Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

In order to provide a comprehensive view of issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) on Conventions Nos 81 and 129, received on 29 August 2025, and of the Government’s response thereto. It also notes the joint observations of the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and of the National Union of Labour, Employment and Training (SYNTEF-CFDT) on Convention No. 81, received on 3 October 2025, as well as the Government’s response.

Articles 6 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Independence of labour inspectors and penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties. Further to its previous comments, the Committee takes note of the information in the Government’s report regarding the various remedies available when the labour inspectorate is faced, during the discharge of labour inspectors’ duties, with criticisms, disputes and incidents amounting even to threats or physical aggression. In this connection, the Committee notes that the CGT, the CFDT and the SYNTEF-CFDT report several incidents, between 2023 and 2025, including in French Guyana, where labour inspectors have been victims of intimidation or other interference in the discharge of their duties. Moreover, according to the CGT, the incidents are mounting up and the State territorial reform has worsened the situation, since pressures exerted on the labour inspectors are sometimes relayed up to the prefects under the new structure and the support shown at various levels remains insufficient. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply regarding the follow-up given to a number of incidents since 2022, including criminal matters. The Government further indicates that the Directorate-General for Labour (DGT) ensures that every incident is dealt with, and that the Minister for Labour shows support for the inspectors by bringing civil charges in the most serious cases. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the different forms of support given to the labour inspectorate in any case of obstruction which labour inspectors may encounter in the discharge of their duties, and on the follow-up given to such cases, including civil or criminal charges for insults, threats, aggression and violence against inspectors. It requests the Government to include information concerning the incidents mentioned by the CGT, the CFDT and the SYNTEF-CFDT, and to provide its comments as regards the impact of the territorial reform on these matters.

Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81, and Articles 9, 14 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Training and material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors. The Committee notes the observations of the CGT, the CFDT and the SYNTEF-CFDT, indicating that following the territorial reform by the State insufficient human resources, and material means are placed at the disposal of labour inspectors. According to the CFDT and the SYNTEF-CFDT, the objectives set by the DGT are not aligned with the human and material means provided, and budget cuts made to the labour inspectorate affect IT resources, individual protective gear, means of transport and reimbursement of expenses related to inspections. The CFDT and SNTEF-CFDT also report on budget cuts to the training institute of the Labour Ministry in 2025. The Committee notes the Government’s reply regarding the implementation since 2021 of a recruitment plan, for the recruitment of 420 officers over the 2023–27 period. It notes, from the information provided by the Government in respect of the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No 187), that the labour inspectorate had 1,696 inspectors in March 2023, and 1,824 in March 2025. The Government also indicates, with respect to material means, that the difficulties encountered following the State reform of territorial organization were diminishing and that an order had been issued on 6 December 2023 defining the minimum individual protective equipment that the joint secretariats-general must make available to the officers of the labour inspection system. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the measures taken to counter the above-mentioned budget cuts and their impact on the training of labour inspectors, premises, IT resources and means of transport of labour inspectors, and also to ensure the reimbursement of expenses related to inspections. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on developments regarding the recruitment of new labour inspectors.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Powers of labour inspectors, and inspections as often and as thorough as necessary. The Committee notes that in response to its previous direct request concerning the application of Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018, for a State that serves a trust-based society, the Government indicates that the cumulative duration of 270 inspection days over a period of three years was trialled in two regions. The “pôles Travail” labour services were excluded from the trial. The Government also indicates that the trialling was not conclusive and that it was not extended to other regions. According to the Government, it would appear that the provisions of section 32 of Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018 for a State that serves a trust-based society have not had any effect on the manner in which labour inspections are conducted. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129. Periodic reports. Further to its previous comments on the revision of IT tools, the Committee notes the Government’s indication, according to which the new SUiT application was rolled out nationally in its complete version in August 2023, and that it has been very well accepted by users, who have integrated it into their working practices. According to the Government, SUiT is the work tool used by field officers to enter data and conduct activities, while Delphes retrieves and processes collected data with a view to providing reports that can be used at departmental, regional or national level. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Article 21(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 81 and Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129. Annual inspection report. The Committee notes the Government’s indication in response to its previous request, according to which the DGT again applied to the Mutualité sociale agricole in September 2024 to renew its request for access to reports of agricultural regime occupational accidents, and that exchanges had taken place to identify measures to adapt the information systems. The Committee notes the Government’s indication that, due to lack of a budget, work in this regard cannot begin until 2026 at the earliest and that the DGT will contact the regulatory authorities to secure a budget. The Committee further notes that the annual report on labour inspection in France for 2023 contains statistics on the staff of the labour inspectorate. The report also contains some specific statistics on occupational accidents, including in the maritime sector, as well as on interventions related to prevention of occupational accidents and diseases, but does not appear to contain a comprehensive registry of occupational accidents and diseases, including in agriculture. The Committee nevertheless notes the Government’s indications regarding the DAT’IA tool, which analyses in real time the flow of occupational accident reports communicated by the National Health Insurance Fund (CNAM) to the SUiT information system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any new developments regarding access to the statistics of the Mutualité sociale Agricole. It requests the Government to continue to communicate the annual labour inspection reports, ensuring that they contain the information set out in Article 21(f) and (g) of Convention No. 81, and Article 27(f) and (g) of Convention No. 129.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Article 19 of Convention No. 129. Notification to labour inspectorate of occupational accidents and cases of occupational diseases in Guadeloupe. The Committee takes due note that in response to its previous comments a labour inspection-doctor was recruited in 2022 to cover the perimeter of the Antilles (Guadeloupe and Martinique), Guyana, Saint Pierre et Miquelon. The Committee also notes that the labour inspection services were informed of accident reports from the enterprises of the agricultural sector through the SUiT information system. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

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

Previous comment

In order to provide a comprehensive view of issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the joint observations of the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière-Work, Employment and Vocational Training (CGT-FO-TEFP); the National Confederation of Labour-Work, Employment and Vocational Training (CNT-TEFP); the National Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (SNTEFP-CGT); the SUD Union-Labour, Social Affairs; and the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training and Professional Integration SNU-TEFI (FSU) submitted on 8 March 2021, alleging the violations of Conventions Nos 81 and 129 by the French Government during the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committee notes the information in response, provided by the Government.

Articles 3, 5(a), and 17 of Convention No. 81, and Articles 6(1) and (3), 12, 22 and 23 of Convention No. 129. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Control of workers in an irregular situation (in agriculture). In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that the Labour Code empowers labour inspectors, judicial officers and personnel, and customs officers with detecting violations relating to the employment of undocumented foreign workers. The Government also indicates that the difficulty in conducting certain inquiries may justify coordinated action, under the aegis of the State prosecutor. As the coordination of the police with the labour inspectorate allows, in certain cases, for tighter control of the inspections, this assists labour inspectors in fully performing their functions of providing information and guidance. Labour inspectors do not participate in the operations of the immigration police, who target violations related to irregular stay, but focus on identifying any infringements, such as illegal employment for which the responsibility rests with the employer and the worker is disadvantaged, in terms of social security registration, wages, hours and conditions of work, and so forth. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Articles 4, 10 and 11 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 7, 14 and 15 of Convention No. 129. Territorial reform of the States and of French Guyana. Impact on the organization of the labour inspection system. In response to the Committee’s previous comment concerning the territorial reform of the State, the Government indicates that the Prime Minister’s circular of 12 June 2019 regarding the implementation of this reform, introduced a programme to clearly delimit the competences of the State territorial services and, in particular, resulted in the establishment of a public labour market inclusion service. This had no impact on either the competences of the labour inspectorate or the prerogatives of the central authority, the General Labour Directorate, which ensures that the envisaged pooling of departmental resources relating to property, budget and support functions does not adversely impact the tasks of the labour inspectorate. The Government refers to Decree No. 2020-1545 of 9 December 2020, which sets out that the new decentralized organization of the public labour market inclusion service does not impact the specific activities of the labour inspectorate, which maintain their hierarchical organizational structure. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

In response to the Committee’s previous comment regarding the impact on the labour inspection system of the reform of the State services in French Guyana, the Government indicates that the entry into force, on 1 January 2020, of Decree No. 2019-894 of 28 August 2019 on the organization and functions of State services in Guyana has not had any major impact on the functioning of the labour inspection services. These services fall under the General Directorate of Communities, which, while appointed by the prefect, acts under the exclusive authority of the General Labour Directorate. The Committee notes this information, which responds to its previous request.

Articles 6 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Independence of labour inspectors and penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties. The Committee notes that, in response to its previous comments, the Government indicates that it is vigorously combating the obstruction of the duties of labour inspectors. In this regard, the Committee notes that the amount of the fine imposed for such an infringement has increased ten-fold since 2016. The Committee also notes that inquiry and interrogation methods have been optimized for the most serious incidents, and that the penalties are proportional to the gravity of the acts, with the most serious infringements prosecuted before the correctional court. In addition, the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s information, the central authority, with the help of the National Council of Labour Inspection (CNIT), remains alert to the matter of handling any undue pressure or obstruction to the independence of labour inspectors, and that there seem to have been no cases that required interventions, except for simple guidance, over the course of the previous three years. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any new cases of obstruction faced by labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties, and on criminal and civil charges brought for cases of contempt, threats, assaults and violence against labour inspectors, and on the effective application of penalties.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Powers of labour inspectors, and inspections as often and as thorough as necessary. In response to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018, for a State that serves a trust-based society, has not compromised the prerogatives of the labour inspectors subject to the above Articles as there have been no reports since its promulgation. The Committee notes that section 32 of this Act is applicable only on a trial basis in the Hauts-de-France and Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes regions, and for a period of four years as from the issuance of the implementing decree to the Act. It notes that this trial must be subject to an assessment, particularly of its impact on administrative timelines, the results of which must be communicated to Parliament, six months before the completion of the trial period at the latest. The Committee also notes that the implementing decree, concerning the trial period on limiting the total time of inspections conducted by the administrations in certain enterprises, was adopted on 21 November 2018; and that this trial period has ended because, under section 6 of the decree, the provisions in question were applicable to inspections from 1 December 2018. Therefore, the Committee requests the Government to communicate the results of the assessment of the trial period and to indicate whether section 32 of Act No 2018-727 remains in force. If so, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether the scope of application of this section has been extended to other regions and, if so, to continue to provide information on the implementation of this section. It also requests information on the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in practice, the provisions of the above section 32 do not obstruct the powers of labour inspectors to enter workplaces, in conformity with Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129, and to inspect them as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in conformity with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129. Periodic reports. Further to the Committee’s previous comment, the Government indicates that the “Wiki’T” application automatizes the input of information required for activity reports and management, that the volume of data collected through this application is increasing as it improves, and that the inspection officials see the usefulness of contributing to the tool. The “Delphes” pre-formatted query tool also provides many functions. Noting that these two tools are currently being revised, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the development of their functions in order to enable a more effective application of the obligations provided for in Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Article 19 of Convention No. 129. Notification to labour inspectorate of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in Guadeloupe. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment, when the inspector is notified of an occupational accident, he or she requests the accident declaration form but that the information is difficult to obtain in cases of accidents in the informal sector, which are relatively high in the agricultural sector. Hence, over the previous three years, the inspections have focused on combating illegal labour in this sector and several legal proceedings have been initiated, with a view to securing dissuasive penalties that resonate throughout the sector. The Committee also notes that in 2019, meetings were organized to iron out the difficulties identified in the process to submit a declaration with the social security services. With regard to occupational diseases, the Committee notes that employers are not involved in the process of declaration of such diseases, and that those who initiate the process are the family doctors. As these diseases are under-declared in Guadeloupe, the Directorate for the economy, employment, labour and solidarity has committed to raising doctors’ awareness of the possible association between a pathology and an occupational cause, and to strengthening the relationships with the works doctors. This initiative concerns all sectors, not only the agricultural sector. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the results of the several approaches that have been taken are encouraging. The Committee notes, however, that although other initiatives relating to doctors were envisaged, the COVID-19 pandemic curbed them, and that, as there is no labour inspector-doctor in the Antilles, these initiatives can only be restarted at the completion of the current hiring process. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the hiring of a labour inspector-doctor in the Antilles and on the development of new initiatives aimed at facilitating the notification of labour inspectors of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in the agricultural sector in Guadeloupe.

Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129. Annual report of the labour inspection service. The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government in response to its previous comment, 120 personnel are appointed to the labour inspection services in agriculture (Article 27(b) of the Convention) but that the share of activity dedicated to agriculture in each department cannot be precisely determined. With regard to the statistics and causes of occupational accidents and occupational diseases in the agricultural sector (Article 27(f) and (g) respectively), the Committee notes that, according to the Government’s information, the Mutualité sociale agricole - the social security scheme for this specific sector – compiles national statistics based on declarations of occupational accidents and occupational diseases. The Government indicates that the labour inspection services do not receive these declarations directly, but that everything is implemented by the central labour inspection system to remove organizational and technical obstacles, and obtain these declarations. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on the measures taken to enable the labour inspection system to obtain the declarations of occupational accidents and occupational diseases (Article 27(f) and (g)).

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

In order to provide a comprehensive view of issues relating to the application of ratified Conventions on labour inspection, the Committee considers it appropriate to examine Conventions Nos 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agriculture) together.

The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) and the General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière (CGT-FO) on the application of Convention No. 81, and the Government’s response, received in 2016.

Territorial reform of the State. Impact on the organization of the labour inspection system. The Committee notes the Prime Minister’s circular dated 12 June 2019 on the implementation of the territorial reform of the State, which envisages the creation of a public labour market inclusion service which, at the regional level, will involve merging the Regional Directorates for Enterprise, Competition, Consumption, Labour and Employment (DIRECCTE) and the Regional Directorates for Youth, Sport and Social Cohesion (DRJSCS) into a single body. According to the circular, at the departmental level, it is also envisaged that the competences of the DRJSCSs and departmental units of the DIRECCTE, which currently include the departmental-level labour inspection services, will be merged into a new body. The Committee notes that, according to the circular, it is planned that the labour inspection service will maintain its current hierarchical organization within these new bodies. The Committee also notes that the reform envisages the pooling, at the departmental level, of office space and budgetary resources and support functions, in order to increase efficiency. The Committee recalls that, in accordance with Article 4 of Convention No. 81 and Article 7 of Convention No. 129, labour inspection shall be placed under the supervision and control of a central authority, so far as is compatible with the administrative practice of the Member. In this regard, the Committee emphasized in its 2006 General Survey, Labour Inspection, paragraph 140, that “Attaching the labour inspectorate to a central authority facilitates the establishment and application of a single policy throughout the territory covered, and makes it possible to use available resources in a rational way by, for example, eliminating duplication of effort.” The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that all organizational reforms of the labour inspection system are conducted in accordance with the provisions of Conventions Nos 81 and 129. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on the measures taken to ensure that the reform is conducted in accordance with Articles 3 (duties of labour inspectors), 4 (central authority), 5 (cooperation and coordination ), 6 (status and conditions of service of public officials), 7 (recruitment and training), 10 (number of labour inspectors and material means), 11 (offices and transport), 15 (obligations of labour inspectors), 16 (number and quality of inspections) and 19 (periodical reports to the central inspection authority) of Convention No. 81, as well as the corresponding Articles of Convention No. 129 (Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 25).

Reform in French Guiana. Impact on the labour inspection system. The Committee notes that Decree No. 2019-894 of 28 August 2019 on the organization and functions of State services in Guiana, provides for the reorganization of the administration of the State in French Guiana into five general directorates, and provides for labour inspection to be placed under the authority of the General Directorate of Communities. It also notes that, in accordance with section 3 of the Decree, while the future Director-General of Communities shall be appointed further to an opinion of the prefect, for the discharge of their functions relating to labour inspection, they shall not be under the authority of the prefect of French Guiana, but under the General Labour Directorate (DGT). The Decree also envisages that, under the authority of the prefect and subject to the powers attributed to other public services or institutions of the State, the General Directorate of Administration shall be responsible for managing the pooled functions and resources of the State services placed under the authority of the prefect in various fields. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information on the impact of the proposed organizational changes on the application in practice of Conventions Nos 81 and 129, in particular on the application of Articles 3 (functions of inspectors), 4 (central authority), 5 (cooperation and coordination), 6 (status and conditions of service as public officials), 7 (recruitment and training), 10 (number of inspection staff and material resources), 11 (offices and transport), 15 (obligations of inspectors), 16 (number and quality of inspections) and 19 (periodic reports to the central authority) of Convention No. 81, as well as the corresponding Articles of Convention No. 129 (Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 25). The Committee also requests the Government to indicate the possible impact of the management, by the General Directorate of Administration, of the pooled functions and resources of the State services placed under the authority of the prefect in various fields, on the personnel of the labour inspection system, which is placed under the authority of the DGT.

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a) and 17 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 6(1) and (3), 12, 22 and 23 of Convention No. 129. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Control of workers in an irregular situation (in agriculture). Further to its previous comments on the role of labour inspectors in procedures to tackle illegal work, the Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the labour inspection system does not have statistic on cases in which migrant workers having worked in an irregular situation have had their rights restored. However, it notes the Government’s indication that the labour inspection services report cases in which their action has led to an employer regularizing the situation of such migrant workers. The Government adds that the labour inspection service’s association with the police force offers, in some cases, labour inspectors with greater security in carrying out inspections, and does not prevent the full discharge of their duties of informing and advising workers. In this respect, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, when inspecting workplaces, inspectors distribute leaflets to migrant workers who do not have permits or who are undeclared, and that migrant workers who have worked in an irregular situation have equal access to the labour inspection service, irrespective of their status under the legislation on the residence of migrants, to obtain information and advice, in particular on the possibilities of asserting their rights. The Committee also notes that, according to the labour inspection’s 2017 annual report, the labour inspection services share information and coordinate their action with the competent institutional bodies, including the police, gendarmerie, customs, the control and search brigades attached to the public finance directorates, the national anti-fraud delegation, the Unions for the Recovery of Social Security Contributions and Family Allowances, the Agricultural Social Mutual and the judicial authorities. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on the nature of the coordinated action and the type of information shared between the labour inspection service, the police, customs and other institutional bodies responsible for combating illegal work, indicating how this sharing and coordinated action contributes to the fulfilment of the main duties of labour inspectors, as envisaged by Article 3(1) of Convention No. 81 and Article 6(1) of Convention No. 129.

Articles 6 and 18 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 24 of Convention No. 129. Observations of the CGT and the CGT-FO. Alleged infringements of the principle of the independence of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the observations of the CGT and CGT-FO concerning a series of specific events during which, the trade unions allege that the principle of the independence of labour inspectors, under Article 6 of Convention No. 81, was prejudiced, as a company that had been inspected put undue pressure on the inspection personnel involved, and the competent authorities did not respond in a timely or appropriate fashion. In particular, the CGT and CGT-FO allege in their observations that the relevant authorities failed to condemn the undue pressure exerted by the company. The Committee notes the information provided in the Government’s response on the protection measures taken by the Ministry of Labour and the DGT for the inspection staff involved in that case. It also notes that section L. 8112-1 of Labour Code was amended by Act No. 2016-1088 of 8 August 2016, and explicitly provides that labour inspection officers “benefit from a guarantee of independence in the discharge of their duties within the meaning of the international Conventions on labour inspection”. Finally, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that efforts are still being made to find a solution to enable the best possible outcome to the situation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to take all the necessary measures, in consultation with the social partners, to ensure that no undue external influence, in the form of pressure against labour inspectors, is tolerated. It requests the Government to continue providing information in this regard, and to continue providing information on the effective application of penalties for obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties.

Articles 6 and 15 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 8 and 20 of Convention No. 129. Code of Professional Ethics 2017. The Committee notes with interest the adoption in 2017, of Decree No. 2017-541 of 12 April 2017 issuing the code of ethics of the public labour inspection service. It notes that, according to its preface, the 2017 Code of Ethics is based on Conventions Nos 81 and 129 and provides a reminder of the ethical principles and rules applicable to all public officials as well as the principles and rules that are specific to labour inspectors in view of the nature of their functions and powers. The Government states that the Code of Ethics guides the action of the public labour inspection service, provides for the respective rights and duties of the directors and inspectors placed under its authority and recalls, in particular, the obligations imposed on inspectors in relation to users, including neutrality and impartiality, as well as safeguarding the secrecy and confidentiality of complaints in the discharge of their duties.

Articles 7 and 10 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 9 and 14 of Convention No. 129. “Strong Ministry” reform. Training and promotion of labour inspectors. Number of labour inspectors. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the impact of the implementation of the “Strong Ministry” reform on labour inspection. The Committee notes, in particular, the information provided on the number of personnel in the labour inspection system, training, the promotion of 980 labour controllers (assistants to inspectors) to the rank of labour inspector since 2013, increased means of intervention of the labour inspectors, and new material resources made available to inspectors, including computer tools.

Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129. Act for a State that serves a trust-based society. Application in practice. The Committee notes the adoption of Act No. 2018-727 of 10 August 2018 for a State that serves a trust-based society which, under the terms of section 32, imposes, for a four-year experimental period, a cumulative limit on the duration of all controls carried out by the authorities on a company with fewer than 250 employees and whose annual turnover does not exceed €50 million. Section 32 also provides that this limit is not enforceable if there are precise and consistent indications of non-compliance with a legal or regulatory obligation, and does not apply to certain controls, including those ensuring compliance with the rules on the safety of persons. The Committee notes that this limit could potentially hamper the practical application of Articles 12 and 16 of Convention No. 81 (and Articles 16 and 21 of Convention No. 129), since labour inspectors would no longer be free to enter workplaces for inspection once the limit had been reached, in view of their duty of confidentiality under Article 15(c) of Convention No. 81 (and Article 20(c) of Convention No. 129), which would prevent them from disclosing that an inspection was being made following a complaint. The Committee requests the Government to indicate the measures taken or envisaged to ensure that, in practice, these provisions do not impede the power of labour inspectors to enter workplaces, in accordance with Article 12 of Convention No. 81 and Article 16 of Convention No. 129, and to inspect them as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the relevant legal provisions, in accordance with Article 16 of Convention No. 81 and Article 21 of Convention No. 129.

