ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Page d'accueil > Profils par pays >  > Commentaires

Observation (CEACR) - adoptée 2020, publiée 109ème session CIT (2021)

Convention (n° 158) sur le licenciement, 1982 - Cameroun (Ratification: 1988)

Autre commentaire sur C158

Afficher en : Francais - EspagnolTout voir

The Committee notes the information contained in the report of the Government received in September 2020.
The Committee also notes the observations of the General Union of Workers of Cameroon (UGTC), received on 6 November 2020. The Government is requested to provide its comments in this regard.
Article 2 of the Convention. Categories of workers excluded. In its reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that with the exception of public servants governed by the General Public Service Regulations, a worker is any person working under the authority of an employer in exchange for remuneration and is protected by the Labour Code of 1992. In its observations, the UGTC asserts that men and women domestic workers are often subject to wrongful dismissal. The Committee once again requests the Government to provide copies of the legislative texts that apply to domestic workers in relation to the Convention. The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the manner in which it ensures adequate protection in the spheres covered by the Convention to workers in the informal economy. The Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the conditions of employment of public servants afford those concerned protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Convention.
Article 8. Procedure of appeal. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the Cameroon United Workers Confederation (CTUC), which considered that the terminations of workers in certain enterprises were not in conformity with the procedure established under national legislation, since no authorization for termination had been sought or granted by the labour inspector. The Government reiterates that the procedure for the dismissal of workers is established in section 34(1) of the Labour Code and the implementing regulations thereto and indicates that field labour inspectors ensure compliance with this provision day and night. The UGTC alleges that although the Government claims that labour inspectors conduct inspections day and night, labour inspectors do not carry out monitoring at night, even though they are allowed to do so by law. Furthermore, according to the UGTC, inspectors wait until complaints from workers reach them before instituting conciliation procedures instead of carrying out preventive monitoring in enterprises. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of this Article, including with regard to the procedure for the authorization of terminations.
Article 11. Notice period. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations of the CTUC indicating that, in practice, employers terminate the employment of workers without observing the obligation to give a notice period as established by section 34(1) of the Labour Code. The Government refers once again to section 34 of the Labour Code and Order No. 15/MTPS/SG/CJ of 26 May 1993 determining the conditions and duration of the notice period, taking into account the seniority and occupational classification of the worker. The Government indicates that in the event that this provision is violated, the party that feels aggrieved may refer the matter to the labour inspectorate, which, during conciliation, endeavours to reach a solution. The Committee notes that the report of the Government does not reply to the observations of the CTUC. The Committee therefore reiterates its request to the Government to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that workers are provided with reasonable notice of termination.
Article 12(3). Definition of serious misconduct. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that serious misconduct was not defined by the Labour Code but by case law. It notes the Government’s indication that serious misconduct is defined in the internal regulations of enterprises and that, in the event of a dispute, the labour inspectorate is sufficiently competent to arbitrate. Nevertheless, in its previous comments the Committee noted the observations of the CTUC that, in national practice, the employer unilaterally defines the degree of seriousness of the misconduct, whereas under Cameroonian law only the judge is empowered to do so. The Committee requests the Government to clarify the question of the definition of serious misconduct in practice. It also reiterates its request to the Government to provide examples of judicial decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Article 12(3) of the Convention in practice, and the courts’ assessment of “serious misconduct”.
Articles 12–14. Severance allowance. Consultation of workers’ representatives. Terminations of employment for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to indicate whether the dismissed workers had been paid their severance allowance and to provide information on all measures taken to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Termination of Employment Recommendation, 1982 (No. 166). The Committee noted that section 40(3) of the Labour Code establishes an obligation for the employer to call a meeting of staff delegates and the labour inspector to try to avoid any termination on economic grounds. It also noted that section 40(9) of the Labour Code provides that any worker whose employment has been terminated shall be given priority status, where skill levels are equal, for two years with regard to recruitment in the same enterprise. The Government indicates in its report that in order to alleviate the adverse effects of dismissals for economic reasons, it encourages employers to use the measures contained in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation No. 166. In its observations, the UGTC refers to the dismissal of 14,000 workers by a group of enterprises due the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that neither the unions nor the government were notified prior to these dismissals. Furthermore, the UGTC alleges that some were dismissed without being paid their entitlements. The Committee once again requests the Government to send the Office a copy of Order No. 22/MTPS/SG/CJ establishing procedures governing terminations on economic grounds. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the application of these Articles of the Convention, and on the measures taken to alleviate the effects of dismissals for economic or similar reasons, such as those envisaged in Paragraphs 25 and 26 of Recommendation No. 166.
Application of the Convention in practice. COVID-19 pandemic. The Government indicates that as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cameroon recorded 14,000 dismissals for economic reasons in 2020. In reply to the Committee’s previous request, the Government indicates that the Minister of Justice is awaiting the judicial decisions allowing an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention and that they will be submitted as soon as possible. It indicates that dismissal procedures were observed for enterprises whose managers were approached by labour inspection services. It informs the Committee that in the Centre and Littoral regions, the total number of conciliation reports is higher than that of partial conciliation and non-conciliation reports. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the application in practice of these Articles, including statistics on the activities of the appeal bodies and the number of terminations on economic grounds. Referring to its previous comments on valid and invalid grounds for termination and the defence procedure prior to termination, the Committee requests the Government to send examples of judicial decisions which allow an evaluation of the application of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention The Committee also requests the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the Convention.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer