Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2006, Publication: 95th ILC session (2006)

A Government representative recalled the historical context, which had led to the current revision of the Labour Code. Djibouti, linguistically enclosed in the horn of Africa, had inherited an advantageous legislation from its colonial past, but this legislation had been drawn up to profit only one category of workers, the expatriate workers. It was not adapted to modern economic realities, nor did it correspond to the requirements of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and it was an obstacle to foreign investors and a dilemma for the State. A first revision was undertaken in 1997 through Act No. 140. The labour market was liberalized, the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage was abolished, as was the procedure for prior administrative authorization for dismissal for economic reasons. This reform was followed by a thorough revision that lasted for seven years, taking into consideration the comments from the partners, employers and trade unions, with the support from the ILO and the Arab Labour Organization (ALO). This new Labour Code, adopted on 25 December 2005, was promulgated on 28 January 2006, and a copy would be transmitted to the ILO. The new Code was adapted to the context of globalization, meaning that the State no longer intervened in the setting of minimum wages or in the procedure of hiring labour, except in the case of foreign workers. The State intervened less in the settlement of collective labour disputes, leaving this task to a tripartite arbitration committee. The State left the field to the social partners to discuss through dialogue and negotiation but, at the same time, recognized the role of trade unions, trade unionists and the workers' delegates at the enterprise level. During a period of three years, the social partners would be entirely free to revise collective agreements and the Government hoped that minimum wages, particularly at the branch level, would be reintroduced through these revisions.

The Employer members, noting the information supplied by the Government representative concerning the history leading up to the changes in the labour law, expressed their astonishment that the new Labour Code had been adopted only in 2006 and had not yet been sent to the secretariat. In their view, the Convention required engagement, not only by the Government, but by the social partners. They recalled that the General Survey on minimum wages of 1992, in its paragraph 396, had stressed the importance of ILO standards on minimum wage in ensuring a minimum wage to workers that would enable them to meet their subsistence needs and those of their families adequately in the context of the economic and social conditions of the country in which they lived. These standards, therefore, already took into account the economic and social context of the country. The explanations provided by the Government representative that Djibouti was seeking greater room for supply and demand in the setting of wages and that this would enable greater wage negotiation were not satisfactory. Similarly, citing the Labour Code without supplying it to the Committee of Experts for examination was also an unsatisfactory response. The Employer members hoped that the Government would provide with its next report practical information concerning the branches of economic activity and the various categories of workers covered by collective agreements, copies of recent collective agreements containing clauses fixing minimum wages, and the approximate number of workers whose remuneration was not regulated by collective agreement.

The Worker members stated that this case was both a simple and complex one. It was simple because Article 1 of the Convention stipulated that, in the absence of collective agreement, the Government was bound to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages could be fixed. The amendment to the Labour Code of 1997 abolished the minimum pay rate and the wage-fixing machinery, and there was no longer any method or a minimum wage and the law of supply and demand applied. Due to lack of information, the sectors or categories of workers eventually covered by a collective agreement were not known. Likewise, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, consultations with employers' and workers' organizations were obligatory for freely deciding sectors and mechanisms for the establishment of minimum wages. The case was a complex issue because this basic condition was related to both freedom of association within the meaning of Convention No. 87 (without trade unions there was no consultation) and also to Convention No. 98, which regulated, in particular, freedom to bargain collectively, a freedom as important for prior consultation as for the contractual aspects of Convention No. 26. Taking this into consideration, together with the comments of the Committee of Experts, it was necessary to examine the application of these two fundamental Conventions. And yet, the information and reports received led to believe that freedom of association and collective bargaining were not guaranteed in Djibouti. The Worker members, therefore, suggested that these aspects should be the subject of a coordinated and global examination.

The Worker member of Senegal stated that Djibouti's violation of Convention No. 26 should be added to its long list of numerous violations of international labour standards. He highlighted the Government's attacks on the rights of trade unionists, who where victims of abusive dismissals, judicial harassment and arbitrary arrests. The new Labour Code of 2006 did not contain any provisions with respect to minimum wages and had not taken account of the comments by the Committee of Experts. It had been adopted unanimously by the National Assembly due to the fact that the party in power controlled all the seats. However, no amendments proposed by trade unions had been retained or incorporated into the text. The speaker stressed that the Government should put an end to its anti-union repression, reinstate all unlawfully dismissed trade unionists, as it had agreed to do in the peace agreement concluded in 2001, put in place a legal framework for social dialogue and, finally, respect all international commitments it had undertaken.

