CMNT_TITLE_CAS



Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81)

Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129)

A Government representative said that a complex process of reforms was being implemented to bring national legislation, including in the field of labour, into compliance with the instruments referred to in the Association Agreement of 2014 between the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Moldova. During 2016 and 2017, there had been a fundamental reform in the field of state control of entrepreneurial activity, including a reduction from 58 control bodies to 13 authorities and five authorities with regulatory functions. The main purpose of the reform had been to simplify the control procedures, to move to risk-based inspections and to eliminate overlapping competencies among control bodies. As a result of the reform, labour relations had been retained under the competence of the State Labour Inspectorate, while occupational safety and health had been transferred from the State Labour Inspectorate to ten sectoral agencies. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection was the central body of the public administration responsible for promoting occupational safety and health policy. The State Labour Inspectorate monitored and coordinated compliance, reporting to the central authority the action related to monitoring occupational safety and health carried out by the ten sectoral agencies. Under the reformed institutional framework, employers in all areas of economic activity were monitored in the field of occupational safety and health. In agriculture, this was done by labour inspectors from the National Food Safety Agency. With respect to the allocation of resources, each of the authorities with functions in the field of occupational safety and health were responsible for budgetary planning to ensure the proper implementation of their labour inspectors’ activities. The State Labour Inspectorate held training activities for labour inspection, including those with control functions in the field of occupational safety and health, and four inspectors from three agencies had received such training. No interference was permitted in the work of labour inspectors. The Government was in the process of drafting legal acts in order to establish the status of labour inspectors in accordance with ILO Conventions, to be independent of changes of government and of improper external influences. Inspectors in the ten authorities had the right to require and get the support of experts and specialists from other relevant institutions in order to perform occupational safety and health inspections. The State Labour Inspectorate, as a national coordinating body, had the duty to elaborate the labour inspection report, with the participation of the ten competent agencies.

She indicated that labour inspectors with control responsibilities in the field of occupational safety and health had the status of civil servants, except for those who were employees of the National Energy Regulation Agency and the National Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications and Information Technology. The Government intended to modify the national legislation to include those two agencies. With regard to ensuring a sufficient number of inspectors, 36 personnel out of 43 labour inspectors of the State Labour Inspectorate had been transferred to six newly established authorities with control functions in the field of occupational safety and health, including the budgets for their salaries. There were a sufficient number of inspectors, and inspectors also had competences in the field of activity of the respective agencies. The majority of agencies with occupational safety and health responsibilities had territorial offices. While the Law No. 131 on state control of entrepreneurial activity stated that a planned control could only be carried out in an enterprise no more than once a year, that did not prevent unannounced controls whenever necessary in order to ensure the application of labour legislation and occupational safety and health standards. Law No. 131 had been amended by Law No. 185 of 21 September 2017, to remove the requirement for prior notification of inspections. The number of infringement reports for violations of labour legislation had decreased following the implementation of Law No. 131 in 2013. A six month moratorium on labour inspection had been declared in 2016. Law No. 185 of 2017 amended the Contravention Code to introduce new fines for employers who were not meeting their occupational safety and health obligations under national legislation. Pursuant to Law No. 140 on state labour inspection of 2001 and the Law on safety and health at work, labour inspectors were required to keep confidential the source of any complaint. The modification of the provisions of Law No. 131 removing the requirement for prior notification would ensure that the fact that a control was carried out following a complaint would not be disclosed. The ILO mission undertaken in December 2017 had assisted in focusing on the main issues requiring improvement in the occupational safety and health system. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection had already undertaken certain administrative and organizational measures in order to implement the mission’s recommendations and accelerate the control process in the area of occupational safety and health.

The Employer members recalled that, following a representation made in 2013 by the National Confederation of Trade Unions of Moldova (CNSM), the Governing Body had set up a tripartite committee, the report of which had been published in March 2015, and that the decision to close the representation at that time had been related to the adoption of national measures to give effect, in particular, to Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81. ILO technical assistance, proposed in 2015, had finally been requested by the Government and had been able to begin in February 2017. The national authorities had wished to verify whether their draft reforms of the labour inspection services were in conformity with ILO standards. Despite the efforts made within the framework of the technical assistance, the Committee of Experts, by proposing to include this national situation on the list of cases of serious failure on the occasion of the present session of the Conference, had given a clear indication of non-conformity. The Employer members expressed concern at the issues raised by the Committee of Experts, namely: the existence of a central authority that was still effective and functional to coordinate the various inspection services in the field of occupational safety and health; the reasons for the significant decline in the number of infringement reports referred to the courts between 2012 and 2016; the restrictions on the power of inspectors to carry out inspections without previous notice; guarantees of confidentiality; the need to take measures to ensure that inspections were possible as often as necessary; the real discretion of inspectors to decide whether or not to initiate immediate legal proceedings; and, finally, the issue of the adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. Only inspection services which fulfilled the criteria of independence, quality and equality of treatment for all economic actors made it possible to ensure good governance in the world of work and were indispensable for effective administration. In a State which respected the rule of law, through labour inspection and an appropriate regulatory framework, the business climate would stabilize, legal and economic security would increase and the social risks for investors would be more limited. A sound labour inspection service, which acted principally on a preventive and advisory basis, was essential to guarantee fair and ethical competition, which encouraged investment, economic growth and the resulting creation of employment. Although labour inspection services, as required by Conventions Nos 81 and 98, needed to function independently and without restriction in order to ensure the effective enforcement of labour regulation, it was also important for them to be impartial and to operate in accordance with the rule of law. For example, labour inspectors should not be dissuaded from imposing fines and effective measures needed to be adopted to ensure the absence of corruption. The independent and unrestricted functioning of labour inspection services was related to guarantees in terms of good governance, transparency and responsibility.