Article 18 of Convention No. 81 and Article 24 of Convention No. 129. Safety of labour inspectors. Obstructing labour inspectors in the discharge of their duties. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the statistics provided by the Government indicating the number of labour inspection incidents in 2016, the measures taken by labour inspectors in response, and the preventive measures taken to raise the awareness of inspectors. The Government states that 48 inspection incidents were reported in 2016 and that, of the 45 incidents investigated, 21 led to charges or the intention of bringing charges for contempt, 13 to charges or the intention of bringing charges for obstruction, three to reports to the public prosecutor, within the meaning of section 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (discovering of a crime or offence in the discharge of the duties of a public officer or civil servant), seven to complaints lodged by the supervising officer, and three to the employer being held in police custody three days after the incident. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication that the proportion of “contempt” incidents remains relatively stable compared with the number of interventions by labour inspectors. However, it notes that, according to the 2017 annual report of the labour inspection service, the number of inspection incidents increased in 2017 to 65. The Government also considers that there are still difficulties in terms of statistics on judicial sanctions, as judicial procedures for offences often last over three years, and the number of unknown outcomes remains high, even for cases referred to the prosecutor six or seven years previously. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing statistics on inspection incidents that have resulted in sanctions and on criminal and civil charges brought for reported cases of contempt, threats, assaults and violence.

Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129. Information system on the activities of labour inspection services. The Committee welcomes the Government’s indication concerning the implementation of the “Wiki’T” application, the tool used by the monitoring units to register and gather information on the labour inspection service activities. However, it notes that, according to the Government, the central authority experiences difficulties in obtaining reliable and exhaustive data on the activities of the labour inspectors due to incomplete entries in the “Wiki’T” information system and the “Delphes” pre formatted query tool. The Committee requests the Government to provide more information on the use of these tools, as well as the measures taken or envisaged to remedy the difficulties identified, in order to maintain compliance with the requirements to report periodically to the central authority, as provided for by Article 19 of Convention No. 81 and Article 25 of Convention No. 129.

Matters specifically relating to labour inspection in agriculture

Articles 6(1)(b), 18 and 19 of Convention No. 129. Preventive function of the inspection services in agriculture and notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe. In response to its previous comments concerning an under-reporting of accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that the Directorates for Enterprise, Competition, Consumer Matters, Labour and Employment (DIECCTES) of these two departments have been able to remedy this situation. The Committee also notes with interest the Government’s indication of action by DIECCTE in French Guiana, in partnership with the social security services, the regional health agency, the Red Cross and other partners, to raise the awareness of all farmers and tenant farmers on the subject of health and the prevention of occupational accidents. The Committee also notes the action taken by the DIECCTE of Guadeloupe in cooperation with the DIECCTE of Martinique on a programme to monitor occupational diseases. The Government also indicates that more regular controls have resumed in Guadeloupe, now that a position in the agricultural inspection department has been filled, and that employers have once again been made aware of their obligation to declare occupational accidents and diseases. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the awareness-raising activities targeting employers conducted in Guadeloupe.

Article 27 (b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129. Annual report of the labour inspection service. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, labour inspection personnel for agricultural occupations are not counted separately, as the functions of a number of labour inspection departments covering agricultural occupations have been extended to non-agricultural activities. The Committee also observes that the 2017 annual report of the labour inspection service does not contain specific information on the agricultural sector with respect to the subjects listed under Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129, concerning labour inspection personnel in agriculture and statistics on occupational accidents and their causes, statistics on occupational diseases and their causes. The Committee requests the Government to take the necessary measures to ensure that the annual reports of the labour inspection service contain information on the subjects listed in Article 27(b), (f) and (g) of Convention No. 129.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the steps taken to ensure the visibility of labour inspection particularly vis-à-vis employers and workers (Articles 7(3) and 13 of the Convention), and on the collaboration of a prevention engineer of the regional directorate for enterprise, competition, consumer affairs, labour and employment (DIECCTE) in Guadeloupe with labour inspection staff, particularly in agriculture (Article 11).

Articles 6(1) and (3), 12 and 22. Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors. Monitoring of illegal employment. In its previous comments, the Committee asked the Government to take steps to limit inspectors’ involvement in joint inspection operations with the police to an extent that is compatible with the objectives of the Convention. The Government indicates in its report that in agriculture joint inspections are far from being systematic operations with the police or gendarmerie and that the main partners in these operations are inspectors from agricultural social mutual funds. Monitoring any employment of undocumented foreigners is certainly not the purpose of the inspection, which is more generally concerned with illegal employment. Moreover, inspectors are mindful of their tasks of providing information and advice, particularly with regard to workers encountered in these circumstances. Accordingly, the inspection staff participating in operations conducted by the immigration police do not focus on any violations connected with illegal residence but on any infringements relating to illegal employment, the responsibility for which rests with the employer, the workers being prejudiced in terms of matters such as social security registration, wages and hours of work. The Committee requests the Government to supply statistical information on cases where the rights of foreign workers in agriculture who have been in an irregular employment situation have been restored, in the context of the application of Act No. 2011-672 of 16 June 2011, which transposes European Union Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009.

Articles 6(1)(b), 18 and 19. Preventive tasks of the inspectorate in agriculture and notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government concerning the preventive role of the labour inspectorate in agriculture. It notes the Government’s indication that blatant under-reporting of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease has been observed in French Guiana and Guadeloupe. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to rectify the situation of under-reporting of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease in French Guiana and Guadeloupe.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report on the limitation of mediation and conciliation tasks for labour inspectors in French Guiana, Martinique, Réunion and St. Pierre and Miquelon (Article 3(2) of the Convention), cooperation between the labour inspectorate and the judicial authorities (Article 5(a)), and the body of expertise constituted by accredited technical specialists or bodies to which labour inspectors can have recourse for the performance of inspections (Article 9).

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a) and 17 of the Convention. Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors. Inspection of foreign workers in an irregular situation. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government to the effect that European Union Directive 2009/52/EC of 18 June 2009 was transposed into French law by Act No. 2011-672 of 16 June 2011. The Government indicates that, apart from the provisions concerning action against irregular immigration and the observance of migrants’ fundamental labour rights, this Act reinforces protection of the social rights of undocumented foreigners readmitted to their country of origin. The administrative penalties that may be incurred by employers of undocumented foreign workers have been increased. The Committee requests the Government to provide statistical information on cases where the rights of foreign workers who have been in an irregular employment situation have been restored, in the context of application of the abovementioned Act. It also requests the Government to provide details of the procedure followed in these cases, and also on the role of labour inspectors in this procedure, particularly where these workers are subject to a deportation or expulsion order.

Combating illegal employment in French Guiana. Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s indication that despite the fact that action against illegal employment is a major area of intervention for labour inspectors, the necessary steps are taken to ensure that all inspection staff can accomplish their tasks with a view to enforcing the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. These staff members not only perform inspections but also engage in pedagogical activity and the evaluation of occupational risks, and conduct joint inspections with the General Social Security Fund.

Articles 7 and 10. Ministère fort (strong ministry) reform. Training and promotion of labour supervisors. Labour inspection staff. The Committee notes that in the context of the employment transformation plan (2013) in the wake of the Ministère fort (strong ministry) reform, aimed at promoting labour supervisors to the rank of labour inspectors after a six-month training period, a professional examination for labour inspectors has been opened to labour supervisors. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the implementation of the Ministère fort reform on the labour inspectorate, particularly on the structure of the inspection system, conditions of service, the number and powers of inspection staff, and the resources at their disposal.

Article 18. Safety of labour inspectors. Obstruction in the performance of their duties. The Committee notes with concern the Government’s indication that there were over 100 requests for in-service protection for labour inspection staff in 2012, whereas the number had been between 70 and 85 between 2007 and 2012. The situations giving rise to these requests fell into four categories: verbal abuse (52 per cent); threats and intimidation (30 per cent); death threats (9 per cent); and violence (9 per cent). There is a fundamental link between aggression during a workplace inspection and an attempt to evade or obstruct the inspection. Cases of physical assault result in immediate mobilization and quasi-systematic criminal and civil proceedings. Faced with these situations, the State relies on mechanisms of consistent judicial, psychological and organizational support based on Act No. 83-634 of 13 July 1983 establishing the rights and obligations of civil servants, supplemented by circulars and notes. Safety instructions are also given to inspection staff, as are certain instruments to promote due protection and an appropriate response, such as a mobile phone, a card including the phone number of the authorities to be informed immediately, a procedure for filing complaints, and an immediate medical examination. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on cases of aggression against labour inspection staff and on the judicial follow-up to such situations, and also to provide details of penalties imposed under this Article of the Convention in cases of obstruction of labour inspectors in the performance of their duties. It also requests the Government to continue supplying information on any steps taken to reinforce protection for labour inspectors.

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

The Committee refers the Government to its observation and wishes to raise the additional points below.

Article 3(2) of the Convention. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Reunion. The Committee notes the Government’s information that intervention by the labour inspectorate in the event of collective disputes is even more significant in the overseas territories, given that disputes remain frequent and concern working conditions or wages. The Government also reports that the collective action of February 2009 had support from labour administration control officers, who contributed, in the course of visits in connection with remuneration, to monitoring application of the wage measures adopted.

The Committee reminds the Government of the primary functions of labour inspectors under Article 3(1) of the Convention (to secure the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers and to supply technical information and advice to employers and workers). It also recalls the guidance provided in Paragraph 8 of the Labour Inspection Recommendation, 1947 (No. 81), which recommends that “the functions of labour inspectors should not include that of acting as conciliator or arbitrator in proceedings concerning labour disputes”. The Committee asks the Government to provide information on the time and resources spent on mediation, conciliation or arbitration, in relation to the primary duties of the labour inspection as defined in Article 3(1) of the Convention.

Article 10. Labour inspection staff. Guiana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Saint Pierre and Miquelon and Reunion. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, a new post of labour controller has been opened in Reunion and a control officer was to be replaced in Guadeloupe. However, it notes that according to the Government, support for control is insufficient in Martinique. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the staff of the labour inspection system currently in service together with information on any measures or initiatives planned to increase the strength of the labour inspection services.

