CMNT_TITLE

Article 22 of the ILO Constitution and Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Manner in which effect is given to reporting obligations. With reference to its observation and noting the Government’s statement that its previous report concerned metropolitan France, the overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Guyana, Martinique and Réunion) and the territorial community of St Pierre and Miquelon, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to indicate the manner in which it was envisaged that the statistics required by clauses (c)–(g) of Article 21 were to be published and communicated to the ILO separately so as to allow an assessment of the application of the Convention in each of these departments. The Committee notes that the report provided in September 2008 under this Convention also contains in annex the report on its application in French Guyana. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to ensure in future that the annual report on the work of the inspection services provides separately for each of the above non-metropolitan territories the information required by Article 21, as well as information on the impact of measures to strengthen the supervisory personnel in light of the number and type of inspections, particularly in small establishments. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the benefits expected from the implementation of the plan to modernize the labour inspectorate in relation to the non-metropolitan territories.

Protection of the health of the labour inspectors and controllers during certain visits. The Committee notes with interest in the annual inspection report for 2005 that, to prevent the risks of cancer to which inspection staff indicated they were exposed during controls related to the legislation respecting asbestos, the latter have been provided with specific training and the support of newly established pluri-disciplinary units (prevention engineers and physician-inspectors).

Articles 3, paragraph 1(a) and (b), 13 and 17. The necessary balance between an advisory approach and use of powers of enforcement by labour inspectors to ensure compliance with the legislation. According to the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training and Professional Integration
(SNU-TEF (FSU)), for many years the labour inspectorate has too frequently been invited to adopt an advisory approach to enterprises, and is almost never called upon to implement its powers of enforcement. The Committee notes that the situation described in recent annual reports (2005 and 2006) shows a significant increase in the number of criminal prosecutions and convictions, particularly against employers for violations in the field of occupational safety and health. However, the Committee notes that, according to the statistical tables for 2006, the number of rulings handed down in cases of illegal employment and work (506) is higher than those relating to safety and health (478) and it observes that, according to the Government, in 2007 the labour inspectorate participated in 31,000 controls in the context of the national action plan to combat illegal work. The report for 2006 also deplores the fact that “inspections in enterprises represent less than half of the working time of officials responsible for controls” (page 146). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to ensure that inspectors are able to use the full range of their powers, prerogatives and functions, as prescribed by the Convention, in the manner in which they consider most effective to secure the application of legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers in workplaces liable to inspection.