In view of the increasing complexity of labour legislation in many countries, employers were not always in a position to be able to bring themselves immediately into conformity with the whole corpus of social rules. The inspection services therefore needed to endeavour to provide support to enterprises, on a preventive basis, through the provision of information and technical advice on the most effective means of giving effect to the legislation. In addition to their advisory and preventive functions, the second priority in the action of labour inspection services needed to be to combat social fraud. Sufficient human and material resources should be provided to the inspection services for that purpose, as well as the judicious provision of resources to combat economic and social actors which intentionally failed to respect the rules of the game. Moreover, inspectors needed to have the necessary qualifications, as well as the required independence and ethics, to be able to fulfil their role in an effective and appropriate manner. The Employer members added that the criticisms contained in the observations needed to refer to, and be confined to, the specific rights and obligations set out in the respective Conventions. For example, with reference to paragraph 237 of the General Survey of 2006 of the Committee of Experts, they considered that it did not appear to be appropriate to ensure that a larger number of non-routine inspections were undertaken with a view to ensuring the confidentiality of the identity of the complainants. Similarly, with reference to the issue of immediate legal proceedings, they considered, in light of Article 17(1) of Convention No. 81, that the labour inspection services did not necessarily have absolute discretion to initiate legal proceedings against offenders and that, in light of the national legislation, they should give priority to incentive measures, which were generally very effective. Finally, inspections without prior warning had admittedly demonstrated their effectiveness, but they needed to be surrounded by specific rules and should be carried out in compliance with fundamental freedoms and the principle of proportionality. Nevertheless, the Employer members reaffirmed that the legislative framework in the Republic of Moldova did not yet appear to offer all the necessary guarantees. They therefore encouraged the national authorities to provide the information requested, and to carry out the necessary reforms to make their labour inspection services more effective and in compliance with the principles of the Conventions.

The Worker members, in the same way as the Employer members, recalled that in June 2013 the CNSM had made a representation under article 24 of the ILO Constitution alleging non-observance by the Republic of Moldova of Convention No. 81. The representation indicated that, following the adoption of Law No. 131, it was no longer possible for the labour inspection services to carry out inspections without prior warning as a notice period of five days was required. The tripartite committee set up to examine the representation had found, in its report approved by the Governing Body in 2015, that Law No. 131 was incompatible with the aforementioned Convention. Since then, the situation had not improved, and indeed had deteriorated. According to the Committee of Experts, although the Government had taken some measures to adapt the national legislation, it still contained provisions that were incompatible with the Conventions. While the Government planned to introduce some exceptions to the obligation to give five days’ notice prior to an inspection, the establishment of exceptions was not in itself sufficient to meet the requirements of the Conventions. It should be noted that Law No. 131 withdrew some supervisory competences and functions in the area of occupational safety and health from the state labour inspectorate and transferred them to ten supervisory bodies, including the National Food Safety Agency, the Consumer Protection Agency and the National Centre of Public Health. The division of supervisory functions relating to occupational safety and health diluted labour inspection into a larger framework and led to the eradication of specific features. While the Conventions did not prevent certain responsibilities regarding labour inspection from being assigned to different departments, that was subject to the condition that the competent authority took measures to ensure that adequate budgetary resources were made available and encouraged cooperation between the different departments. It was therefore the responsibility of the Government to provide detailed responses to the observations of the Committee of Experts in that regard. It was particularly important to ensure: the stability of employment and independence of labour inspection personnel; the collaboration of appropriately qualified experts and technicians; a sufficient number of inspectors to allow for the effective fulfilment of inspection duties; the provision of the necessary resources, such as offices and transport; and the conduct of inspections that were as thorough as necessary to ensure the effective application of existing legal provisions. With regard to the number of infringements referred to the courts between 2012 and 2016, which had decreased significantly from 891 to 165, the Government was requested to provide explanations of the decrease and information on the specific results of the reports referred to the courts.

The reason for the confidentiality of the complaints received by the labour inspection services was to protect victims and ensure that they were not subject to reprisals. As the national legislation provided that enterprises had to be informed of inspections five days in advance, non-routine inspections always followed a complaint, which jeopardized the right to confidentiality. With regard to the frequency of inspections, they recalled that article 15 of Law No. 131 provided that each authority exercising supervisory duties must develop an annual inspection plan which could not be modified and which specified the inspections scheduled for each quarter, without it being possible to conduct inspections that were not scheduled. Although the Government claimed that the Law provided for a maximum of one inspection a year unless, according to the risk-based methodology, a greater frequency was required and that there was no limit on non-routine inspections, it had to be noted, in the same way as the Committee of Experts, that non-routine inspections were only authorized under certain specific conditions. They finally referred to article 4 of Law No. 131 (which provided that inspections carried out during the first three years of operation of an enterprise must be advisory) and article 5 (under which, in the case of minor offences, the penalties established by the legislation on administrative and other offences could not be applied). The Worker members considered that such provisions were tantamount to handing enterprises a blank cheque, which allowed them to break the law as they wished, as they were sure that they would not suffer any consequences. It was regrettable that, rather than encouraging the establishment of sound enterprises, which ensured decent jobs in compliance with health and safety standards, the Government preferred in practice to promote means of circumventing laws. It was also clear that such provisions were contrary to the Conventions in question, which provided, subject to certain exceptions, that the violation of legal provisions, which inspectors were responsible for monitoring, gave rise to immediate legal action, without prior notice, and that it was at the discretion of inspectors to assess whether it was necessary to give a warning or advice, or to introduce or recommend prosecution. In conclusion, the Worker members indicated that the legislation on inspection, which had been adopted in 2012, had been strongly influenced by the desire to create an environment conducive to business, which evaded compliance with labour standards. Recalling the purpose of the ILO, they referred to the Preamble of the ILO Constitution, which recalled that “conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled”. There was therefore a link between, on the one hand, poor working conditions – those that were subject to monitoring through inspections – and, on the other, the development of injustice and hardship. The second lesson arising from the Preamble was that poor working conditions prevented any social justice and sustained development for all individuals. That could only be achieved if the right of workers to decent working conditions was respected and monitored through effective inspection. The attainment of those objectives was also conditional on the observance of fundamental labour rights and principles, and first and foremost, freedom of association. Therefore, the dismantling of the labour inspectorate under the pretext of creating a conducive environment for business was a short-term calculation that ran the risk of seriously damaging cohesion and social stability.

