisfy labour inspection needs. The Government again refers in this connection to Act No. 3462 of 26 November 1964 and resolution No. 4-DI-AA-2001 of 10 May 2001 respecting the reimbursement of expenses and allocation of funds to cover the travel expenses of public servants. An internal communication of the Ministry of Labour, further to a complaint by the labour inspectors, nevertheless asserts that there is no budget for the acquisition of the equipment needed by the inspection services and that specific demands are met as they arise. The Committee cannot overemphasize the importance of determining, as part of the preparation of the annual national budget, the resources necessary for the effective discharge of the various duties assigned to the labour inspectorate, and would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the application in practice of the provisions of the texts to which it refers and would adopt measures to ensure that adequate financial, material and logistical means are made available to the labour inspectors.

3. Conditions of service of labour inspectors. According to ANIT, the recent wave of transfers of labour inspectors under the project for the general transfer of inspection personnel decided on by the Government has led to chaos and confusion with negative repercussions for the effectiveness of the service. Moreover, by requiring inspectors and their families repeatedly to uproot, the transfers have impaired their economic, moral and psychological rights. ANIT considers that the reasons the Administration disseminated through the media to justify the transfers (corruption, lack of efficiency) are insulting not only to the inspectors but to the institution itself and are intended to cast suspicion on the inspectors. ANIT also asserts that the inspectors who appealed against the transfers were threatened with dismissal. The Government replies that rotation of inspectors is a sound measure and necessary to internal supervision considering the potential for corruption inherent in the job of labour inspector. It asserts that the allegation that families’ rights are impaired is unfounded since most of the transfers took place within one and the same district. It also indicates that the labour inspectors are covered by the public service regime which guarantees the stability of employment of state workers and that the grounds for dismissal are explicitly defined by law: the Government did no more than remind public servants of their duty of obedience. As to the statements made to the media, the Government asserts that they made no reference to individual cases of corruption as these cases are dealt with and punished in the context of objective and impartial inquiries.

4. The Committee considers that, in order to be able to establish their authority and carry out their duties with full impartiality, inspectors must first and foremost be shown consideration by the public authorities. It would therefore be grateful if the Government would review the issue raised by ANIT and provide information on any measures adopted or envisaged to strengthen the position of labour inspectors vis-à-vis the social partners and public opinion with a view to improving the effectiveness of their services.

Furthermore, noting that, according to the Government, the recommendations made by the general audit and the general sub-audit of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on the transfer of personnel in regional and district offices of the National Directorate and General Labour Inspectorate amount to obligations, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the frequency of transfers and the number of inspectors concerned, and on the measures adopted to ensure that they do not jeopardize the stability of employment that labour inspectors are entitled to, in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention.

The Committee is addressing a request on other points directly to the Government.