An observer representing the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), speaking with the authorization of the Officers of the Committee, expressed her deep concern about the respect for the fixing of minimum wages in Djibouti, and the capacity of the social partners to set these minimum wages. In 1997, the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage was abolished and the new Labour Code of 28 January 2006 confirmed this policy, leaving the minimum wage outside of any legislation other than enterprise agreements or collective agreements. Many of these collective agreements were very old and the majority had not been renewed. Therefore, the wages offered by the enterprises to employees were generally accepted in view of the high unemployment rate plaguing the country, which did not allow them to refuse. Thus, while the Convention foresaw consultation and agreement by employers' and workers' organizations on the establishment of a minimum wage-fixing mechanism, the trade unions generally did not participate in the elaboration of collective agreements or enterprise agreements since these had not been renegotiated since the independence of the country in 1976. Moreover, in the last ten years in Djibouti, the independent trade unions were the subject of constant and serious attacks, ranging from police and judicial harassment to dismissal and even the imprisonment of trade union leaders. This was the case in February 2006, when four leaders of the Labour Union of Djibouti (UDT), the country's most representative trade union, were imprisoned for a month, and they were currently being prosecuted for "spying for a foreign power" and hence deprived of their passports. It was impossible to discuss with social partners that had been put into prison. The capacity of the trade unions to play the role, which the Convention attributed to them was thus very limited, especially in light of the restrictions that the new Labour Code set for the creation of unions by reinforcing the requirements of prior authorization. These new provisions allowed the authorities to choose the social partners with which to negotiate. This became manifest with the creation in March 2006, of a union of maritime service and transportation personnel, which was established to compete with existing unions affiliated with the UDT.

The Government representative replied that instead of discussing the fixing of minimum wage, the preceding speakers had engaged in political diatribe. He stated that he had heard similar allegations made by the ICFTU on another occasion at which he had asked it to name its sources. He was told that these sources were based on written information. In both instances, he invited trade unions and non-governmental organizations to come to Djibouti to carry out their inquiries on the spot. He emphasized that in the elaboration of the Labour Code, the Government had consulted the ILO and the ALO, as well as the social partners. Moreover, a mission of trade unions from the United States had visited the country and had been warmly received. The Government felt it had to attract foreign investors and, at the same time, continue to protect social rights. Djibouti was not an exceptional case since many countries faced the same dilemma. In an effort to solve this dilemma, the Government had preferred to explain to the social partners the reasons that had led to the adoption of the new Labour Code and to leave to them the free negotiation of the minimum wage. The examples mentioned by the International Federation for Human Rights involved well-known trade unionists who were also politicians, whereas the law did not allow persons to act in the double capacity of trade unionists and politicians. The Government representative reiterated his invitation to all interested organizations to come and carry out inquiries in his country.

The Employer members stated that the Government representative had not succeeded in his effort to demonstrate to the Conference Committee that his country was seeking to meet its obligations under the Convention, and requested that the Government submit a written report to this Committee on further measures it intended to take. In view of the fact that the explanation provided by the Government representative sought to draw attention to the difficulties encountered by the country, the Employer members urged the Government to seek technical assistance in the form of expertise and guidance on the manner in which these difficulties could be overcome, with the ultimate aim of bringing national legislation into line with the Convention.

The Worker members were astonished that the Government representative, while claiming his country to be open, had questioned the accuracy of telling and overpowering information presented on the question of persecution of trade unionists. Why was it then that in April, two months ago, a representative from the ICFTU and another from the FIDH were refused entrance into the country at the airport of Djibouti, while a representative from the International Labour Office on mission in the country was expelled? It followed from the discussion that the Government had not taken any measures to establish a minimum wage-fixing machinery outside of collective agreements, and that it had failed to respect the requirement for prior consultation with the social partners foreseen in the provisions of Conventions Nos. 87 and 98. The Government should cease taking coercive action against trade unionists and, in particular, against the UDT, so that a climate conducive to voluntary collective bargaining could be established as soon as possible. It should also take, as a matter of priority, the measures necessary to ensure in law and practice the principles on freedom of association, reflected in Articles 2 and 3 of Convention No. 26, and to amend the part of the new Labour Code that set forth requirements for the establishment of trade unions. The Committee of Experts should re-examine the interrelationship between the principles underlying the minimum wage-fixing machinery set out in Convention No. 26 and the right to free collective bargaining enshrined in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2023, published 112nd ILC session (2024)

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

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2010, published 100th ILC session (2011)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention. Establishment of minimum wage fixing machinery. Further to its previous comments on the abolition of the system of the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG), the Committee notes the Government’s explanations to the effect that this decision was taken under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which required the Government to adopt a raft of measures, including liberalization of the labour market, to be the beneficiary of a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). The Government adds that it made the choice of deregulation rather than leave the SMIG in place, since the balance of public finances would have been seriously jeopardized and wages would not have been guaranteed, thereby threatening the social peace and stability of the country. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the establishment of minimum wage fixing machinery outside the system of collective bargaining is essential for ensuring effective social protection for workers who are not covered by the rules of collective agreements, and that the Government must take the necessary steps to ensure that collectively agreed minimum wage rates are binding and the application thereof is linked to a system of supervision and effective penalties.

The Committee therefore concludes that the situation remains unchanged. Apart from the Government’s indication that the matter would be studied by the new National Council for Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (CNT), the Convention is no longer applied either in law or in practice. The CNT was set up pursuant to Decree No. 2008-0023/PR/MESN of 20 January 2008 as a tripartite structure to enable the Government and the social partners to exchange ideas in a free and open manner. In this regard, the Government points out that there is increasing talk of the possibility of reintroducing the SMIG for each branch of economic activity. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the planned meeting of the CNT and any decisions regarding the reintroduction of the national minimum wage rate. It also requests the Government to send its comments in reply to the observations made by the General Union of Djibouti Workers (UGTD) sent to the Government in September 2007.

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

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

Article 1 of the Convention. Establishment of minimum wage fixing machinery. Further to its previous comments on the abolition of the system of the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG), the Committee notes the Government’s explanations to the effect that this decision was taken under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which required the Government to adopt a raft of measures, including liberalization of the labour market, to be the beneficiary of a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). The Government adds that it made the choice of deregulation rather than leave the SMIG in place, since the balance of public finances would have been seriously jeopardized and wages would not have been guaranteed, thereby threatening the social peace and stability of the country. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the establishment of minimum wage fixing machinery outside the system of collective bargaining is essential for ensuring effective social protection for workers who are not covered by the rules of collective agreements, and that the Government must take the necessary steps to ensure that collectively agreed minimum wage rates are binding and the application thereof is linked to a system of supervision and effective penalties.

The Committee therefore concludes that the situation remains unchanged. Apart from the Government’s indication that the matter would be studied by the new National Council for Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (CNT), the Convention is no longer applied either in law or in practice. The CNT was set up pursuant to Decree No. 2008-0023/PR/MESN of 20 January 2008 as a tripartite structure to enable the Government and the social partners to exchange ideas in a free and open manner. In this regard, the Government points out that there is increasing talk of the possibility of reintroducing the SMIG for each branch of economic activity. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the planned meeting of the CNT and any decisions regarding the reintroduction of the national minimum wage rate. It also requests the Government to send its comments in reply to the observations made by the General Union of Djibouti Workers (UGTD) sent to the Government in September 2007.

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

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

Article 1 of the Convention. Establishment of minimum wage-fixing machinery. Further to its previous comments on the abolition of the system of the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG), the Committee notes the Government’s explanations to the effect that this decision was taken under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which required the Government to adopt a raft of measures, including liberalization of the labour market, to be the beneficiary of a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP). The Government adds that it made the choice of deregulation rather than leave the SMIG in place, since the balance of public finances would have been seriously jeopardized and wages would not have been guaranteed, thereby threatening the social peace and stability of the country. In this regard, the Committee recalls that the establishment of minimum wage-fixing machinery outside the system of collective bargaining is essential for ensuring effective social protection for workers who are not covered by the rules of collective agreements, and that the Government must take the necessary steps to ensure that collectively agreed minimum wage rates are binding and the application thereof is linked to a system of supervision and effective penalties.