The Employer member of the Republic of Moldova indicated that in November 2013 the National Confederation of the Employers of the Republic of Moldova (CNPM) had organized a business forum to examine the main obstacles for the business environment in the country and had made a number of recommendations. The information collected had served as a basis for the development of the business environment improvement programme and a memorandum had been signed with the Government which had served as the basis for reforms. Efforts had been made to eliminate business restrictions. In the field of business regulation, there had been a three-fold reduction in the number of approval documents and the process of financial and statistical reporting had been simplified. An institutional reform had been carried out, optimizing the number of institutions with supervisory powers. The goal of the reform was to reduce the burden on economic agents and significantly reduce the number of controls of enterprises with a view to increasing transparency and predictability in the control process. This included a reduction of institutions with supervisory powers; a reduction in the number of approval documents; a simplification of labour relations through the amendment to the Labour Code; and a simplification of financial reporting. With regard to labour inspections, the CNPM had, in consultation with the social partners and the ILO, found that Law No. 131 was not in compliance with Convention No. 81. Certain amendments had to be made. However, for these governmental initiatives to support the business environment by optimizing the number of institutions, it had been necessary to include the State Labour Inspectorate in the reforms. He referred to a proposal that had been made by the CNPM to create an integrated inspection system comprised of the State Labour Inspectorate and the National Centre of Public Health, as was the case in several other countries, but underlined that the proposal had not been supported. Currently, the Republic of Moldova was going through a number of transformations. In this regard, he eagerly awaited the end of the transitional period in order to assess the outcome of the reforms.

The Worker member of the Republic of Moldova emphasized that compliance with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 contributed to saving lives. Limitations on labour inspection functions were unacceptable. Referring to the representation made under article 24 of the ILO Constitution by the CNSM in 2013 and closed in 2015, he recalled the length of time that it had taken for the representation to be examined. Occupational accidents, including fatal accidents, had occurred after the adoption of Law No. 131 which had been related to the absence of labour inspections. The regulation of occupational safety and health by Law No. 131 was in contradiction with the Conventions. The Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection had always supported the position of the CNSM and defended compliance with ILO standards. However, the Ministry had not been supported by the Ministry of the Economy or other parts of the Government. The CNSM had been told that the reform had required change and that, following the signing of the Association Agreement of 2014, the country would have to respect international standards. The tripartite committee set up to examine the article 24 representation had found that Law No. 131 was not in compliance with the provisions of Convention No. 81, and had requested measures be taken to ensure the effective implementation of Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention. While the Government had undertaken to bring the national legislation into line with the provisions of Convention No. 81, through the adoption of the Decent Work Country Programme 2013–16, Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention were not implemented in national legislation. Further, the Ministry of Economy had stated that Law No. 131 was in conformity with international standards and further measures were not needed. The absence of appropriate labour inspection had led to the death of three minors in occupational accidents. Moreover, in April 2016, a moratorium on labour inspection had been introduced. The Committee of Experts had stated that such a limitation was a severe violation of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. Moreover, the functions of the state labour inspection had been transferred to other agencies. He welcomed the fact that, very recently, Parliament had amended the national legislation and given back to the labour inspectorate functions relating to the investigation of severe occupational accidents. An ILO technical assistance mission had led to a number of recommendations on compliance with the Conventions, including with respect to the decentralization of the labour inspection system. Further technical assistance should be provided to improve the national legislation and bring it into compliance with the Conventions.

