CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the Government’s report received in August 2008 in reply to the direct request of 2005. The Government includes an explanation concerning the scope of modifications notified at the time of ratification of the Convention by France relating to the application of Articles 3(3), 4, 8(b) and 18(2) of the Convention (ILO, Official Bulletin, 31 December 1954, Vol. XXXVII, No. 7, pages 371–372). The Government indicates that it wishes to maintain the modifications brought in to Article 3(3) and Article 18(2) of Convention No. 82, but would accept to discuss the continuation of the modifications to Articles 4 and 8(b). The Government considers that the modifications to Article 3(3) should be maintained since they enable the situation to be avoided where technical and financial assistance from the central administration remains merely optional. However, it indicates that, in view of the autonomy in the performance of their duties now enjoyed by civil servants in the administration of French Polynesia, the modifications to Article 4 are not relevant to the current situation. According to the Government, these modifications sought to prevent the initiatives referred to in Article 4 of the Convention being concerned with the political functioning of the public services. In addition, the Government indicates that the continuation of the amendment to Article 8(b), which is designed to reiterate the importance of the balance between constraints on economic developments in general (particularly tourism), links with the land and agricultural development, merits discussion in so far as the constraints relating to balanced and sustainable development are currently at the focus of public action. As regards the modifications to Article 18(2), the Government maintains that they are necessary because the provision of the Convention would clash with the content of section 2 of Act No. 86‑845 of 17 July 1986 relating to the general principles of labour law and to the organization and functioning of the labour inspectorate and labour tribunals in French Polynesia, which provides, inter alia, that “origin, sex, pregnancy, family situation, membership or non-membership of an ethnic group, political opinion, trade union activity and religious convictions may not be taken into consideration with regard to an offer of employment, recruitment or a contract of employment” and that “any provision or act to the contrary shall be deemed null and void”. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of Article 18(2) of the Convention, “all practicable measures shall be taken to lessen, by raising the rates applicable to the lower paid workers, any existing differences in wage rates due to discrimination by reason of race, colour, sex, belief, tribal association or trade union affiliation”. In no way does this seek to authorize any kind of discrimination; on the contrary, it aims to reduce the differences in wage rates which might result from any discrimination that could continue to exist despite the prohibition. In this respect, the Committee recalls that it recognized in its General Survey on equal remuneration (ILC, 72nd Session, 1986) that “the incorporation of the principle of equal remuneration into national law … is an important undertaking to ensure its application to all workers within the scope of the law” but that “further steps are, however, needed to translate the principle into practice”. Hence, even though section 2 of Act No. 86-845 of 17 July 1986 prohibits any form of discrimination in an employment relationship, inequalities may continue, as borne out by the direct request of 2005 on the application of the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No. 100), in French Polynesia, in which the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government indicating that the hourly wage for women was lower than that for men in all age groups. In addition, the Committee observes that section 17 of Act No. 86-845 of 17 July 1986 recognizes the continuing existence of certain inequalities despite the prohibition on discrimination since it provides for the possibility of taking temporary measures “solely for women with the intention of establishing equality of opportunity for men and women, particularly by rectifying de facto inequalities which affect opportunities for women”. Finally, even though the Government states that it wishes to maintain the modifications concerning Article 18(2), the Committee notes that the content of this provision of Convention No. 82 already appears to be covered by the matters raised in the direct request relating to Convention No. 100. The Committee requests the Government to continue to report on the policies designed to apply a social policy primarily directed to the economic development of French Polynesia (Article 2 of the Convention) and to state whether changes in local conditions have actually made it possible to renounce the modifications to Articles 4 and 8(b) of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

1. The Committee notes that, according to the report received in May 2004, it is the responsibility of the Government of French Polynesia to give effect to the provisions of Parts III, IV, V, VI and VII of the Convention. In relation to this development, the Committee hopes that the authorities of French Polynesia will continue to provide reports on policies intended to apply a social policy primarily directed to the well-being and economic development of the people of French Polynesia (Article 2 of the Convention).

2. With reference to its observation of 2001, the Committee recalls its request to be informed of any amendment to Decision No. 2000-130 APF of 26 October 2000 on the occupation of professional divers and establishing specific protection measures applicable to certain workers intervening in a hyperbaric environment and the organization of their vocational training.

3. Article 23. When ratifying the Convention, the Republic of France indicated that the provisions of the Convention were applicable with modifications in relation to Article 3, paragraph 3; Article 4; Article 8(b); and Article 18, paragraph 2 (ILO, Official Bulletin, 31 December 1954, Vol. XXXVII, No. 7, pp. 371-372). Please indicate in the next report whether the above modifications are necessary, and provide the information available on any local conditions which may give rise to the maintenance of these modifications.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. The Committee recalls its previous observations, in which it requested the Government to take all appropriate measures to bring the territorial regulations into conformity with the requirements of the Convention, pursuant to the recommendations of the committee of the Administrative Council, put in charge of the examination of the representation made by the Federation of World Trade Unions (FSM) in virtue of article 24 of the Constitution, which alleged non-observance of this Convention by France. In its reply, the Government indicates that Order No. 686/CM of 2 June 1987 fixing the conditions for the organization and financing of professional diving, and Decision No. 87-79 AT of 12 June 1987 fixing the particular measures of protection applicable to divers, will be repealed on 1 December 2001, the date on which Decision No. 2000-130 APF of 26 October 2000 on the occupation of professional divers, on the particular measures of protection applicable to workers, who intervene in a hyperbaric environment, as well as on the organization of their vocational training, will enter into force.