The Committee therefore concludes that the situation remains unchanged. Apart from the Government’s indication that the matter would be studied by the new National Council for Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (CNT), the Convention is no longer applied either in law or in practice. The CNT was set up pursuant to Decree No. 2008-0023/PR/MESN of 20 January 2008 as a tripartite structure to enable the Government and the social partners to exchange ideas in a free and open manner. In this regard, the Government points out that there is increasing talk of the possibility of reintroducing the SMIG for each branch of economic activity. The Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the planned meeting of the CNT and any decisions regarding the reintroduction of the national minimum wage rate. It also requests the Government to send its comments in reply to the observations made by the General Union of Djibouti Workers (UGTD) sent to the Government in September 2007.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2009.]

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

The Committee regrets that the Government’s report does not contain any reply to the points raised in the Committee’s previous observation following up on the conclusions of the discussion that took place in the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2006). The Government essentially reiterates that the system of guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG) has been abolished to leave the minimum wage determination to collective bargaining and the law of supply and demand without responding to the concerns expressed by the Conference Committee that, by dismantling the SMIG, large numbers of workers who might not be covered by collective agreements would be deprived of any protection with regard to decent wage levels. The Committee asks the Government to specify in its next report: (i) how it is ensured that collectively agreed minimum wage rates have the force of law and may not be lowered and their non-observance is subject to sanctions; (ii) whether those workers whose remuneration is not regulated by means of collective agreement enjoy any protection as far as minimum acceptable pay rates are concerned.

Moreover, the Committee notes the observations made by the Workers’ Union of Djibouti (UDT) concerning the application of the Convention. According to the UDT, before its abolition the minimum wage system was based on the collective agreement of 1973, as revised in 1976, which set a monthly minimum wage at DJF17,500 (approximately US$100). The new Labour Code of 2006 (Act No. 133/AN/05/5ème L) follows the anti-social orientation of the previous Labour Code of 1997 and makes no provision for a minimum wage system. The UDT indicates that, in practice, the wage scales established in the collective agreement of 1976 continue to apply in the public sector despite the fact that the cost of living has quadrupled in the past 30 years. It also indicates that certain categories of workers, such as dockworkers, domestic workers and shop employees, are regularly paid at rates much lower than the minimum rates provided for in the 1976 collective agreement, and are deprived of any means of action in the light of the unemployment rate estimated at 70 per cent of the active population and the poverty affecting 64 per cent of the population. According to the UDT, only the establishment and operation of a minimum wage fixing machinery, as well as the adoption of legislation enabling workers to recover by judicial means wages to which they are entitled in case of sub-minimum payment, can provide to workers a decent standard of living in conformity with the Convention and the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee requests the Government to transmit any comments it may wish to make in reply to the points raised by the UDT.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2008.]

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

The Committee notes the discussion that took place in the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 95th Session of the International Labour Conference (June 2006). It notes, in particular, the Government’s explanations regarding the reasons that led to the abolition of the system of guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG). It also notes that the new Labour Code (Act No. 133/AN/05/5ème L) promulgated in 2006 contains no reference to a statutory minimum wage and provides instead that wages are to be fixed through collective, enterprise or individual agreements.

The Committee recalls that in its conclusions the Conference Committee expressed concern that by dismantling the SMIG, the Government might deprive large numbers of workers who might not be covered by collective agreements from any protection with regard to minimum acceptable wage levels. Moreover, the Conference Committee requested the Government to take the necessary steps to ensure that minimum wage rates determined by means of collective agreements were legally binding and could not be lowered, and that their non-observance was subject to sanctions. The Conference Committee accordingly asked the Government to supply detailed information to the Committee of Experts concerning the sectors or branches of economic activity and the different categories of workers covered by collective agreements, as well as the approximate number of workers whose remuneration is not regulated by means of collective agreement. The Committee regrets that no reply has so far been received, and hopes that the Government will make every effort to collect and transmit all requested information very shortly.