The Government member of Bulgaria speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its Member States, as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Norway, emphasized the fundamental importance of labour inspection for promoting decent work. She confirmed the commitment to political association and economic integration in the framework of the EU–Moldova Association Agreement with its Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), which was based on core values, notably respect for democratic principles, the rule of law, good governance, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and she welcomed the results of the EU–Moldova Association Council held in May 2018. The issue of labour inspection in the Republic of Moldova had been examined several times by the Committee of Experts, and certain parts of the legislation, particularly Law No. 131, had been found to be in contradiction with Conventions Nos 81 and 129. The reform enacted in 2017, removing occupational safety and health from the mandate of the State Labour Inspectorate, established a complex system that raised many concerns regarding compliance with the Conventions, notably with respect to the overall supervision and coordination of occupational safety and health inspections, the allocation of sufficient budgetary and human resources and the professional qualifications of inspectors, as well as their stability and independence. She expressed concern that the new system would not deliver equal prevention of occupational risks and the protection of health and safety at work to all workers in the country. She also further expressed strong concern at the restrictions on labour inspection contained in Law No. 131, which limited the undertaking of unannounced inspections, as well as the number of inspection visits per year. The Law also weakened the system of penalties and jeopardized the confidentiality of complaints. The number of infringement reports resulting from inspections had also dropped significantly in recent years. The Government was expected to take the necessary steps to bring the national law and practice related to labour inspection, including in agriculture, into conformity with the Conventions, and to avail itself of ILO expertise. The lack of an effective system for the enforcement of labour rights and standards could result in a breach of commitments undertaken by the Republic of Moldova under its Association Agreement (including the DCFTA) with the EU. That included commitments to effectively implement in national law and practice the core labour standards embodied in the ILO fundamental Conventions and to approximate its national legislation to EU law on labour and health and safety at work issues (Article 37 of the Association Agreement). The Republic of Moldova had also undertaken to implement effectively Conventions Nos 81 and 129 in national law and practice pursuant to Article 365 of the Association Agreement. The Republic of Moldova had further committed not to lower levels of protection or to fail to enforce effectively labour law, as an encouragement for trade or investment, pursuant to Article 371 of the Association Agreement. She emphasized the need for the Government, as well as the ILO, to coordinate closely with all relevant international and regional organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to ensure that the measures taken with regard to labour inspection were in accordance with ILO Conventions.

The Worker member of the United Kingdom, emphasized that in accordance with Convention No. 81, the existence of adequately funded labour inspectorates was a vital component in the effective supervision and enforcement of the labour legislation, including occupational safety and health standards. Referring to the discussion on the case of the application of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 by Ukraine, she highlighted that governments were increasingly restricting the powers and resources of labour inspectorates, under the pretext that it would improve the business environment and regularize the informal economy. In the Republic of Moldova, the capacity of labour inspectorates had never been strong and the number of labour inspectors was limited. Recent legislative reform had further undermined the effectiveness of the system. The adoption of Law No. 131 substantially reduced the capacity of labour inspectorates by limiting the frequency of inspections in individual firms, requiring the provision of prior notice and imposing limits on unannounced inspections. These changes had led to a marked increase in workers’ complaints of labour violations and accidents in the workplace, by 50 per cent between 2012 and 2013. Ten work-related deaths had been reported in 2013 and there had been a significant increase in serious occupational accidents. The Committee of Experts had concluded that Law No. 131 did not comply with the requirements of Convention No. 81 and had made clear recommendations in that respect, but no amendments had been introduced. Further, in 2016, responsibility for the enforcement of labour law and occupational safety and health had been separated, leading to a fragmentation of occupational safety and health-related enforcement and contributing to the growth in occupational accidents and fatalities. The moratorium imposed in 2016 had also paralyzed the work of the labour inspectorate. Such moratoriums were a clear violation of Convention No. 81. In conclusion, she called on the ILO to provide technical assistance, and for the Government to reform its national legislation to comply with Convention No. 81.

The Worker member of Sweden, speaking on behalf of trade unions from the Nordic countries and Germany, stated that they expected countries engaged in close cooperation with the EU and the European Economic Area to comply with international labour standards. Providing for labour inspection was a requirement of Convention No. 81 that had to be respected by all ratifying member States. Legislation designed to protect decent working conditions had to be applied in practice and labour inspection played a vital role in that respect. The application of Convention No. 81 was therefore both important in itself and an important means of ensuring the correct implementation of other labour standards. The Republic of Moldova and the EU had signed the Association Agreement in June 2014 which contained provisions for the creation of a DCFTA over a ten-year transition period. The DCFTA included a number of commitments relating to both labour standards and environmental matters. A weakened State Labour Inspectorate would not enable the country to comply with its obligations to implement ILO Conventions and those created by the Association Agreement with the EU. The Republic of Moldova risked moving away from its commitment to the enforcement of labour standards at the international and European levels, which had also been confirmed through the institutional mechanisms for the implementation of the trade and sustainable development chapter of the DCFTA. The report of the second joint meeting of the Republic of Moldova – European Union Domestic Advisory Group under the DCFTA had expressed growing concern regarding the situation of the State Labour Inspectorate, which raised problems in view of the ILO’s standards on labour inspection as well as under EU law. Labour inspection was under threat in many countries. It was a core function that any responsible state needed to carry out. Weakening labour inspection was harmful to a decent societal climate and detrimental to a fair market for goods and services. Therefore, legislation needed to be introduced to ensure compliance with Convention No. 81 and appropriate resources must be provided for the labour inspectorate to enable it to be effective.

A Government representative recalled that reform in the field of safety and health at work was a challenge, but that, with the support of the ILO and the social partners, the Government would manage to ensure a functional system in line with ILO standards. As the central authority, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Social Protection would update the national occupational safety and health profile with ILO support. A round-table discussion with the participation of high-level officials from relevant institutions would be organized to discuss and share EU best practices. She expressed appreciation for ILO support offered in adjusting the national framework to achieve compliance with ILO standards. With ILO expertise and technical support, it would be possible to improve the national occupational safety and health system. It was important to have an efficient occupational safety and health system in accordance with ILO Conventions, and in this respect, the Government would build an effective labour administration and labour inspection systems through strong tripartite social dialogue. The changes of Law No. 131 did not automatically imply that the budget for inspections would be reduced. The Law did not limit the number of unannounced visits of inspectors as the limitations referred only to planned visits. The penalties for violations had also not been weakened. The reason for the reduced number of infringement reports filed in 2016 was the moratorium put in place that year. While the Government had taken many steps to implement the ILO standards, there were still areas for improvement. She said her Government was ready to continue the constructive engagement with its partners, especially the ILO and the EU, in order to address the issues raised.