The Committee notes with interest that this Decision provides a new diploma for professional diving composed of four categories, which correspond to those in force in metropolitan France. The Committee also notes that this new classification abolishes the discriminating effect of the old one, which did not recognize the qualifications of professional divers of Polynesian origin in metropolitan enterprises established on the territory of French Polynesia. Besides, the Committee notes that the new Decision introduces a system of diver training, the safety provisions of which are adapted to the requirements of professional diving, distinct and stricter than those for amateur diving. Nevertheless, the Committee notes that, according to its indications in its last report, the Government considers the text of the Decision not to be in conformity with the general principles of labour law and has accordingly referred this Decision to the competent jurisdiction for the purpose of repealing some of its provisions. In this respect, the Committee requests the Government to specify the provisions in question and to inform it of any development concerning the revision procedure of this Decision on the occupation of professional divers.

The Committee finally notes Order No. 98-5222 of 24 June 1998 on the actualization and adaptation of the labour law in territories, communities and departments overseas, which completes the Outline Law No. 86-845 of 17 July 1986 fixing the general principles of labour law in French Polynesia. It asks the Government to continue to supply, in accordance with Part V of the report form, information on the application of the Convention, including, for instance, extracts of official reports, copies of collective agreements or decisions of conciliatory bodies, as well as information on any practical difficulty faced in the application of the Convention.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes with regret that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following points:

The Committee notes that, at its 265th Session (March 1996), the Governing Body adopted the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by France of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 82). The allegations concerned the content and application of regulations on the training, certification and safety prescriptions (diving schedules) that are applicable to underwater divers employed on pearl farms, which were adopted by the authorities of French Polynesia in 1987. In its representation, the WFTU considered that, in view of the number of permanent disabilities or deaths among divers, these regulations were inadequate and deficient. In addition, they were discriminatory in that they barred divers trained in French Polynesia from access to employment in companies coming under the regulations of metropolitan France. In accordance with the recommendations set out in the above-mentioned report, the Government is asked to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the territorial regulation, the need for whose revision has been recognized, is brought into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 82, inter alia by eliminating provisions that can result in indirect discrimination and by aligning training strictly with the requirements of professional diving. The Government is also asked to provide, in its reports on the application of the Convention, detailed information on the adoption of the laws and regulations to which it referred during the above procedure, in order to ensure the health and safety of professional divers in the territory of French Polynesia.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1999.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation on the following points:

The Committee notes that, at its 265th Session (March 1996), the Governing Body adopted the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by France of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 82). The allegations concerned the content and application of regulations on the training, certification and safety prescriptions (diving schedules) that are applicable to underwater divers employed on pearl farms, which were adopted by the authorities of French Polynesia in 1987. In its representation, the WFTU considered that, in view of the number of permanent disabilities or deaths among divers, these regulations were inadequate and deficient. In addition, they were discriminatory in that they barred divers trained in French Polynesia from access to employment in companies coming under the regulations of metropolitan France. In accordance with the recommendations set out in the above-mentioned report, the Government is asked to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the territorial regulation, the need for whose revision has been recognized, is brought into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 82, inter alia by eliminating provisions that can result in indirect discrimination and by aligning training strictly with the requirements of professional diving. The Government is also asked to provide, in its reports on the application of the Convention, detailed information on the adoption of the laws and regulations to which it referred during the above procedure, in order to ensure the health and safety of professional divers in the territory of French Polynesia.

The Committee asks the Government to make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that, at its 265th Session (March 1996), the Governing Body adopted the report of the Committee set up to examine the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) under article 24 of the ILO Constitution, alleging non-observance by France of the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) and the Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 82). The allegations concerned the content and application of regulations on the training, certification and safety prescriptions (diving schedules) that are applicable to underwater divers employed on pearl farms, which were adopted by the authorities of French Polynesia in 1987. In its representation, the WFTU considered that, in view of the number of permanent disabilities or deaths among divers, these regulations were inadequate and deficient. In addition, they were discriminatory in that they barred divers trained in French Polynesia from access to employment in companies coming under the regulations of metropolitan France.

In accordance with the recommendations set out in the above-mentioned report, the Government is asked to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the territorial regulation, the need for whose revision has been recognized, is brought into conformity with the requirements of Convention No. 82, inter alia by eliminating provisions that can result in indirect discrimination and by aligning training strictly with the requirements of professional diving. The Government is also asked to provide, in its reports on the application of the Convention, detailed information on the adoption of the laws and regulations to which it referred during the above procedure, in order to ensure the health and safety of professional divers in the territory of French Polynesia.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1997.]

CMNT_TITLE

The Committee notes that at its 261st Session (November 1994) the Governing Body set up a tripartite committee to examine a representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging non-observance by France of Conventions Nos. 81 and 82.

In accordance with its normal practice, the Committee is suspending its comments on the application of the Convention until the Governing Body adopts the conclusions and recommendations of the above tripartite committee.