Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2002, publiée 91ème session CIT (2003)

The Committee notes the Government’s report and the information provided in response to its previous observation.

1. The Committee recalls that for many years it has been commenting on the policy of "gabonization" of jobs and its implementation in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. In its observation of 2001, the Committee noted the national pact on employment concluded in June 2000 between the Employers’ Confederation of Gabon (CPG), the Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (COSYGA) and the Free Trade Union Confederation of Gabon (CGSL), under which: enterprises operating in Gabon encourage the economic integration or reintegration of Gabonese jobseekers by systematically substituting them, wherever possible, for any foreign workers who are laid off, resign or reach the age of retirement; and for the purpose of "gabonization" all posts held by foreigners may be filled by Gabonese. The Committee recalled its previous comments to the effect that, by virtue of Article 2, the Convention applies to all salaried workers and that, although nationality is not mentioned in Article 5 among the factors which do not constitute valid grounds for dismissal, the protection afforded by the other Articles, particularly Articles 8 and 9, applies both to foreigners and to nationals. The Committee stressed the need for implementation of the gabonization policy to be consistent with the provisions of Article 4, which establish that grounds for dismissal must be valid and related to the worker’s capacity for the job or conduct, or based on the operational requirements of the enterprise, establishment or service.

In its report received in September 2002, the Government indicates that the policy of gabonization is implemented with discernment and encourages the occupational integration of nationals while settling at the time of hiring the conditions for the employment and departure of foreign workers, in compliance with section 2 of Decree No. 00663/PR/MTPS of 5 July 1972. As a result, very few complaints have been filed against dismissals of foreigners.

The Committee notes the Government’s reply. It still has concerns, however, as to whether at the implementation of the policy of gabonization of jobs is consistent with the provisions of the Convention. The guarantees cited by the Government may not be adequate to afford the protection of foreign workers required by Article 4 of the Convention. It trusts that the Government will take all necessary steps to ensure that, in the absence of any valid concerns mentioned in Article 4, the gabonization of a job may not be cited as a valid concern for dismissal within the meaning of the Convention.

The Committee will accordingly devote close attention to the next report of the Government in which it hopes to find practical information on the application of the provisions of the Convention, and particularly information on the number of complaints against dismissals of foreign and national workers, the results thereof, the nature of the redress granted and the average time needed for a ruling to be handed down and the number of dismissals, if any, linked to implementation of the National Employment Pact (Part V of the report form).

2. Article 8, paragraph 2. With reference to the provisions of sections 296-298 of the Labour Code under which a decision by the labour inspectorate to allow dismissal of a staff delegate may be challenged in the administrative courts, the Committee notes the Government’s reply that there seems to be no obstacle to the impugning of a decision by the labour inspectorate to authorize individual or collective dismissals on economic grounds.

3. Article 9, paragraph 3. The Committee also notes that the Government refers to an order of 27 June 1988 of the Libreville court of appeal and states that the labour tribunal has the authority to ascertain whether decisions by the labour inspector to authorize individual or collective dismissals on economic grounds are well founded.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]