The Worker members thanked the Government and encouraged it to act swiftly to bring the legislation into conformity with the Conventions. Certain problems dated back several years and had already been raised by other supervisory mechanisms, including the provisions which prohibited inspections from being carried out without prior notice. In the context of the reform of the inspection services, they called on the Government to ensure: the stability of employment and independence of inspection personnel; the collaboration of experts and duly qualified technicians; a sufficient number of inspectors for the effective exercise of their inspection functions; and the resources necessary for inspectors to perform their duties, including offices and transport facilities. They also called on the Government to ensure that inspectors had the right to conduct inspections as often as necessary and to guarantee the confidentiality of the complaints. The legislation should also be brought into conformity with the Conventions to allow inspectors the discretion to initiate legal proceedings or simply to issue warnings. Finally, they encouraged the Government to avail itself of ILO technical assistance to give effect to the recommendations.

The Employer members thanked the Government for the information and views provided. They recommended the national authorities to take the necessary measures, and engage in appropriate reforms to bring the labour inspection services into conformity with the principles of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, with particular reference to the authority of inspectors to inspect enterprises without prior warning and the need to carry out inspections as often as necessary. They also called on the Government to provide the Committee of Experts with detailed and precise written responses to all the questions raised in its observation by 1 September 2018. They called on the Government to continue availing itself of ILO technical assistance. They also recalled that, in addition to being provided with the resources necessary to function effectively, the labour inspection services required the necessary legal framework to prevent any abuse. All labour inspection services needed to be independent to ensure their credibility and professionalism. Labour inspection services should engage in open dialogue with the enterprises and persons inspected. Inspections should be legitimate and proportionate to their purpose, and should ensure equality of treatment and respect the need for confidentiality so as not to prejudice the interests of enterprises and persons liable to inspection, and the complainants. They also recalled that the priority of the labour inspection services should be prevention and the provision of advice to companies in good faith, and in particular, that they needed to intensify their efforts to combat social fraud in other enterprises. Fraudulent practices were a scourge for the whole of society, for social security, and also for honest enterprises confronted with grossly unfair economic and social competition.

Conclusions

The Committee took note of the oral statements made by the Government representative and the discussion that followed.

The Committee noted that the labour inspectorate must be given the necessary means to function effectively and independently, and it shall also be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority.

Taking into account the Government’s submissions and the discussion that followed, the Committee recommends the Government to:

- take the necessary measures and appropriate reforms to bring their labour inspection services into line with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129;

- bring national legislation and practice into line with Conventions Nos 81 and 129 to enable labour inspectors to carry out visits to workplaces liable to inspection without prior notice in order to guarantee adequate and effective supervision;

- ensure that inspections are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and are possible as often as necessary;

- provide to the Committee of Experts in writing before 1 September 2018, detailed and precise information on:

• - the decentralization of labour inspection services since 2012 in the field of occupational safety and health and on the guarantees of effective operation of labour inspectors throughout the national territory;
• - the reasons for the decrease in the number of inspection reports submitted to the courts between 2012 and 2016;
• - the guarantees of confidentiality of the identity of complainants;
• - the measures taken to ensure that labour inspectors can freely initiate or recommend legal proceedings; and
• - the training provided to inspectors in agriculture, including the level of participation.

The Committee invites the Government to continue to avail itself of technical assistance in relation to these recommendations.

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

With reference to its comments under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), the Committee would be grateful if the Government would communicate the requested information in so far as labour inspection in agriculture is specifically concerned. The Committee also draws the Government’s attention to the following points.

Article 9, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. According to the Government, article 37 of the Public Position and Public Civil Service Law provides for the organization of systematic and planned process of continuous professional development of all public servants. In that context, labour inspectors improve their skills through training courses and workshops in accordance with the programmes approved by the General Public Inspector. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide detailed information on the content and frequency of training courses and workshops specifically geared to the exercise of the functions of labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee would also be grateful if the Government would forward a copy of the aforementioned law and keep the ILO informed of measures taken to this end.

Article 8, paragraph 2, and Article 13. Involvement and collaboration of employers, workers and their organizations in inspection activities. According to the Government, the labour inspectorates have conducted meetings with the heads of local public administrations, devoted to the issues of efficient implementation of labour legislation in agriculture, as well as the health and safety rules applied to the works of this sector. Moreover, labour inspectors have visited agricultural enterprises together with the representatives of trade unions, sanitary and epidemiological centres, energy consumption boards and technical control agencies. The Committee once again requests the Government to supply as detailed information as possible on the specific activities of collaboration undertaken in relation to agricultural undertakings and their results.