Articles 5 and 7(3). Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and other public or private institutions involved in similar activities, cooperation with employers and workers or their organizations, and occupational risk prevention training for inspection staff. The Committee notes with interest the information on the main initiatives for cooperation among the players involved in prevention, and on the training of control officers. It also notes that, according to the Government, except in the area of activities to tackle illegal employment, relations with the other administrative departments and institutions are frequent, particularly with the prevention department of the General Social Security Fund (CGSS), the Regional Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ARACT), the Directorate for the Environment, Physical Planning and Housing (DEAL) and the Regional Health Agency (ARS). It also notes the information that, vis-à-vis potential offenders among enterprises, the national and European control campaigns are instructional and serve as a disincentive, and that this approach helps to enhance professionalism in the fields concerned thanks to the training provided to staff and the production of methodological tools. As to the impact of cooperation among the players involved in prevention, the Committee notes that, according to the Government, the statistics of occupational accidents/diseases published by the CGSS for 2010 show a 7 per cent drop between 2009 and 2010 in the number of occupational accidents with absence from work, whereas the number of employees grew by 1.9 per cent over the same period. The Government also reports that the number of serious occupational accidents fell by 26 per cent, the frequency rate for occupational accidents with absence from work remained lower than the national rate, and the number of occupational diseases with ongoing compensation rose from 179 to 230 between 2009 and 2010. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the effects in practice of the abovementioned cooperation activities together with information on other cooperation activities undertaken by the labour inspectorate with other public institutions and the social partners, and the results obtained in the light of the Convention’s objectives.

Articles 5(a), 13 and 17. Cooperation with the justice system. Informative exchanges. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the Observatory on Penal Proceedings (OSP), established in 2008, is a source of information, and allows analysis of both the proceedings themselves and any resulting penal action, and facilitates cooperation between the two ministries. It also notes the information that the increase in the number of proceedings referred to the courts of justice by the labour inspectorate is due to steady improvement in the use of the tool afforded by the OSP. The Government also reports that the Central Administration of the Ministry of Justice and the General Directorate of Labour formed a working group composed of inspectors and judges and that on completion of the group’s work, as from the end of the second half of 2012, pursuant to a guidance note, relations between the prosecution services and the decentralized labour services have been on a formal footing. The Committee also notes that, according to the Government, the dialogue between the prosecution services and the labour inspectorate enhances the effectiveness of criminal policy in the area of labour, by taking account of mutual constraints, and adds to knowledge of the outcome of proceedings in terms of prosecutions and significant judgements penalizing reported offences particularly in the areas of the fundamental rights of employees and occupational safety and health. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide all relevant information on the strengthening of effective cooperation between the labour inspection system and the justice system, together with information on judicial follow-up to reports referred by labour inspectors, broken down by subject.

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee wishes to raise the following additional points.

Article 11 of the Convention. Collaboration of experts in the work of labour inspection in agriculture. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that a campaign for the inspection of outlets selling plant protection products has been conducted in Guadeloupe and that, as part of the campaign, all inspections have been conducted on a joint basis, with the labour inspector and the prevention engineer dealing directly with the product sales manager. The Government declares that the findings of the campaign have tended to be negative: only three out of nine sales outlets inspected are fully aware of the risks posed by these products and inform their customers accordingly about precautions to follow regarding use; there is no awareness of the relevance of safety data records for the safe use of products; none of the inspected outlets systematically distributes safety data records to customers; and there is widespread ignorance of the risks posed by substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR). The Committee notes the Government’s statement that all these findings are particularly true of the banana sector. The Committee further notes that all enterprises have employees who hold certification for the distribution of plant protection products and it also notes the texts of decrees establishing individual certification procedures. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on any form of collaboration between labour inspection staff and duly qualified technical experts and specialists who might help to solve problems demanding technical knowledge, on the impact of this collaboration in the light of the objectives of the Convention, and on any obstacles encountered.

Article 19. Notification of occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest that, according to the Government, the overseas departments (DOM) have adopted at the local level the objectives of national plans, namely the “Occupational health plan No. 2”, the “National plan for health and the environment” and in particular the “Ecophyto 2008–18 national plan”. The latter plan includes a special component for the DOM containing measures designed to ensure safe plant protection practices in terms of health and the environment and, in particular, training and awareness raising with regard to good plant protection practices. It also notes that new measures were due to be taken into account in a new component adopted at the end of 2011, entitled “User health and protection”. The Committee further notes the Government’s indication that, in the absence of any reported case of leptospirosis, no specific inspection actions were conducted for the prevention of this disease in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Réunion or Martinique, but that the general social security funds, in conjunction with the enterprise and employment directorates (DIECCTE), engaged in awareness raising with regard to the need for risk evaluation. The Committee requests the Government to continue to send information on any progress made in this field and also on the notification of cases of occupational disease in agricultural undertakings.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s communication received on 7 March 2011 in reply to the matters raised by the trade union coalition (SNU TEFE FSU–CGT–SUD–UNSA) (communication of 29 June 2010), the additional observations from the SNU TEFE FSU–CGT–SUD–UNSA sent to the Office on 9 March 2011, and the Government’s report of June 2012 concerning the application of the Convention.

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a), 15(c) and 17 of the Convention. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. The Committee notes the statement in the Government’s report to the effect that the circulars of 20 December 2006 and 7 July 2008 task the heads of territorial units at the Regional Directorates pertaining to enterprises, competition, consumer matters, employment and occupation (DIRECCTE) with ensuring that inspectors placed under their responsibility only intervene in joint inspection operations once their terms of intervention have been specifically determined, which guarantee their professional identity and their prerogatives, and once a report of the infringements has been drawn up, imposing the applicable administrative fines. According to the Government, these instructions find further legitimacy with the adoption of a bill concerning immigration, integration and nationality, title 4 of which will transpose Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 18 June 2009 and will institutionalize the process for restoring the rights of foreign employees who have been in an irregular employment situation, irrespective of the supervisory procedures and authorities involved in identifying the nature of the employment relationship. The Committee trusts that the bill concerning immigration, integration and nationality transposing the abovementioned European Union Directive will be adopted in the very near future and requests the Government to send a copy of the text of the law once it has been adopted.

Incompatibility of joint inspection methods with the objectives of the Convention. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that there has been a steady increase in the number of joint inspections carried out by the labour inspectorate and the police, but that these do not constitute a primary inspection activity; this is due to the fact that, under the French legal system, the police have to be involved since they have overall competence. It also indicates that involving the police in labour inspection makes for a greater level of safety for inspection staff during the performance of their duties. The Committee further notes that, according to the Government, the labour inspection information system (CAP SITERE) does not enable the precise identification of legal acts in relation to the nationality of employees concerned and that, in 2010, there were about 100 references to section L.8252-1 of the Labour Code under this system, laying down the principle of equality of status of undocumented foreign employees and employees in a situation of conformity as regards the various obligations of the employer.

The Committee reminds the Government once again that the purpose of the cooperation provided for in Article 5(a) of the Convention is to strengthen the means of enforcing the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers (Articles 2 and 3(1)). With reference to paragraph 157 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee also reminds the Government that effective support from the police can be useful in carrying out certain inspection missions and in particular to ensure the physical safety of the inspector and allow the planned inspections to take place smoothly. However, it notes that the current collaboration, as part of combating unofficial employment of foreigners, between the police and the labour inspectorate, is not conducive to creating the climate of trust that is essential to ensure good cooperation by employers and workers with labour inspectors. The latter must command respect on account of their power to penalize infringements but must also be approachable in their role of giving warnings or advice. With reference to paragraphs 75–78 of the 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, the Committee re emphasizes that the function of verifying the legality of employment should have as its corollary the reinstatement of the statutory rights of all the workers if it is to be compatible with the objective of labour inspection. This objective can only be met if the workers covered are convinced that the primary task of the inspectorate is to enforce the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and protection of workers. The Committee requests the Government to take all the necessary measures, in law and in practice, to re-establish labour inspectors in their functions as defined by the Convention and to limit their involvement in joint inspection operations to an extent that is compatible with the objectives of the Convention. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information, where possible, enabling it to assess the manner in which it is ensured that foreign workers in an irregular situation benefit from the protection afforded by labour inspection in the same way as other workers.

Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors in French Guiana. The Committee notes with concern that, according to the Government’s report, responsibility for combating illegal work in French Guiana lies solely with the labour inspectorate. The Government also states that the labour inspectorate within the Directorate pertaining to enterprises, competition, consumer matters, employment and occupation (DIECCTE) French Guiana comprises three general inspection units which have territorial competence for all sectors of activity and that a mission created on 1 January 2011, at the time DIECCTE was established, now has responsibility for organizing inspections, their follow-up and the relevant legal and administrative support. The Committee further notes that, according to the Government, the work of the eight inspection officials in 2011 led to increased activity relating to safety and health, fundamental rights and freedoms, and representative staff institutions (IRP). However, despite the decrease observed by comparison with 2010, most actions in the context of “Programme 111” are still concerned with combating illegal work, which accounts for the majority of cases referred to the courts in the overseas departments.

The Committee draws the Government’s attention to the fact that, according to Articles 2(1) and 3(1), one of the main functions of the labour inspection system is to secure the enforcement of the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. Verifying the legality of employment can therefore only be considered a further duty which, in accordance with the terms of Article 3(2), must not be such as to interfere with the effective discharge of labour inspectors’ primary duties or to prejudice in any way the authority and impartiality which are necessary to inspectors in their relations with employers and workers. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate how the duties of labour inspectors are discharged in the context of actions under “Programme 111” against illegal work and to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure that the whole labour inspection staff in French Guiana can perform its task of enforcing the legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. The Government is also requested to supply detailed statistics regarding labour inspection activities on the territory of the department.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(c). Independence of labour inspectors, accessibility of premises to all concerned and confidentiality of complaints. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that, at a meeting on 9 December 2010 of representatives of the Ministry, DIRECCTE and the trade unions concerned, a consensus emerged from discussions between representatives of the administration and the trade unions that the establishment of the labour inspection section at Porto Vecchio (Corsica) did not appear to be problematic in terms of the principles of independence of the labour inspectorate, as defined in Article 6 of the Convention, or the freedom of decision-making established in Article 17, and that the most sensitive issue was the confidential nature of complaints prescribed by Article 15(c). It also notes that, according to the Government, all parties at the meeting agreed that, for want of a more operational solution, the labour inspectorate in Porto Vecchio should stay for the immediate future in its current premises and that, since early 2012, this solution does not appear to be a source of concern for the labour inspector any more than for the workers or departmental unions. The Committee trusts that the Government will soon be in a position to take the necessary operational measures to ensure that labour inspectors are independent of any improper external influences (Article 6), that workers are able to enter the Porto Vecchio section freely (Article 11) and that complaints are treated confidentially (Article 15(c)).

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee refers to its comments relating to the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), in so far as they also concern the application of the present Convention.

