Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2022, published 111st ILC session (2023)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2017, published 107th ILC session (2018)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Severance allowance. Collective dismissals. The Committee previously noted a communication of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), forwarded to the Government in October 2008, in which the UGTC referred to the dismissal of 215 workers in a shipyard enterprise without consultation. The Government indicates that the restructuring process of the reorganized or liquidated state enterprises has led to the creation of several committees in which representatives of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security participated. At the end of this process, a total of 22,553,594,820 Communauté Financière Africaine francs (XAF) was paid to 13,310 former employees of 49 companies. The Committee notes Decision No. 06/1438/CF of 10 July 2006 on the creation, organization and operation of the tripartite committee set up to assess the balance of social rights of the former employees of the liquidated or restructured state companies. The severance allowances of the workers dismissed from the liquidated or restructured state companies were assessed by a tripartite committee. Once that work had been completed, the Committee sent a report to the minister responsible for finance and the procedure for the settlement of those entitlements is now under way. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in its next report whether the dismissed workers are 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).

Article 4. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. The Government indicates that full effect is given to the provisions of Article 4 through the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, which are reproduced in collective agreements. The Committee notes several court decisions handed down by the High Court in which the reasons given were not regarded as valid reasons, namely:

–           termination of employment for early retirement which is not based on the worker’s will or a negotiated agreement;

–           termination of the employment of a staff representative without requesting the opinion of the joint managers and without the authorization of the competent labour inspector; and

–           termination of employment not justified by professional misconduct on the part of the worker.

The Committee requests the Government to continue providing up to date examples of court decisions on cases of wrongful dismissal.

Article 5(c) and (d). Invalid reasons for termination. The Government indicates that the reasons set out in section 39 of the Labour Code are not exhaustive and that paragraph 2 of that section provides that the competent court may rule that a dismissal was wrongful following an investigation into the causes and circumstances of the termination of the employment contract and that the reasons which may be mentioned in the court decision include race, colour, sex and marital status. The Government also indicates that sections 9 and 10 of Act No. 2005/006 of 29 July 2005 on the status of refugees in Cameroon strengthens the protection of refugees against termination of employment. The Committee recalls that the filing of a complaint or the participation in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violation of laws or regulations or recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c)), as well as 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. The Committee requests the Government to provide examples of court decisions relating to invalid reasons for termination.

Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Committee notes the extracts of the collective agreements applicable to certain categories of workers, such as those working in insurance, road transport and pharmacies, in which workers are given the right to justify themselves before termination of their employment. The Committee requests the Government to indicate how it is ensured that all workers, particularly those not covered by collective agreements, have the possibility of defending themselves against allegations made against them with regard to their conduct or performance before their employment is terminated.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government once again indicates that any appeal against unjustified or wrongful termination automatically results in a claim for wages or damages for breach of contract. The Committee notes that section 74(1) of the Labour Code stipulates a limitation of three years for an action to recover wages or compensation for breach of contract. The Committee asks the Government to communicate the judicial decisions ensuring that the time limit for the appeal procedure against an unjustified dismissal is three years.

Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Definition of serious misconduct. The Government indicates that it does not currently have the material resources to make inquiries to the competent courts to obtain the court decisions handed down relating to termination of employment for serious misconduct. A collection of the leading judgements in labour case law is in the process of being produced under the programme to support the implementation of the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (PAMODEC). The Committee observes that the principal manner in which these important provisions of the Convention are made effective is by means of court decisions. The Committee hopes that progress will be made with the assistance of the ILO and that the Government will be able to provide up to date information on the application of the Convention in practice (particularly court decisions), as well as statistics on the number of terminations for economic reasons, the number of appeals against terminations and the compensation granted (Part V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2011.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2008, published 98th ILC session (2009)