Articles 19 and 27, paragraphs (f) and (g). Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease in agriculture and association of inspectors with on the spot inquiry into the cause thereof. Relevant statistics. According to the Government, in accordance with article 225, paragraph (u) of the Labour Code and article 13 of the Safety and Health Law No. 186-XVI of 10 July 2008, the employer is obliged to provide “correct and duly informing, investigation, account and reporting about accidents on manufacture and occupational diseases …”. The procedure related to this article has been established by the rules related to investigation of accidents approved by the Government’s Decision No. 1361 of 22 December 2005, under which the employer is obliged in case of an accident to inform immediately the labour inspection. With reference to its previous request, the Committee asks the Government once again to take necessary measures so that the labour inspectorate is also informed of work accidents and cases of occupational disease occurring in agriculture and that as far as possible labour inspectors are associated with any on the spot inquiry into the causes of such accidents or diseases. It asks the Government to ensure that relevant statistics will be included in the annual labour inspection report.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would also provide a copy of the aforementioned Law and Government Decision.

Articles 26 and 27. Publication of the annual report on labour inspection activities in the agricultural sector. While noting with interest the detailed information contained in the annual report on labour inspection activities, the Committee recalls that under Article 26(2) of the Convention the annual report of the central inspection authority should be published and would be grateful if the Government would clarify if such report for 2008 has been published. In the negative, the Committee requests it to take necessary measures to this end and to provide the ILO with relevant information.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee takes note of the Government’s report for the 2006–07 period. As labour inspection covers all areas of the economy, the Committee requests the Government to refer to its request under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), as regards the subjects common to both Conventions and draws its attention to the following points regarding labour inspection activities in agriculture.

Articles 8, paragraph 2, and 13 of the Convention. Involvement and collaboration of employers, workers and their organizations in inspection activities. The Committee notes with interest the implementation by the Government of collaboration between labour inspectors and employers’ and workers’ organizations under agreements concluded between the inspectorate and a number of occupational organizations in 2002 and 2003, namely the National Confederation of Employers, the “Solidarity” Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the Confederation of Trade Unions. This collaboration takes the form of consultations on the observance of labour legislation, exchanges of information, the joint examination of workers’ complaints by an inspector and a trade union leader, joint investigations of occupational accidents and also joint inspections. The Committee requests the Government to supply as detailed information as possible on the specific activities undertaken during the reporting period in relation to agricultural undertakings (for example, consultations, joint inspections, investigations) and their results.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Adequate training for labour inspectors in agriculture. The Committee notes the Government’s information to the effect that labour inspectors follow various courses and seminars in the context of programmes approved by the Labour Inspector-General and that agricultural engineers and persons holding higher qualifications in technical areas may become labour inspectors. However, it notes that the Government does not state whether, among inspectors currently in service, some possess such qualifications, and notes that it is unclear from the programmes of further training seminars in the first and third quarters of 2006 communicated by the Government whether the training given to inspectors in this context is specifically geared to the exercise of their functions in agriculture. The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the need to give specific training to labour inspectors working in agriculture, whether upon their entry into service or in the course of their employment, in order to improve the particular skills necessary for the inspection of conditions of work in agriculture relating to the specific hazards to which workers and their family members and also the environment are exposed, in particular those connected with the use of machinery and certain toxic products and substances. The Committee therefore requests the Government once again to ensure that labour inspectors performing their duties in agriculture are given initial and further training enabling them to fully discharge their responsibility to afford protection to agricultural workers and their family members who live on agricultural undertakings. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the Office informed of measures taken to this end and supply information on the content and frequency of the training in question.

Articles 19 and 27. Notification of cases of occupational disease. Content of the annual report on the work of the inspection services in agriculture. With reference also to its request on this subject under Convention No. 81 and underlining the specific risks inherent in agricultural work, the Committee requests the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that the labour inspectorate is informed of cases of occupational disease occurring in agriculture (Article 19(1)) and that, as far as possible, inspectors are associated with any inquiry into the causes of occupational diseases which affect a number of workers or have fatal consequences (Article 19(2)). It also requests the Government to ensure that statistics of occupational diseases in agriculture and their causes are included in the annual report published by the central authority.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the information required for the report on the application of this Convention forms part of the report on the application of Convention No. 81. The Committee reminds the Government that article 22 of the ILO Constitution requires it to report on every instrument ratified. It points out that the work of the labour inspection system needs to be broken down by sector covered in order to ascertain its effectiveness and determine what needs to be done to improve it. The Government is therefore asked to provide in its next report the information required in respect of each part of the report form for this Convention, together with additional information on the following matters.

1. Articles 8, paragraph 2, 12, paragraph 1, and 13 of the Convention. Inclusion in the labour inspection system of occupational organizations and collaboration between the latter and the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes that according to section 371 of Labour Code No. 154-XV of 28 March 2003, trade unions, like the labour inspectorate, supervise application of the labour law and other relevant legal provisions. The rights and guarantees deriving from the performance of these duties are governed by sections 386 to 390 of the Labour Code. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate how the supervisory activities referred to in the legal provisions are distributed in agricultural undertakings between the inspection services and the trade unions, and the practical arrangements for any cooperation between the two.

2. Article 9, paragraph 3. Appropriate training for inspection staff. Please indicate whether there is any plan for labour inspectors to receive appropriate training, in the course of their employment, for the duties they perform in agricultural undertakings. If not, the Committee hopes that measures will be taken to this end and that the Government will provide relevant information in its next report.

3. Article 15, paragraph 1(b). Transport facilities and refund of expenses. In view of the remote location of agricultural undertakings and the distance between them, the Government is asked to indicate how it ensures that labour inspectors have the necessary transport facilities to perform their duties.