Articles 6(3) and 22 of the Convention. Additional duties assigned to labour inspectors in the context of combating the illegal employment of foreign workers. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government that is common to the reports on the Convention and Convention No. 81. It also notes that, in 2011, according to the annual report, out of a total of 250 reports of infringements recorded in agricultural undertakings, 113 related to illegal work, 73 were concerned with safety and health, 40 with employment contracts and 14 with the work of the labour inspectorate (obstacles, abuse, prerogatives and resources). The Committee requests the Government to refer to its observation under Convention No. 81, and again asks it to take the measures requested with a view to limiting inspectors’ involvement in joint inspection operations with the police to an extent that is compatible with the objectives of the Convention.

Article 7(3). Integration of the system of labour inspection in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The Committee notes the statement that, although the downward trend in the number of inspections in agricultural undertakings recorded in 2010 and 2011 following the merger of the departments remains a source of concern, the trend has reversed slightly, with a small increase in activity in 2011 following the measures taken. It further notes that the labour inspectorate in the overseas departments (DOM) has not been affected by the merger of departments and that the number of inspections increased over the 2010–11 period. The Committee further notes the Government’s statement that the drop in activity was not primarily attributable to the departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate was not maintained or set up but rather to an under-evaluation of recorded activity relating to agriculture and the fact that dealing with the new sectors inspected took more time for the officials concerned than had been saved through the reduction in workload.

The Committee also notes that, according to the record of the meeting of the agriculture social partners attached to the Government’s report, the latter wish to have an up-to-date list of agricultural sections, and that the Labour Directorate-General (DGT) undertakes to update the list of contact officials for agriculture. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would continue to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspection services remain visible and accessible to employers and workers in the agriculture sector, particularly in departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate has not been maintained or set up (including Alpes-de-Haute Provence, Hautes-Alpes, Ariège, Corse-du-Sud, Creuse, Haute-Loire, Lozère, Nièvre, Hautes-Pyrénées, Territoire de Belfort and Val-d’Oise). The Government is also requested to provide statistical information on labour inspection in agriculture for the period covered by the next report.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

The Committee refers the Government to its observation and draws its attention to the following point.

Articles 3(1)(a) and (b), 5(a), 13 and 17 of the Convention. Necessary balance between an informative/advisory approach and the use of coercive authority by labour inspectors to enforce the legislation. Cooperation with judicial bodies. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it regards the provision of information and advice on safety and health as an important duty. The Government mentions, however, that the relatively low number of violation reports actually written and transmitted is a problem, in particular because the risk of a penal sanction must remain credible. In the Government’s view, it is advisable to pursue efforts to improve coordination between the labour inspectorate and public prosecutors in the interests of gaining precise knowledge of the fate of proceedings instituted. The Committee nonetheless notes in this connection that in 2009, the number of violation reports concerning offences relating to illegal work was still very high in comparison with the number of violation reports relating to occupational safety and health matters (37.5 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively), yet the former relate to a duty which is not among the primary duties of labour inspectors as defined in the Convention. The Committee requests the Government in its next report to describe the measures taken to encourage better cooperation between the labour inspectorate and judicial bodies particularly as regards the action taken on violation reports issued on safety and health matters.

Articles 3, 10, 11 and 16. Labour inspection staff and performance of inspection duties. Guyana, Martinique, Guadeloupe, St Pierre and Miquelon and Reunion. The Committee notes with interest that, as part of the plan to modernize and develop the labour inspectorate, posts have been created in the abovementioned non-metropolitan territories (one labour inspector’s post in Guyana, two posts in Guadeloupe, four labour controllers’ posts in Martinique, two labour inspectors’ posts and two controllers’ posts in Réunion and one labour controller’s post in St Pierre and Miquelon). The Committee notes however that the post of regional medical inspector in Guyana is vacant. Furthermore, the Government indicates that local action plans set the priorities of the operational programme budget with a special focus on illegal work, collective disputes and occupational safety and health. The Government also mentions that the number of interventions in enterprises has dropped owing to the social crisis of 2009.

The Committee again reminds the Government that the primary duties of the labour inspectorate as defined in the Convention are to ensure enforcement of the legal provisions on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and that any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors shall not be such as to interfere with the performance of their primary duties, and asks the Government to indicate the total number of posts vacant in the non-metropolitan territories and the measures taken to ensure that they are filled as soon as possible. In addition, it asks the Government to send figures showing the share of labour inspectors’ activities devoted to further duties (combating illegal work and collective disputes) and the share of activities devoted to the primary duties of labour inspection.

The Committee also asks the Government to indicate the role entrusted to labour inspectors in implementing government measures adopted following the industrial action of February 2009 as concerns conditions of work in industrial and commercial establishments.

Article 5 and Part II of Recommendation No. 81. Effective cooperation between the labour inspection services and other public or private institutions carrying out similar activities, and collaboration with employers and workers or their organizations. The Committee notes with interest that the Directorate of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (DTEFP) of Martinique has indicated that there is coordination with the Regional Directorates of Industry, Research and Environment (DRIRE) for supervision of establishments classified as SEVESO high-threshold sites. It also notes with interest that that the DTEFP maintains regular contacts with the Regional Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions (ARACT), in particular for the purpose of setting up a regional inter-occupational joint committee. The Committee also notes with interest that the Réunion DTEFP has set up regional arrangements for social dialogue involving all representative trade unions, in particular for the purpose of devising partnership actions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the impact of the cooperation between the labour inspectorate and other public institutions, the results obtained and their effect on the activities of labour inspection services, and on the standard of working conditions. The Government is also asked to provide particulars of the arrangements made for collaboration between inspectors and employers and workers or their respective organizations.

Article 18. Legal action for obstructing a labour inspector in the performance of his duties. The Committee notes the conviction of the author of a minor assault against a labour controller in the performance of his duties notified by the Martinique DTEFP, and would be grateful if the Government would state whether the incident that gave rise to the conviction occurred during an inspection and, if so, to specify which area of the law was the subject of the inspection.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments. It notes with interest that, following repeated requests from the Committee, the Government is planning to take measures to have separate information on inspection work and its results supplied in its future reports and in the annual labour inspection report in relation to French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion and St Pierre and Miquelon, which are now treated as metropolitan France for the purposes of the ILO Constitution pursuant to the registration of a declaration to this effect dated 31 August 2009.

With reference to its 2004 observation, the Committee notes with satisfaction the publication in February 2010, after validation by the National Council of Labour Inspection, of a collective work on “Principles of Deontology for Labour Inspection” the preparation of which had been initiated in 2004 under the direction of the Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR) and had continued with ILO technical support. The working group which elaborated this tool was mainly composed of representatives of the labour inspection at various levels, as well as other structures of the Ministry of Labour. The ILO and the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) were also represented. The Committee notes with interest the statement made in the book’s preface by the Minister of Labour, Social Relations, Family, Solidarity and Cities, that “deontology reinforces the coherent action of the labour inspection agents at all hierarchical levels ... as it protects the citizens themselves from the risks of arbitrariness”. The Committee also notes that, according to the Minister, “the principle of independence of labour inspection does not signify only a right for the agents concerned, but also a guarantee for the citizens who are able to benefit from an organized public service which is not subject to any undue external influence”.

The Committee also notes the comments from the Single National Union – Work, Employment, Training – Professional Integration (SNU–TEF(FSU)) received at the International Labour Office on 6 July 2010, concerning the involvement of labour inspectors in joint operations to combat illegal work pursuant to “Inter-ministerial Circular No. NOR-IMIM1000102NC of 2 June 2010 to combat illegal work concerning foreign nationals – implementation of joint operations in 2010”. The circular provides for reinforcement of the inter‑institutional cooperation measures to combat illegal work on which the Committee commented previously. On 15 November 2010 the Government sent information to the Office concerning the matters raised by the SNU–TEF(FSU).

The Committee also notes a communication of 29 June 2010 from the Inter-Union Association (CGT–SUD–UNSA), expressing concern at the establishment of a labour inspection office on the premises of the Porto Vecchio (Corsica) Chamber of Trades because of the implications for the principle of independence that ought to govern the performance of inspection duties and the principle that access to inspectorate premises should be ensured for employees. The Committee notes the Government’s replies to the points raised.

Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(a), 6, 12, 15(c) and 17 of the Convention. Further duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Mobilization of resources and incompatibility of inspection methods and the objectives pursued. In its replies to the Committee’s previous comments on the involvement of labour inspectors in operations carried out in workplaces jointly with officials whose job is to implement the policy to combat illegal immigration, the Government indicates that the allegations of the SNU–TEF(FSU) consist in a conflation of press articles, communications from trade unions and the relevant legislation. The Committee points out that it had undertaken a thorough analysis of the legislation and had found that the joint operations to combat illegal work by foreign workers in irregular status were not in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and stressed the need for measures to remedy the situation and to enable labour inspectors to carry out their functions as defined by the Convention. The Committee observes that the Government has, on the contrary, adopted the circular of 2 June 2010.

The Committee notes that the circulars of 20 December 2006 and 7 July 2007 focus on preserving and respecting the professional identities in determining the role to be played by each administration in the joint operations to combat illegal work. This implies that labour inspectors should keep the responsibility of enforcing the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers, namely sections L.341-6-2, L.8258-1 and L.8252-2 of the Labour Code, which treat unlawfully employed foreign workers in the same way as lawfully employed workers in terms of the obligations incumbent on employers under labour regulations (pay, allowances, severance compensation). The circumstances and results of the joint operations show that the labour inspectors’ cooperation in many cases has the exact opposite effect and ends up exposing workers to a procedure of removal from France and the attendant withdrawal de facto of any right of challenge against the employers who broke the law by hiring them. This is established by Circular No. NOR-IMIM0800047C of 24 December 2008 and the abovementioned circular of 2 June 2010 concerning the results of the joint operations conducted in 2007 (out of 992 persons in an unlawful situation,
295 were expelled) and in 2009 (out of 1,116 workers taken in for questioning, 680 were issued with prefectural expulsion orders and 159 were actually expelled). The Committee notes the terms of the circular of 24 December 2008 according to which, even before a joint operation is launched, “it is important that all steps be taken at each of the levels involved (internal security service, prefectural aliens offices) to ensure that, where foreigners in an unlawful situation are apprehended, this leads to effective removal”. The Committee regrets that the circular of 2 June 2010 reproduces word for word these provisions which may negatively impact on “preserving and respecting” the professional identity of labour inspectors. The circular also emphasizes the logistical arrangements to be made upstream, such as pre-reservation in administrative detention centres when an operation is likely to lead to multiple arrests. The Committee notes that although this circular prescribes measures to ensure speedy procedures for the prosecution of offending employers, it contains no reference to the provisions of sections L.8258-1 and L.8252-2 of the Labour Code, which safeguard the rights of foreign workers in an irregular situation who are victims of the offence of illegal employment. The Committee recalls that, under both the Convention and the national legislation, labour inspectors are to use their powers of injunction to get employers to fulfil their obligations towards workers. It also notes that the circulars make no reference to the rights of the workers affected by joint operations. This may lead to the denial of the right of these workers to apply to the labour courts and give rise to discrimination against them.