The Committee understands that the Office has been in contact with the Government with a view to planning a technical assistance mission to follow up on the conclusions of the Conference Committee.

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

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

The Committee notes that, following the amendment of the Labour Code of 1997, no minimum level of remuneration is established in law and all the previous provisions respecting the minimum wage have been repealed. According to the Government’s report, these changes reflect its will to let the law of supply and demand prevail, together with wage negotiations in this field.

The Committee is bound to recall once more that the Convention requires, irrespective of the machinery for fixing minimum wages, compliance with certain principles, such as the need for the minimum rates determined to be binding, the participation of the social partners in all stages of wage negotiations and the imposition of appropriate penalties for violations of the rates that are in force. The Committee again requests the Government to indicate the standards which guarantee these principles in the system for the fixing of minimum wage rates through collective bargaining which has been introduced following the abandonment of the system of the guaranteed inter-occupational minimum wage (SMIG).

Furthermore, the Committee would be grateful to the Government if it would provide with its next report, as the Committee requested it to do in its previous comment, practical information concerning the branches of economic activity and the various categories of workers covered by collective agreements, copies of recent collective agreements containing clauses fixing minimum wages, and the approximate number of workers whose remuneration is not regulated by collective agreement.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. It would also like to be kept informed of the work on the formulation of the new Labour Code and it requests the Government to provide a copy of the new text once it has been finalized.

[The Government is asked to reply full particulars to the Conference at its 95th Session.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee notes the Government’s summary statement in response to its previous comments. The Committee understands that the Government does not intend to reintroduce a guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG) and that remuneration levels will continue to be determined through collective or enterprise agreements in accordance with section 31 of Act No. 140/AN/97/3ème L of 23 September 1997 amending the Labour Code of 1952. Under the circumstances, the Committee considers it appropriate to recall that the Convention is not an instrument of wage policy but rather a statement of the basic principles to be applied regardless of the form or type of the wage-setting system, which means that: (i) minimum wages must have force of law; (ii) they may not be subject to abatement; (iii) failure to apply them must be appropriately penalized; and (iv) the social partners must be fully consulted at all stages of the wage-fixing process. It therefore once again requests the Government to specify the normative texts which ensure that the wage rates freely negotiated in collective agreements are legally binding and may not be lowered and that non-observance is subject to sanctions, as required under the relevant provisions of the Convention. The Committee also asks the Government to provide in its next report concrete information concerning the branches of economic activity and the different categories of workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, including copies of any recent collective agreement containing minimum wages, and the approximate number of workers whose remuneration is not regulated by means of collective agreement.

The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will not fail to take due account of the above observations in finalizing the text of the new Labour Code and asks the Government to keep it informed of all future developments in this regard.

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

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 notes the information contained in the Government’s reports, particularly Act No. 140/AN/97/3ème L of 23 September 1997 amending the Labour Code of 1952. In its reports the Government indicates that it opted for deregulation allowing wages to be determined by the laws of supply and demand and negotiations between the partners and that, since the above Act was promulgated, the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG) system is no longer in force. The Committee notes in this connection that, under section 31 of Act No. 140/AN/97/3ème L of 23 September 1997, the remuneration set in labour contracts is the result of enterprise agreements, collective agreements or an agreement between the parties to the contract and that no minimum wage has been set by law. It also notes that the Act nullifies the former provisions introducing a minimum wage.