4. Article 19. Notification of industrial accidents and cases of occupational disease, and association of inspectors with any on-the-spot enquiry into the causes thereof. The Committee notes that the legislation in force does not provide for notification to the inspectorate of industrial accidents in cases of occupational disease, but that such information is available at the Ministry of Health on request. The Committee asks the Government to take steps to ensure, as the Convention prescribes, that there is a requirement for the labour inspectorate to be notified of occupational accidents in cases of occupational disease in such cases and in such manner as the national laws or regulations prescribe, and for inspectors to be associated, as far as possible, with any enquiry on the spot into the causes of such accidents or diseases.

5. Annual inspection report. The Committee notes with interest that most of the information required by Article 27 is to be found in the Government’s report on the application of Convention No. 81. The Government is asked to take steps to ensure that, in future, such information appears separately in the general annual inspection report, in order to facilitate the central authority’s task of analysing and using the data in determining what most needs to be done to improve the working of the inspection system and to enable the Committee to ascertain to what extent the Convention is applied.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s report in reply to its previous comments. It will thus examine, also on the basis of the documents requested under Convention No. 81, the way in which effect is given in law and in practice to the provisions of this Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information provided in reply to its previous comments. Also with reference to its comments on Convention No. 81, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide copies of the texts requested under the above Convention.

Article 9, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether it is provided that labour inspectors shall benefit during the course of their employment from appropriate further training for the performance of their duties. If not, the Committee trusts that measures will be taken for this purpose and that the relevant information will be provided to the ILO.

Article 10. Noting with interest that the staff of the labour inspection service has been strengthened by the presence of 15 women inspectors, the Committee requests the Government to indicate the number of the latter designated to discharge their functions in agriculture and whether special duties have been assigned to them in this respect.

Articles 15 and 16, paragraph 1(c)(iii). The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether it is planned, in the context of the reinforcement of resources planned for 2000, to provide inspection services with equipment intended for the removal for purposes of analysis of samples of products, materials and substances used in workplaces liable to inspection, thereby bringing the legislation into conformity with the Convention on this point.

The Government is also requested to provide a copy of any text issued to ensure the reimbursement to labour inspectors in agriculture of any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 19. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the manner in which it is ensured that the labour inspectorate is notified of cases of occupational disease occurring in the agricultural sector.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report for the period ending 15 June 2000. It also notes the comments made by the Council of the General Federation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (No. 07-03/471, dated 3 August 2000) alleging that the Government’s report has a superficial character and does not fully reflect the points listed in the report form, providing only partial information. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information and clarification on the application of the following provisions of the Convention:

Article 2 of the Convention.  Please indicate whether the state inspectors for labour protection enforce arbitration awards and collective agreements upon which the force of law is conferred.

Article 10.  In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate the percentage of women inspectors and any special duties which might have been assigned to them. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with section 5 of the Regulations on the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection both men and women can be employed in the capacity of state inspector, but no woman as yet has applied for a position of the state inspector for labour protection. The Committee asked the Government to provide information on any progress in this regard.

Article 12(2).  Please indicate whether recourse was had to the possibility provided for by paragraph 2 and, if so, what are the government services or institutions to which certain inspection duties have been entrusted, the nature of these duties, the manner in which they are carried out, and whether these inspection activities are subject to supervision by the central authority.

Article 15(1) and (2). In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate specific arrangements made to give effect to these provisions of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the economic and financial situation in the Republic of Moldova does not allow to give effect to the provisions of this Article. Recalling the importance of placing material means at the disposal of inspection services for the effective performance of their duties, the Committee asks the Government to provide information on measures taken or envisaged to give effect to this Article of the Convention and to report on any progress achieved.

Article 16(1)(c)(iii).  In its previous comments the Committee asked the Government to indicate whether state inspectors had the powers provided for in this provision of the Convention and, if so, indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation. The Committee notes the Government’s response that the state inspectors for protection of labour are not authorized to take or remove for purposes of analysis samples of products, materials and substances used or handled. Referring also to paragraphs 175-178 of its 1985 General Survey, the Committee wishes to stress the importance of this power of labour inspectors and asks the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to apply these provisions of the Convention.

Article 18(4).  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with resolution No. 51 of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, dated 6 June 2000, the state inspectors for labour protection are obliged to inform workers and their representatives about the content of the record of proceedings of inspection visits. Recalling that under this Article the defects noted by an inspector when visiting an undertaking and the orders made shall be immediately made known not only to the representative of the workers, but also to the employer, the Committee asks the Government to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention in so far as it concerns the notification to the employer.

Article 19(1) and (2).  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that in accordance with section 3 of the Regulations on the procedure of investigation of occupational accidents, approved by resolution No. 380 of 23 April 1998, the administration of the enterprise has the duty to ensure the reporting of occupational accidents. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection shall be notified also of cases of occupational disease.

Article 20(b).  Please indicate the penalties or disciplinary measures which are prescribed if state inspectors (former state inspectors) reveal manufacturing and commercial secrets or other information.

Article 21.  The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the current number of inspectors as well as the material and technical support of the State Inspectorate for the Labour Protection do not allow to achieve the frequency of inspection visits necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions. The Committee requests the Government to indicate measures envisaged to improve the situation.

Article 24.  In its previous comments the Committee has asked the Government to indicate what penalties are provided for obstructing state inspectors in the performance of their duties. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the existing legislation does not prescribe such penalties. It requests the Government to indicate measures taken or envisaged to apply these provisions of the Convention.