The Committee notes that in its report, in connection with this aspect of the offending circulars, the Government mentions Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council of 18 June 2009, which provides that member States must ensure the availability of effective procedures allowing workers in an irregular situation who have been returned, to introduce a claim seeking their entitlements or to enforce a judgement to that effect. In replying to the comments of the SNU–TEF(FSU), the Government specifies that the bill to transpose the European Directive makes the French Immigration and Integration Office (OFII) responsible for recovering and conveying to foreign nationals who have been illegally employed any amounts outstanding from their occupational activity. Since the bill has not been adopted, the Committee can only hope that it will become law shortly so as to strengthen those provisions of the legislation that already afford protection and non-discriminatory treatment to the foreign workers concerned (workers in the construction and public workers (BTP) sector, the hotels, café and restaurants (HCR) sector, the agricultural sector and the apparel sector).

According to the Government, labour inspectors are called on to cooperate in the joint operations in the interest of creating synergy between supervisory bodies responsible for the same type of offence defined in the Labour Code, and such cooperation is therefore fully consistent with Article 5 of the Convention. As to the impact of this activity on other inspection functions, the Government states that violation reports relating to the employment of foreigners with no work permit account for less than 4 per cent of all violation reports. The Committee notes that the Government does not provide any information on the level of the penalties imposed on employers, in order to enable it to assess how dissuasive they are. The Committee recalls that the aim of the cooperation referred to in Article 5(a) is to strengthen the means available to inspectors to enforce the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers (Articles 2 and 3(1)), and that according to Article 12(1)(c)(i), labour inspectors should be empowered to carry out examinations alone or in the presence of witnesses (implied appointed freely by them). The Committee considers that they are not in a position to exercise this prerogative in joint operations, and their freedom to enter workplaces (with no need for a court authorization or an order from the public prosecutor) is used for purposes that are contrary to their functions.

The Committee is also of the view that the association of the police in labour inspection is not conducive to the relationship of trust needed to create the climate of confidence that is essential to enlisting the cooperation of employers and workers with labour inspectors. It must be possible for inspectors to be feared for their authority to report offences, and at the same time to be respected and approachable as preventers and advisers.

The Committee therefore once again asks the Government to provide information so that it can assess the manner in which it is ensured, in accordance with section L.341-6-1 of the Labour Code, that foreign workers in an irregular status benefit from the same protection by the labour inspectorate as other workers, and to provide in so far as possible relevant statistics (number of complaints filed and convictions of employers to regularize their situation with regard to the workers’ rights, as well as the status of procedures for the enforcement of such decisions).

The Committee also, once again, urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the powers of inspectors to enter workplaces liable to inspection are not misused for the implementation of joint operations to combat illegal immigration.

The Committee also requests the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors are notified of cases of immigrants in an irregular status, who are apprehended outside a workplace and are engaged in a labour relationship covered by the Convention.

The Committee notes the creation on 1 December 2008 in French Guiana of a service to combat illegal work (SLTI). It notes with concern that despite the small size of the inspection staff (4.5 for the whole department), two of its members (one inspector and one controller) and an administrative secretary are assigned on a full-time basis to implement the local policy to combat illegal work formulated by the Select Committee to Combat Illegal Work (CORELTI) and the provision of secretariat services for CORELTI, whose membership comprises the police, gendarmerie, customs and fiscal authorities.

Although the Government asserts that the SLTI’s work in combating illegal work is focused on the inspection duties defined in the Labour Code, the figures supplied are insufficient to show what proportion of supervisory duties (547 inspection visits) accounted for enforcement of the legal provisions on working conditions and the protection of workers: the information that there were 28 decisions to close down sites, 295 written observations and 36 violation reports does not allow a distinction to be drawn between action linked to the reporting of offences of illegal employment and action linked to the reporting of offences against the provisions covered by the Convention. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to take the necessary steps to enable all the labour inspection staff of French Guyana to carry out their inspection functions that relate to enforcement of the legal provisions on conditions of work and the protection of workers while engaged in their work. It would be grateful if, in support of the relevant information, the Government would provide detailed statistics of the activities of the labour inspectorate in the department.

Article 10. Strength and composition of the labour inspectorate staff in relation to development functions and the complexity of the legislation. The Committee notes with interest that between 2006 and 2009, 452 student inspectors were promoted and 923 probationary controllers were trained. It also notes that of the 60 posts for labour inspectors and the 100 posts for labour controllers created in 2009, most are controller posts.

Articles 5(a) and 7(3). Effective cooperation between the inspection services and other government services and public or private institutions, and training for inspectors in the prevention of occupational risks. The Committee refers to its previous comments concerning Réunion in which it asked the Government to provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to reduce the frequency of industrial accidents and instances of occupational disease, particularly in work noted as having a high risk potential. The Committee notes in this connection that in September 2007 ten inspectors received training in the field of chemical risks and that pursuant to a partnership agreement signed in 2005, the Directorate of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training (DTEFP) of Réunion belongs to a prevention network (whose membership includes the National Agency for the Improvement of Working Conditions – ANACT –, the General Fund for social security, the occupational health services). Furthermore, it notes with interest that improving occupational safety and health, particularly in the construction and public works sector and in the area of chemical risks, was one of the main objectives set for the labour inspectorate for 2008 and that a regional occupational health plan has been in preparation since October 2007.

The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide information on progress made by virtue of cooperation between the abovementioned players in the area of occupational risk prevention and the labour inspection sections of Réunion. In particular, the Government is asked to provide information on the training that labour inspectors received in the area of occupational safety and health, on progress in the regional occupational health project and the missions and activities conducted by labour inspectors in this connection and their impact on the frequency of industrial accidents and occurrences of occupational disease.

Articles 6, 11 and 15(c). Independence of labour inspectors, accessibility of their premises to all concerned. With regard to the concern expressed by the Inter-Union Association (CGT–SUD–UNSA) that the labour inspectorate has its office on the premises of the Chamber of Trade of Porto Vecchio (Corsica), the Committee notes that according to the above organization, the premises are so designed that fear of being seen by their employers could dissuade workers from going to the labour inspectorate. The Government, for its part, states that the establishment of a labour inspection section in Porto Vecchio is recent and that it was because there were no other options that the inspectorate was housed in the premises of the Chamber of Trades, which is a public establishment. The Government adds that the questions raised about this location are being thoroughly investigated by the Directorate General of Labour, and a decision will be taken when inquiries are completed. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the results of the abovementioned investigation, and asks it in any event to take the necessary steps to ensure that labour inspectors are independent of any improper external influences and that workers are able to enter the Porto Vecchio section freely.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

With reference to its 2004 observation, the Committee notes with satisfaction the publication in February 2010, after validation by the National Council of Labour Inspection, of a collective work on “Principles of Deontology for Labour Inspection” the preparation of which had been initiated in 2004 under the direction of the Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR) and had continued with ILO technical support. The working group which elaborated this tool was mainly composed of representatives of the labour inspection at various levels, as well as other structures of the Ministry of Labour. The ILO and the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) were also represented. The Committee notes with interest the statement made in the book’s preface by the Minister of Labour, social relations, family, solidarity and cities, that “deontology reinforces the coherent action of the labour inspection agents at all hierarchical levels ... as it protects the citizens themselves from the risks of arbitrariness”. The Committee also notes that according to the Minister, “the principle of independence of labour inspection does not signify only a right for the agents concerned, but also a guarantee for the citizens who are able to benefit from an organized public service which is not subject to any undue external influence”.

Article 6(3) of the Convention. Duties additional to the supervision of working conditions and the protection of workers. Involvement of the labour inspectorate in combating illegal work. The Committee notes that a series of communications from the Single National Union-work, employment, training and professional integration SNU-TEF (FSU), including one received at the ILO on 6 July 2010 about the involvement of labour inspectors in joint operations to combat illegal work pursuant to the interministerial circular of 2 June 2010 No. NOR-IMIM1000102NC concerning the combat as it affects foreign nationals, concern the application of the Convention. Furthermore, it notes the information sent by the Government in reply to the Committee’s previous comments and to the matters raised by the abovementioned organization regarding the circular, the provisions of which likewise concern workers with no residence permit employed in agricultural undertakings. The Committee accordingly asks the Government to refer to its observation under the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and asks it to take the measures requested and to provide, in so far as it concerns the application of this Convention, relevant information on the reshaping of interinstitutional cooperation on the policy to combat the illegal employment of foreigners without residence permits and the role of labour inspectors in agricultural undertakings.

Article 7(3). Integration of the system of labour inspection in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The Committee notes that the process to merge labour inspectorates (agriculture, maritime, transport, labour) has been speeded up since 1 January 2009. It notes that one of the Recommendations made as a result of the merger experiment conducted in two departments, was to maintain or create an inspection sector for agriculture in each department. According to the Government, the number of visits to agriculture undertakings should be maintained.

The Committee notes, however, that according to section R8122-9 of the Labour Code, one section in each department is responsible for supervision of agricultural occupations unless an order or the ministers responsible for agriculture and labour provides otherwise. The Government states that such an order was issued on 23 July 2009 allowing a waiver from the obligation to create or maintain an agriculture section in 14 departments (Alpes de Hautes Provence, Hautes-Aples, Ariège, Corse-du-Sud, Creuse, Haute-Loire, Lozère, Nièvre, Hautes-Pyrénées, Territoire de Belfor, Val d’Oise, Guyane, Martinique, La Réunion.).

The report on the activities of labour inspection in agriculture shows that the total number of interventions in the sector dropped in 2008 to 23,368, as compared to 24,342 previously. A drop was noted in particular in the regions where the departments exempted from the obligation are located (Rhône-Alpes: ‑130 inventions, Pays de la Loire: -126 interventions). No information has been provided on non-metropolitan territories (overseas departments and St Pierre and Miquelon). The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the measures taken to ensure that interventions in agricultural undertakings are maintained at a level at least equal to that prevailing prior to the merger, particularly in departments where an agricultural inspection section has not been maintained or created. The Government is asked to include figures showing the activities of the labour inspectorate for the period covered by the next report, including figures for the overseas regions covered by the Convention. The Committee furthermore asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to ensure that the labour inspection services remain visible and accessible to employers and workers in the agriculture sector, particularly in departments where an agricultural section of the inspectorate has not been maintained or set up.

Articles 11 and 19. Associating experts in the work of labour inspection in agriculture. In its previous observation concerning Guadeloupe, the Committee requested the Government to provide details of the reasons underlying the enquiries into the use of pesticides in banana plantations. It notes that according to the Government, there were 61 interventions in Guadeloupe, of which 54 were controls. Furthermore, nine controls targeted sales outlets for phytosanitary products. It does not, however, indicate either the reasons for the enquiries into pesticides, or the results of the inquiries or the content of the 97 observations on safety and health to which the Government refers. The Committee requests the Government to send in its next report the results of the enquiries and research conducted on the use of pesticides. The Government is also asked to specific the measures taken for the safety and health of all workers particularly for the purpose of eliminating all risks to the safety and health of workers in banana plantations.

