CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the September 2006 comments of the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC), received in November 2006, and the new comments of the UGTC of August 2007, sent to the Government in September 2007. The Government states that, when the liquidation or privatization of a state enterprise is announced, the Minister for Labour and Social Security is always careful to set up tripartite ad hoc committees responsible for dealing with the social component of this structural reorganization, under the umbrella of social dialogue. For its part, the UGTC states that the restructuring, liquidation and privatization of state enterprises continues to be responsible for increasing the number of cases in which workers are dismissed without being paid their entitlements and that, in the same sense, private enterprises carry out unfair dismissals, sometimes without providing any explanation at all. The UGTC states that the failure to respect legal and regulatory provisions, in particular as far as staff delegates and trade union representatives are concerned, and lengthy administrative and judicial proceedings against dismissals constitute a violation of the provisions of the Convention. The Committee points out, once again, that compliance with the principles set forth in the Convention may facilitate the development of socially responsible economic activity when taking decisions relating to collective dismissals. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons must be consistent with the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, particularly in respect of the consultation of workers’ representatives and notification to the competent authority. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report the manner in which compliance with the provisions of the Convention has been secured during the restructuring of enterprises referred to by the UGTC. Moreover, the Committee notes with regret that the Government has not provided the report requested in the Committee’s previous observation. The Committee trusts that the Government will shortly provide a report in reply to the August 2007 comments of the UGTC and the main points already raised in the Committee’s 2006 observation, which are outlined below.

2. Article 4. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. In its previous report, the Government stated that effect is given to Article 4 by section 34(1) of the Labour Code, which is reproduced in collective agreements and provides that “a contract of employment for an indefinite period may always be terminated at the will of one of the parties. Such termination is subject to notice given by the party taking the initiative to end the contract and shall be notified in writing to the other party with an indication of the reason for termination”. The Government indicated that the reasons considered to be valid grounds for termination are generally determined by the internal rules of each enterprise. The Committee recalls that Paragraph 1 of Recommendation No. 166 contemplates “workers’ rules” as a method of implementation but, as the Committee observed in paragraph 30 of the 1995 General Survey on protection against unfair dismissal, it may prove difficult to rely on internal work rules to give effect to the provisions of the Convention when they only cover the enterprise to which they apply. The Committee therefore requests the Government to ensure, in a manner consistent with its national practice, that full effect is given to the obligation established by Article 4 of the Convention that the employment of any worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service. Please also provide copies of recent court decisions by which the tribunals have given effect to this important provision of the Convention.

3. Article 5(c) and (d). Invalid reasons for termination. In its previous report, the Government indicated that the application of Article 5 is ensured by sections 39(1) and 84(2) of the Labour Code, which the Committee had already noted in its previous comments. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c)), as well as the race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin of the worker (Article 5(d)), do not constitute valid reasons for termination of employment. Please provide copies of relevant court decisions.

4. Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Government indicated that collective agreements and internal rules give effect to this provision of the Convention. The Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defence prior to termination of employment is ensured for all workers, in particular by providing copies of the relevant provisions of any collective agreement or internal rules that are available, and any recent judicial decision, most notably concerning the dismissal of staff delegates or trade union representatives.

5. Article 8, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicated that the time limits available to workers to exercise their right of appeal against termination of employment can be inferred from section 74 of the Labour Code, which provides in subsection 1 that “legal action respecting the payment of wages is subject to a three-year prescription”. The Committee notes that section 74 deals with legal action concerning payment of wages. It therefore requests the Government to indicate how section 74 of the Labour Code ensures the right to appeal against unfair dismissal within a reasonable period of time after termination, as required by Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

6. Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee noted the Government’s indication that the concept of “serious misconduct” is left to the appreciation of national jurisdictions. In paragraph 250 of its 1995 General Survey, the Committee already noted that, since this definition is fairly general, it is only by looking at the application in practice, and in particular case law, that an assessment can be made of the extent to which the provisions of the Convention are observed. The Committee once again asks the Government to provide copies of relevant court decisions so as to enable it to examine the application of Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

7. Parts IV and V of the report form. Application of the provisions of the Convention in practice. The Committee once again draws the Government’s attention to the importance of regularly providing information on the manner in which the Convention is applied in practice so as to enable the Committee to examine the application of its provisions, and particularly Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, paragraph 3, 11 and 12, paragraph 3. The Committee trusts that the Government’s next report will contain relevant and up to date information on the application of the Convention.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]