CMNT_TITLE

Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) - Cameroon (RATIFICATION: 1988)

Other comments on C158

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINEnglish - French - SpanishAlle anzeigen

Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Collective dismissals. Severance allowance. The Committee notes the detailed information supplied in the Government’s report received in September 2011 in reply to its previous comments. It notes a communication from the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), which was forwarded to the Government in November 2010, in which the UGTC informed the National Social Security Fund (CNPS) of the dismissal of a number of young workers without prior notification and without any payment of damages. The union also emphasized that the former employees of several local companies had still not received any severance pay after several years. In its observation of 2009 the Committee noted the establishment in July 2006 of a tripartite committee responsible for assessing the balance of social rights of the former employees of liquidated or restructured state companies. The tripartite committee completed its work and the Government gave assurances that the procedure for the settlement of those entitlements was under way. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the dismissed workers have been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on the measures taken to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Government is also requested to supply statistics relating to the activities of appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds (Part V of the report form).

Article 2. The Government indicates that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy belong to the categories of workers that are subject to special regulations or a special scheme. Workers subject to special regulations are not considered as workers covered by the Labour Code of 1992. As regards domestic workers, the Government indicates that the legislation dating from 1967 does not appear to be applied properly. The Committee recalls that the Government did not list in its first report the categories of workers excluded under Article 2(4) of the Convention. The Government is requested to include in its next report copies of the particular provisions that apply to domestic workers. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the new standards concerning domestic workers adopted by the International Labour Conference in June 2011 (Convention No. 189 and Recommendation No. 201). It also requests the Government to continue to take all possible steps to ensure that domestic workers and workers in the informal economy enjoy adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention.

Articles 4 and 5. Valid and invalid reasons for termination. The Government indicates that section 34 of the Labour Code requires the existence of grounds for termination. In a ruling of 2 November 1996, the appeals court of the Littoral region stated that, in addition to giving the worker written notification of the termination, the grounds for termination had to be established, proven and legitimate. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide up to-date information in its next report on the application of the Convention in practice (especially court decisions relating to valid and invalid reasons for termination).

Article 7. Procedure prior to termination. The Government indicates in its report that, in accordance with the right of defence, employers are required to notify the workers concerned of the grounds for termination of their employment. The Government also indicates that, in cases where the worker’s conduct or competence constitute grounds for termination, the worker has the right to prove otherwise. The Committee requests the Government to send examples of court decisions which implement this Article of the Convention.

Article 8(3). Time limit for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates that, as regards the time limit for lodging an appeal, if there is no communication from the labour inspector, the appeal is rejected and the matter is referred to the competent authorities, once a period of three months has elapsed Ordinance No. 72/6 of 26 August 1972 establishing the structure of the Supreme Court). The Committee previously noted that section 74(1) of the Labour Code stipulates a limitation of three years for an action to recover wages or compensation for termination of a contract. The Committee requests the Government to include cases in its next report which show that the time limit for exercising the right of appeal against termination is three years.

Articles 11 and 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee notes that serious misconduct is not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. The Government indicates that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, is serious misconduct of an extremely grave nature which, according to customary practice at work, makes it intolerable to maintain the contractual link. Depending on the circumstances, it may also entail deliberate misconduct or negligence which is extremely detrimental to the employer (theft, assault, defamation, prolonged and unjustified absence). The Committee requests the Government to include in its next report examples of relevant court decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 11 and 12(3) of the Convention.