Article 19. Occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease. The Committee notes with interest the campaigns carried out in Réunion to alert farmers to phytosanitary risks, and the controls carried out in the use of phytosanitary products in the overseas territories. The Government refers to the particular risk facing agriculture workers in Réunion but also all workers in the overseas territories, which are wet zones, where exposure to leptospirosis is high. The Committee notes that occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease are clearly under reported in Guyana. The Government is asked to provide information on:

–           the impact of the information campaigns and controls carried out on the use of phytosanitary products in the agricultural undertakings of the overseas departments covered by the Convention;

–           the measures taken to alert employers, workers and members of health professions to the need to observe procedures for reporting occupational accidents and cases of occupational disease;

–           the follow up to the controls of sales outlets for phytosanitary products.

The Government is also asked to take specific measures for preventing the risk of leptospirosis infection for agricultural workers and to provide information on these measures and on the activities of the labour inspectorate in this area.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

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

Article 22 of the ILO Constitution and Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Manner in which effect is given to reporting obligations. With reference to its observation and noting the Government’s statement that its previous report concerned metropolitan France, the overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Guyana, Martinique and Réunion) and the territorial community of St Pierre and Miquelon, the Committee recalls that it requested the Government to indicate the manner in which it was envisaged that the statistics required by clauses (c)–(g) of Article 21 were to be published and communicated to the ILO separately so as to allow an assessment of the application of the Convention in each of these departments. The Committee notes that the report provided in September 2008 under this Convention also contains in annex the report on its application in French Guyana. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to ensure in future that the annual report on the work of the inspection services provides separately for each of the above non-metropolitan territories the information required by Article 21, as well as information on the impact of measures to strengthen the supervisory personnel in light of the number and type of inspections, particularly in small establishments. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the benefits expected from the implementation of the plan to modernize the labour inspectorate in relation to the non-metropolitan territories.

Protection of the health of the labour inspectors and controllers during certain visits. The Committee notes with interest in the annual inspection report for 2005 that, to prevent the risks of cancer to which inspection staff indicated they were exposed during controls related to the legislation respecting asbestos, the latter have been provided with specific training and the support of newly established pluri-disciplinary units (prevention engineers and physician-inspectors).

Articles 3, paragraph 1(a) and (b), 13 and 17. The necessary balance between an advisory approach and use of powers of enforcement by labour inspectors to ensure compliance with the legislation. According to the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training and Professional Integration
(SNU-TEF (FSU)), for many years the labour inspectorate has too frequently been invited to adopt an advisory approach to enterprises, and is almost never called upon to implement its powers of enforcement. The Committee notes that the situation described in recent annual reports (2005 and 2006) shows a significant increase in the number of criminal prosecutions and convictions, particularly against employers for violations in the field of occupational safety and health. However, the Committee notes that, according to the statistical tables for 2006, the number of rulings handed down in cases of illegal employment and work (506) is higher than those relating to safety and health (478) and it observes that, according to the Government, in 2007 the labour inspectorate participated in 31,000 controls in the context of the national action plan to combat illegal work. The report for 2006 also deplores the fact that “inspections in enterprises represent less than half of the working time of officials responsible for controls” (page 146). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the measures taken to ensure that inspectors are able to use the full range of their powers, prerogatives and functions, as prescribed by the Convention, in the manner in which they consider most effective to secure the application of legal provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers in workplaces liable to inspection.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received on 8 September 2008, accompanied by information in reply to its previous comments, as well as the annual report on the organization, operation and work of the labour inspectorate in agriculture for 2007. It notes with interest the quality of the information provided.

The Committee also notes the observations made by the General Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Personnel (FO-ITEPSA) on 14 January and 29 July 2008, which were forwarded to the Government on 4 April and 4 September 2008, respectively, and the Government’s comments on the matters raised by the union.

Article 7, paragraph 3, of the Convention. Integration of the labour inspection system in agriculture into a common labour inspection system. The FO-ITEPSA, in its communication of 14 January 2008, challenges the decision to merge the labour inspectorates, considering that this measure represents a severe threat to the survival of the labour inspectorate in agriculture. It indicates that, as a sign of protest, it decided as the principal organization of the labour inspection services in agriculture, and with the support of the federations of agricultural employees of Force Ouvrière and the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), on a collective action to boycott the transmission of the annual activity reports for 2007 to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Furthermore, the Secretary-General of the FO-ITEPSA, in his personal capacity, sought an opinion on the matter from the National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT). He provided the Office with a copy of the notification from the CNIT dated 4 July 2008 of the opinion finding his request irreceivable.

In communications dated 28 April and 14 July 2008, the Government provided the Office with information on the reasons for the decision to merge the labour inspection systems beginning in 2009 with a view to their operational merger as of 1 January 2011. It indicated that this decision had been preceded by a trial, under the terms of a circular of the Prime Minister dated 2 January 2006, consisting of bringing together the labour inspection services in agriculture and the Departmental Directorates of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training in 2006 and 2007 in two departments (Dordogne and Pas-de-Calais). According to the Government, the trial was positive and resulted in the development of synergies and complementary action between the inspection services and to improving the transparency and quality of the service provided to users. One of the recommendations made following this trial was to establish an agricultural section in each department. This section would have to be recognized as such by the social partners in the agricultural sector, who would thereby maintain their natural and customary counterpart. It would also allow the central administration to maintain an easily identifiable structure. It is also planned to maintain the general nature of the labour inspectorate in agriculture (with overall competence for action in the fields of individual and collective labour relations, conditions of work, occupational safety and health, and the various types of employment) in compliance with the Convention. The Government gives the assurance that the number of inspections and related measures each year will be at least equal, if not greater than those undertaken in 2006 and 2007. The Government adds that the call for a boycott announced by the union has been raised and that all the services provided their annual activity report to the central labour inspection authority in agriculture. It notes that the arrangements for the merger of the labour inspectorates will require close dialogue with all the trade union organizations.

The Committee notes these clarifications and recalls that the Convention does not impose a single form of organization of the labour inspection system in agriculture. Indeed, Article 7, paragraph 3, provides that labour inspection in agriculture might be carried out for example: (a) by a single labour inspection department responsible for all sectors of economic activity; (b) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal functional specialization through the appropriate training of inspectors called upon to exercise their functions in agriculture; (c) by a single labour inspection department, which would arrange for internal institutional specialization by creating a technically qualified service, the officers of which would perform their functions in agriculture; or (d) by a specialized agricultural inspection service, the activity of which would be supervised by a central body vested with the same prerogatives in respect of labour inspection in other fields, such as industry, transport and commerce. Remaining attentive to the changes in the organization and functioning of the labour inspectorate as a whole, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would keep the ILO duly informed of the developments occurring in this respect during the period covered by the next report, while at the same time continuing to provide separate information on labour inspection in agriculture, as required by the Convention.

Article 6, paragraph 3. Further duties in addition to those relating to the inspection of conditions of work and the protection of workers. With reference to its comment on the application of Convention No. 81 in relation to the matters raised by other trade union organizations concerning the additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors, the Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that labour inspectors in agriculture are not involved in the joint operations undertaken in the workplace under the control of other public authorities in the framework of the policy to combat illegal immigration. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on these measures and their impact on the volume and quality of enforcement activities in relation to conditions of work in agricultural undertakings.

Support measures by the Government for labour inspectors. The Committee also refers in this regard to its comments under Convention No. 81 concerning the action taken by the Government following the murder in September 2004 of two labour controllers with a view to providing inspection officials with constant logistical and psychological support.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government’s reports received by the Office on 23 November 2007 and 8 September 2008, and the additional information received in January 2008 concerning the matters raised by the General Confederation of Labour – Force Ouvrière (CGT-FO) in 2002 and the Single National Union-Work, Employment, Training (SNU-TEF (FSU)) between 2005 and 2006.

It also notes the annual report of the labour inspectorate for 2006.

Structural developments. The Committee notes with interest the designation in 2006 of the General Directorate of Labour (DGT) of the Ministry of Employment, Social Cohesion and Housing as the central labour inspection authority and the establishment by Decree No. 2007-279 of 2 March 2007 of a National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT) entrusted with contributing to ensuring “the discharge of the functions and guarantees of labour inspection as set out in ILO Conventions Nos 81 and 129”.

Articles 20 and 21 of the Convention. Annual report on the work of the labour inspectorate. The Committee notes with satisfaction the quality of the annual report covered by these provisions. In addition to detailed descriptions and numerous statistical tables on each of the subjects covered by Article 21, the report also contains forward-looking comments.

The Committee notes with particular interest, in relation to a concern expressed by the CGT-FO, the inclusion in the annual inspection report of very detailed data, based on numerous criteria, on the causes of employment accidents and cases of occupational disease and the measures taken in a number of fields to achieve a significant reduction in their incidence (with particular reference to commuting accidents, accidents caused by cranes, diseases related to asbestos, substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic in respect of reproduction, as well as aircraft paints).

Article 10. Numbers and composition of the labour inspection personnel in relation to development functions and the complexity of the legislation.  The Committee notes with interest the plan for the modernization of the labour inspectorate, which envisages a substantial increase in numbers and a reinforcement of the qualifications of inspection officials between 2006 and 2010 (an additional 240 inspectors, 420 controllers and 40 engineers and physicians). The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the distribution of the inspection personnel trained and recruited under this plan, by grade and by function, in light of the duties defined in Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

Articles 6 and 18. Support from the public authorities and the judicial system for inspection officials exposed to physical aggression and threats. The Committee notes with interest the positive message sent out by the ruling of 9 March 2007 convicting a farmer to a sentence of 30 years of imprisonment for the murder in 2004 of two inspection officials engaged in the discharge of their duties. According to the Government, support by the authorities for inspection officials is now a major part of the plan for the development and modernization of the inspectorate (in its legal, judicial and psychological aspects), and the central inspection authority is moreover closely involved in the work undertaken on this subject by the Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee (SLIC).