Article 26.  The Committee notes a copy of the report on the activities of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection in 1999. It asks the Government to indicate what is the procedure for access to such report by an interested party.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government's first report for the period ending 31 May 1999. It also notes the comments made by the National Confederation of Employers of the Republic of Moldova (No. 03/1-49 of 22 June 1999) and those of the Council of the General Federation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (No. 07/0/377 of 9 June 1999). It requests the Government to provide further information on the application of the following provisions of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 1. Please indicate the legal provisions which define the term "agricultural undertaking" for the purpose of the Convention.

Article 1, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether any decisions have been taken pursuant to paragraph 2 and give details of the procedure for consultation with the most representative organizations of employers and workers.

Article 1, paragraph 3. Please indicate whether any decisions have been taken by the competent authority pursuant to this provision.

Article 2. Please indicate whether arbitration awards and collective agreements upon which have the force of law are enforceable by state inspectors for labour protection.

Article 5, paragraph 3. Please indicate the effect given or envisaged to the provisions of the Convention as regards the categories of persons referred to in paragraph 1(a) and (c) of Article 5 who are not covered by a declaration.

Article 6, paragraph 1(c). Please indicate how effect is given to this provision.

Article 6, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether any functions of the kind referred to in this provision have been assigned to the state inspectors for labour protection and the manner in which they are exercised in practice.

Article 8, paragraph 2. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether and in what manner officials or representatives of occupational organizations have been included in the system of labour inspection and, if so, to describe their status, their conditions of service and the powers granted to them in the exercise of their functions.

Article 9, paragraph 2. Please provide details in respect of the means of ascertaining the qualifications of state inspectors.

Article 10. Please indicate the percentage of women inspectors and any special duties which might have been assigned to them.

Article 12, paragraph 1, and Article 13. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the arrangements made by the competent authority to promote effective cooperation within the meaning of this provision, and the specific forms of such cooperation.

Article 12, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether effect is given to this provision and, if so, to which government services or institutions inspection duties have been entrusted, the nature of these duties, the manner in which they are carried out, and whether these inspection activities are subject to supervision by the central authority.

Article 14. Please indicate the actual number of state inspectors and their different categories, including inspectors to whom special or technical functions may be assigned, and the geographical distribution of the inspection staff.

Article 15, paragraphs 1 and 2. Please indicate specific arrangements made to give effect to these provisions of the Convention.

Article 16, paragraphs 1(c)(i) and 1(c)(iii). Please indicate whether state inspectors have the powers provided for in these provisions of the Convention and, if so, indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation.

Article 16, paragraph 3. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the legal provisions giving effect to these provisions of the Convention and the manner in which they are applied in practice.

Article 18, paragraph 2(a). Please indicate whether state inspectors for labour protection are authorized to make or to have made orders requiring such alterations to the installation or plant, to be carried out within a specified time limit, as may be necessary to secure compliance with the legal provisions relating to the health or safety of the workers and, if so, please indicate the corresponding provisions in national legislation.

Article 18, paragraph 3. In cases in which paragraph 3 is applicable, the Committee asks the Government to indicate the competent authority within the meaning of this paragraph and the procedure followed in such cases.

Article 18, paragraph 4. Please indicate in what manner effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

Article 19, paragraph 1. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the procedure according to which the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection is notified of occupational accidents and whether the State Inspectorate shall be notified also of cases of occupational disease.

Article 19, paragraph 2. Please indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

Article 20, paragraph (b). Please indicate the penalties or disciplinary measures which are prescribed if state inspectors (former state inspectors) reveal manufacturing and commercial secrets or other information which may come to their knowledge in the course of their duties.

Article 21. Please indicate the measures taken to ensure adequate frequency and thoroughness of inspection visits.

Article 22, paragraph 1. Please indicate whether persons who violate or neglect to observe legal provisions enforceable by state inspectors for labour protection are liable to legal proceedings without previous warning and whether in certain cases previous notice to carry out remedial or preventive measures is to be given.

Article 22, paragraph 2. Please indicate whether state inspectors for labour protection have the discretion to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings.

Article 23. Please describe the procedure followed for the institution of proceedings in case of infringements of the legal provisions.

Article 24. Please indicate what penalties are provided for obstructing state inspectors in the performance of their duties.

Article 26, paragraph 2. Please indicate the time limits established for publication of the annual report.

Part III of the report form. The Committee asks the Government to indicate whether courts of law or other tribunals have given decisions involving questions of principle relating to the application of the Convention.

The Committee also asks the Government to provide copies of the following documents:

-- the most recent annual general report published by the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection;

-- the most recent version of the Code of the Republic of Moldova on administrative offences;

-- the most recent version of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova;

-- Law No. 443-XIII of 4 May 1995 on the public service;

-- Resolution No. 286 of the Government of 24 May 1993 on the unified conditions of remuneration of labour of employees of budgetary institutions on the basis of the unified wage scale;

-- Resolution No. 154 of the Government of 22 April 1994 approving the procedure of formation and utilization of special funds of labour protection of economic units, ministries, departments, other state administration bodies, pri-mayor's offices of cities and regional executive committees;

-- Resolution No. 890 of the Government of 20 December 1995 on the organization of education in the area of labour protection;

-- Resolution No. 835 of the Government of 5 December 1994 (as amended) on streamlining of the use of official cars in the bodies of public administration;

-- Resolution No. 380 of the Government of 23 April 1997 on the approval of regulations on the procedure for investigation of accidents in the industry;

-- Resolution No. 780 of the Government of 13 August 1998 on the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, attached to the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family;

-- Order No. 341-p of the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family of the Republic of Moldova concerning the structure of the State Inspectorate for Labour Protection, of 30 December 1998.