1. Collective dismissals. The Committee notes the Government’s reply to the comments made by the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC) and the General Confederation of Labour–Liberty of Cameroon (CGTL) referred to in the observation of 2007. In its reply received in February 2008, the Government states that the procedure laid down in section 40 of the Labour Code was observed in the dismissals in public and semi-public companies. The dismissals occurred only after measures to avoid them had been exhausted. The compensation claims of the workers dismissed from the state companies were examined by a committee chaired by the Minister of Finance. The Committee again points out that compliance with the principles set forth in the Convention can facilitate the development of socially responsible economic activity when decisions are made regarding collective dismissals. Terminations for reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature must be consistent with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention on consultation with the workers’ representatives and notification to the competent authority. In a new communication forwarded to the Government in October 2008, the UGTC raised concerns over the dismissal of 215 workers without consultation. The Committee asks the Government to report on decisions taken to ensure the provision of a severance allowance and other income protection for workers dismissed by their employers. It would like to be in a position to ascertain whether such measures to mitigate the adverse effects of dismissals have been taken pursuant to Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Committee also requests the Government to provide information on the observation made by the UGTC in November 2008.

2. The Committee notes with regret that the Government has not reported on the following matters contained in the observation of 2007. It trusts that the Government will provide a report replying to the matters already raised in the Committee’s observation of 2006, which read as follows:

Article 4. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement 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 indicates 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.

Article 5(c) and (d).  Invalid reasons for termination set out in the Convention. The Government indicates 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 refers to its 2002 direct request relating to Article 5(c) and (d), as well as the comments that it made in 2004 on the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 111. It 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.

Article 7. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Government indicates that collective agreements and internal rules give effect to the provisions of Article 7. The Committee refers to the observations made in 2001 by the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USCL) to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. 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.

Article 8, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates 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.

Articles 11 and 12, paragraph 3. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates 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.

Parts IV and V of the report form. Application of the provisions of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that copies of court decisions relating to questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention will be forwarded subsequently. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of providing information regularly 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 (Parts IV and V of the report form).

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

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.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2006, published 96th ILC session (2007)

1. The Committee notes the Government’s report and the observations of the General Union of Cameroon Workers (UGTC) received in September 2006. The UGTC indicates that, under the pretext of complying with the conditions imposed by the international financial institutions, the country has embarked upon dismissals in companies that are to be liquidated or privatized. Over 5,000 workers have been dismissed in certain state enterprises. The UGTC indicates that the restructuring operations may continue into 2007. The Committee points out that compliance with the principles contained 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 have to be in compliance with the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, particularly with regard to 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.

2. Determination of valid reasons for termination of employment. The Committee notes the Government’s statement 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 indicates 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. Invalid reasons for termination set out in the Convention. The Government indicates 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 refers to its 2002 direct request relating to Article 5(c) and (d), as well as the comments that it made in 2004 on the application of Article 1 of Convention No. 111. It 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. Defence procedure prior to termination of employment. The Government indicates that collective agreements and internal rules give effect to the provisions of Article 7. The Committee refers to the observations made in 2001 by the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USCL) to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. 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.

5. Time limits for the appeal procedure. The Government indicates 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. Definition of serious misconduct. The Committee notes 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. It 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. Application of the provisions of the Convention in practice. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that copies of court decisions relating to questions of principle concerning the application of the Convention will be forwarded subsequently. It draws the Government’s attention to the importance of providing information regularly 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 (Parts IV and V of the report form).

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2007.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report for the period ending September 2000. It also notes the communication from the Federation of Free Trade Unions of Cameroon (USLC), a copy of which was forwarded to the Government in March 2001. The Committee would be grateful for additional information on the following points.

Article 4 of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s indications that the reasons which are considered valid for termination of employment are not set out in national laws or regulations. It recalls that, under the terms of Article 1 of the Convention, in so far as the provisions of the Convention are not made effective by means of collective agreements, arbitration awards or court decisions or in such other manner as may be consistent with national practice, they have to be given effect by national laws or regulations. The Government is therefore requested to provide copies of the decisions of arbitration boards or tribunals or collective agreements setting out reasons for which termination of employment is permitted.