The Committee is bound to recall that, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government undertakes to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in certain of the trades or parts of trades in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low. The Committee further recalls that, as it stated in its General Survey on 1992 on minimum wages, collective agreements constitute minimum wage-fixing machinery within the meaning of the Convention only if they ensure that the minimum wages fixed are binding, which means that: (i) the wages must have force of law; (ii) the wages may not be lowered; and (iii) failure to apply them must be appropriately penalized. The Committee observes that, the SMIG system having been abandoned, the Government leaves minimum wage fixing entirely to the social partners. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the laws or regulations which ensure that the wage rates freely negotiated in collective agreements have force of law and may not be lowered and that non-compliance is subject to sanctions, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee further notes that a new Labour Code is in the process of being prepared and that the provisions of the Act of 1997 should be reproduced in full in the Code. It hopes in this connection that the Government will bear in mind that when a member State ratifies a Convention, it undertakes to apply and enforce its provisions. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will do its utmost to ensure that the new Code continues to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. It asks the Government to inform it of progress in its next report and to provide a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2001, published 90th ILC session (2002)

The Committee notes the information contained in the Government’s reports, particularly Act No. 140/AN/97/3ème L of 23 September 1997 amending the Labour Code of 1952. In its reports the Government indicates that it opted for deregulation allowing wages to be determined by the laws of supply and demand and negotiations between the partners and that, since the above Act was promulgated, the guaranteed interoccupational minimum wage (SMIG) system is no longer in force. The Committee notes in this connection that, under section 31 of Act No. 140/AN/97/3ème L of 23 September 1997, the remuneration set in labour contracts is the result of enterprise agreements, collective agreements or an agreement between the parties to the contract and that no minimum wage has been set by law. It also notes that the Act nullifies the former provisions introducing a minimum wage.

The Committee is bound to recall that, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Government undertakes to create or maintain machinery whereby minimum rates of wages can be fixed for workers employed in certain of the trades or parts of trades in which no arrangements exist for the effective regulation of wages by collective agreement or otherwise and wages are exceptionally low. The Committee further recalls that, as it stated in its General Survey on 1992 on minimum wages, collective agreements constitute minimum wage-fixing machinery within the meaning of the Convention only if they ensure that the minimum wages fixed are binding, which means that: (i) the wages must have force of law; (ii) the wages may not be lowered; and (iii) failure to apply them must be appropriately penalized. The Committee observes that, the SMIG system having been abandoned, the Government leaves minimum wage fixing entirely to the social partners. It therefore requests the Government to indicate the laws or regulations which ensure that the wage rates freely negotiated in collective agreements have force of law and may not be lowered and that non-compliance is subject to sanctions, in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.

The Committee further notes that a new Labour Code is in the process of being prepared and that the provisions of the Act of 1997 should be reproduced in full in the Code. It hopes in this connection that the Government will bear in mind that when a member State ratifies a Convention, it undertakes to apply and enforce its provisions. The Committee therefore trusts that the Government will do its utmost to ensure that the new Code continues to give full effect to the provisions of the Convention. It asks the Government to inform it of progress in its next report and to provide a copy of the new Code as soon as it has been adopted.

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

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: The Committee notes that the last Government's report confined itself to stating that no change has occurred. It also notes that the last time that the Government supplied information on the results of the application of minimum wage fixing machinery was in 1980. It hopes that the Government will supply this information in its next report, with an indication of the approximate number of workers covered, the minimum rates of wages fixed and the more important of the other conditions, if any, established relevant to the minimum rates, as provided for by Article 5 of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee notes that the last Government's report confined itself to stating that no change has occurred. It also notes that the last time that the Government supplied information on the results of the application of minimum wage-fixing machinery was in 1980. It hopes that the Government will supply this information in its next report, with an indication of the approximate number of workers covered, the minimum rates of wages fixed and the more important of the other conditions, if any, established relevant to the minimum rates, as provided for by Article 5 of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

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 following matters raised in its previous direct request:

The Committee notes that the last Government's report confined itself to stating that no change has occurred. It also notes that the last time that the Government supplied information on the results of the application of minimum wage-fixing machinery was in 1980. It hopes that the Government will supply this information in its next report, with an indication of the approximate number of workers covered, the minimum rates of wages fixed and the more important of the other conditions, if any, established relevant to the minimum rates, as provided for by Article 5 of the Convention.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes that the Government's report confines itself to stating that no change has occurred. It also notes that the last time that the Government supplied information on the results of the application of minimum wage-fixing machinery was in 1980. It hopes that the Government will supply this information in its next report, with an indication of the approximate number of workers covered, the minimum rates of wages fixed and the more important of the other conditions, if any, established relevant to the minimum rates, as provided for by Article 5 of the Convention.