Article 5(c). The USLC indicates that the reasons given for the termination of employment are in most cases without legal basis, particularly in the case of dismissals of staff delegates. The Committee notes that, under the terms of the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, termination of employment is considered to be abusive when it is by reason of opinions held by workers, their membership or otherwise of a trade union (section 39 of the Labour Code), their position as staff delegates (section 130) or during the maternity leave of women workers (section 84). The Government is however requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured in law and practice that the fact of having filed a complaint or participated in proceedings against an employer involving alleged violations of laws or regulations, or adopted recourse to competent administrative authorities (Article 5(c) of the Convention) do not constitute valid reasons for termination.

Article 5(d). Under the terms of this provision, race, colour, sex, marital status, family responsibilities, religion, political opinion, national extraction and social origin do not constitute valid reasons for termination. In this respect, the Committee refers to its direct request of 2000 on the application of Convention No. 111, in which it noted the Government’s statement that it is difficult in legal terms to establish that a worker has been dismissed because of his or her political activities, since employers contrive to find some professional or economic pretext for the dismissal. The Committee requested the Government to illustrate its comments by providing further information on appeals lodged in recent years against wrongful dismissals. The Committee notes that in its last report on the application of Convention No. 158 the Government states that all the provisions of Article 5 of the Convention are incorporated into the laws and regulations respecting termination of employment. It requests the Government to provide with its next report on the application of Convention No. 158 copies of judicial decisions setting out the principles relating to the reasons for termination of employment enumerated in Article 5(d) of the Convention and to indicate the provisions of national laws or regulations which have been adopted or are envisaged to give full effect to Article 5(d).

Article 7. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the manner in which the right to defend themselves prior to termination, as required by Article 7, is ensured for all workers. The Government is requested to supply copies of judicial decisions, model employment contracts, internal regulations and collective agreements which illustrate the manner in which effect is given to this provision of the Convention.

The Committee notes the comments made by the USLC to the effect that observance of the procedures established in laws or regulations is not ensured, particularly in cases of dismissal of staff delegates and trade union representatives. The Committee notes that under the relevant provisions any dispute concerning the reasons for termination cannot be brought to the courts unless an agreed settlement has not been possible (section 139 of the Labour Code). It also notes Circular No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990 of the Ministry of Labour and Social Insurance, which emphasizes the need to treat applications for authorization to dismiss staff delegates with greater care and recalls certain protective principles. It requests the Government to inform it of any cases or judicial decisions demonstrating that the protection set out in law is ensured in practice.

Article 8, paragraph 3. The Government is requested to indicate how effect is given to this provision of the Convention by indicating the time limits within which a worker must exercise his or her right to appeal against termination of employment.

Articles 11, and 12, paragraph 3. The Government indicates in its report that case law defines grave misconduct as a serious act involving the will to harm and making it impossible to continue the employment relationship. It also states that it is the responsibility of the competent jurisdiction to assess the seriousness of the misconduct. The Committee requests the Government to provide copies of decisions by competent authorities setting out principles relating to the definition of grave misconduct.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

-  circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

-  circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

-  circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

-  circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

-  copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1999, published 88th ILC session (2000)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

-- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

-- circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

-- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

-- circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

-- copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

With reference to its previous requests, the Committee urges the Government to send the following texts referred to in its first report and which have still not reached the Office, so that the Committee can examine the first report in the light of these texts at its next session:

- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SRP of 28 March 1985;

- circular letter No. 18/MTPS/DT/SRP of 10 October 1988;

- circular letter No. 05/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 23 March 1989;

- circular letter No. 16/MTPS/DT/SIOP of 8 June 1990;

- copies of collective agreements in force in Cameroon which supplement the above texts.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would communicate, in accordance with point I of the report form, copies of the legislation and administrative regulations, etc. mentioned in the report, so that the Committee may examine them at its next session.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

The Committee takes note of the information supplied by the Government in its first report on the application of the Convention. It would be grateful if the Government would communicate, in accordance with point I of the report form, copies of the legislation and administrative regulations, etc. mentioned in the report, so that the Committee may examine them at its next session.