Articles 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, 5(a), 6, 12, 15(c) and 17. Additional duties entrusted to labour inspectors. Mobilization of resources and incompatibility in light of control methods and the objectives pursued. With regard to the association of the labour inspectorate, under the terms of the Decree of 12 May 2005 and various subsequent circulars, with operations to combat the employment of illegal foreign residents, which the SNU-TEF (FSU) considers to be a violation of the Convention, the Government criticizes the union for a restrictive interpretation of the Convention. The Government refers to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1973, under the terms of which a treaty shall be interpreted “… in light of its object and purpose”, and accordingly considers that there is no discrepancy, but indeed synergy between the logic of protecting workers when engaged in their work and that of combating the employment of foreign nationals without a work permit. The Government also refers to the points of view expressed by the Committee in its 2006 General Survey on labour inspection, according to which it is the labour inspectorate that is responsible for verifying whether the conditions in which the contract of employment is concluded and fulfilled comply with the applicable provisions, in particular in the case of vulnerable workers, such as young persons or people with certain disabilities (paragraph 76). The Committee is bound to specify in this respect that the basic idea behind this position was that it is because of a vulnerability related to physical, mental or psychological criteria that the employment of such persons is considered by Article 3, paragraph 1(a), of the Convention as forming part of conditions of work and therefore comes within the legal competence of the labour inspectorate. With regard to the supervision of provisions relating to clandestine or illegal employment, paragraph 77 of the General Survey indicates that neither Convention No. 81 nor Convention No. 129 contain any provisions suggesting that any worker be excluded from the protection afforded by labour inspection on account of their irregular employment status. With the exception of the employment of vulnerable workers, as indicated above, the functions of the labour inspectorate, as defined by the two Conventions, are intended to secure conditions of work that are in accordance with the relevant legal requirements and the protection of workers while engaged in their work, and not the lawful nature of their employment. From the same viewpoint, the annual report of the labour inspectorate for 2005 describes activities in the field of employment as not coming within the competence of the labour inspectorate, within the meaning of Convention No. 81 (second part, III, page 31), while the report for 2006 specifies that the issues covered by the concept of “conditions of work” concern the conditions and environment in which work is performed (page 61). Recalling that the principal function of labour inspection is not to enforce immigration law and emphasizing that the human and other resources available to inspection services are not unlimited, the Committee has observed that the volume of inspection activities devoted to conditions of work appears to be diminished in relation to those concerning the legal status of workers under immigration law (General Survey, paragraph 78). According to the Government’s report, in the sole year of 2007, the labour inspectorate participated in 31,000 controls in the context of the plan to combat illegal work. The SNU-TEF (FSU) criticizes the Government for associating labour inspectors with joint operations intended to identify and apprehend illegal foreign residents at their place of work. Under the terms of the relevant circulars, whether they are employers or employees, the principal administrative measure imposed is to accompany them to the border, which has the consequence for employees of denying their rights arising out of their capacity as wage earners, in contradiction with the objective of labour inspection of affording protection and contrary to national legislation, under which the offence of illegal employment can only be levelled against the employer, as the workers concerned are in principle considered to be victims (section L.314‑6-1 of the Labour Code). The Committee considered in the above paragraph of its General Survey that, to be compatible with the objective of labour inspection, the function of verifying the legality of employment should have as its corollary the reinstatement of the statutory rights of all workers, and it advocated caution in any collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the immigration authorities (paragraph 161). The Committee notes in this respect that Interministerial Circular No. 21 of 20 December 2006 limits the scope of cooperation by the labour inspectorate to the extent necessary for the effective implementation of the rights of unlawfully employed workers, and that it refers explicitly to Article 17 of the Convention respecting the discretion of labour inspectors to give warning and advice instead of instituting or recommending proceedings. The Circular adds that the notion of “competence” in relation to labour inspection relates principally to the effective implementation of the rights of illegally employed workers. It also refers to the “complimentary and concordant clarifications in this respect” contained in the above General Survey. However, the Committee wishes to observe that the fact that inspectors are incorporated into the ranks of and directed by officials from public bodies other than their own central authority, as defined in Article 4 of the Convention, to undertake joint operations the purpose of which is incompatible with the objective of labour inspection constitutes a transgression of the principle of independence set out in the Convention (Article 6) and undermines the right of decision referred to above, as well as the principle of confidentiality as to the source of complaints (Article 15(c)). It also results in an important limitation on the powers of inspectors to initiate and carry out inspections in workplaces (Article 12, paragraph 2(c)(i) and (ii)) and subordinates action related to the priorities of the central labour inspection authority to those of the authorities combating illegal immigration.

Interministerial Circular No. 10 of 7 July 2008, provided by the Government with its report, orders the renewal in 2008 of joint operations to combat the employment of illegal foreigners and hidden work. While referring to the principles recalled in the Circular of 20 December 2006, it nevertheless indicates that the organization of these joint operations forms part of the activities of the labour inspection services under the aegis of the operational committees to combat illegal work and it recommends that the involvement of labour inspection services in interministerial action to combat the illegal employment of foreigners should be strong, “visible and identified”. The Committee notes the indignation of the SNU-TEF (FSU) at the role imposed upon the labour inspectorate and its officials in the implementation of operations carried out on the basis of “personal appearance” according to “a purely police logic”. The SNU-TEF (FSU) provides abundant documentation in support of its allegations, including articles from the press and statements by associations of inspectors and controllers giving the reasons for their rejection of what they describe as activities which very seriously undermine the objective of labour inspection. The SNU-TEF (FSU) refers as an example of good practice in this respect to a European country in which the function of controlling illegal employment has been transferred from the labour inspectorate to another public authority, as a result of which inspectors have been reinstated in their principle duties, as defined by the Convention. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information so that it can assess the manner in which it is ensured, in accordance with section L.341-6-1 of the Labour Code, that illegal foreign workers benefit from the same protection by the labour inspectorate as other workers, and if it would provide in so far as possible relevant statistics (number of complaints, of employers ordered to bring their situation into compliance with their obligations and the status of procedures for the implementation of such orders).

The Committee urges the Government to take measures to ensure that the powers of inspectors to enter workplaces liable to inspection are not misused for the implementation of joint operations to combat illegal immigration. It requests the Government to take measures, in accordance with Article 5(a) of the Convention, to promote collaboration by the services responsible for combating illegal immigration with labour inspection. These services could notify the labour inspectorate of cases of illegal immigrants apprehended outside a workplace but who are engaged in a labour relationship covered by the Convention. Labour inspectors would accordingly be in a position to ensure their protection in accordance with the powers conferred to them under the terms of the Convention and the Labour Code.

The Committee is also addressing a request directly to the Government concerning other matters.

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

The Committee notes that the Government’s report has not been received. However, annual inspection reports for 2003 and 2004 were sent on 6 September 2005 and 24 April 2006, respectively. It notes the observations of 13 January and 22 November 2005 and 10 July 2006 by the Single National Union – Work Employment Training Integration – SNU-TEF (FSU). The Office sent the above observations to the Government on 2 March, 16 February and 4 September 2006, respectively.

In its observation of 13 January 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU) referred to a murderous assault in the Dordogne in September 2004 against two labour inspectors in the performance of their duties, and a similar incident in Brazil. The above organization expressed its concern at the emergence of violence on the part of employers in the country. It states that there has been some delay on the Government’s part in the prosecution of the above assault and that it has not reacted with operational decisions, particularly as regards strengthening the staff of the inspectorate. It also alleges glaring inadequacy in the numbers of inspectors in light of the extra work created by the complexity of the new legislation (particularly on working hours), the branch agreements and, above all, the enterprise agreements, which are often unclear, and the increase in the number of workplaces and workers covered. Furthermore, those most affected by the drop in the frequency of inspections are workers in small enterprises, where most wage earners are employed, and where the staff have no representation. This situation is impairing not only workers’ rights but also the working conditions of inspection staff: an inspection only once every ten years is conducive, in the organization’s view, to accidents in such enterprises. The organization expresses deep concern not only at the shortage of inspection staff, but at the consequences of the inspection campaign decided on by the Government after the State was found guilty by the Council of State of delay in responding to occupational risks arising from the use of asbestos. The campaign apparently targeted friable asbestos, was carried out over a period of 15 days and was “improvised”, with no serious preparation which meant that the inspectors themselves were exposed to carcinogenic risks. The organization also takes the Government to task for failing to react to employers’ publications on the Internet encouraging enterprises not to observe the legislation and encouraging certain employers’ federations to refuse any supervision by labour inspectors without a prior appointment. Pointing out that the supervisory aspects are only part of the phenomenon, the SNU-TEF (FSU) also alleges breach of Article 18 of the Convention, in that the judicial bodies apprised of incidents in the course of inspection pronounced convictions in only 20 per cent of the cases referred by inspectors. Lastly, it is the organization’s view that the legitimacy of the inspectorate’s supervisory duties must be restored as a matter of urgency.

The Committee notes in this connection that, in the annual inspection report for 2004, numerous departmental directorates report difficulties in following up the results of the court proceedings effectively.

On 22 November 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU) sent a further communication to the ILO referring to developments in the situation, linked to the Decree of 12 May 2005 establishing a central office to combat illegal work (OCLTI). The abovementioned office reports to the subdirectorate of the criminal police department of the gendarmerie nationale, overall coordination being the task of the criminal police central directorate. According to the Decree, the labour inspectorate is “associated with the activities of the office, as necessary” (section 1). The office intervenes at the request of the judicial authorities or units of the gendarmerie, the police, departments and branches of the other ministries concerned and social protection bodies whenever circumstances require (section 4). The office centralizes, analyses, uses and forwards to the national police and units of the gendarmerie nationale, and to the administrative departments and social protection bodies concerned, all information falling within its remit (section 5). According to section 6 of the Decree, the police, the gendarmerie, the Ministries of Labour, Health, Defence, the Economy, Equipment, Transport, and Agriculture, as well as the other administrative departments and social protection bodies concerned, are required to send to the OCLTI at the earliest possible date and in accordance with jointly established procedures, all information in their possession or of which they have knowledge concerning work-related offences, the perpetrators thereof and their accomplices. The SNU-TEF (FSU) appends to its observations a circular addressed to prefects by the Minister of Labour on 29 July 2005 on stepping up mobilization to combat illegal work, following a meeting on 27 July 2005 of the Inter-ministerial Committee for Immigration Control, chaired by the Minister of the Interior. The circular requires every department to organize, before 31 October 2005, at least one joint control operation involving all departments concerned, including the labour inspectorate, the tax and customs inspectorate, to inspect workplaces liable to be unlawfully occupied by undocumented foreigners. The circular makes it plain that “the priority given to supervising the employment of foreigners without legal status […] must not, of course, be to the detriment of other aspects of illegal work, including transnational fraud, […] or other categories of fraud (hidden work, the loan or barter of unlawful labour, breaches of the law on wages and working conditions in general), which are frequently associated with the employment of undocumented foreigners”.

According to the SNU-TEF (FSU), the circular talks of “involving the labour inspectorate in crackdowns on sites where foreigners are to be identified by their appearance”, following which foreigners with no work permits would be taken immediately to the border with no heed for the procedures allowing their status to be regularized or to the Labour Code, particularly section L 341-6-1, which treats undocumented workers as victims who have the entitlements of workers employed for remuneration (wages due, severance pay). The above organization has sent the ILO press articles reporting unrest following a joint operation that led to the arrest of foreigners. It refers to comments addressed to a country by the Committee in 2005 concerning the involvement of labour inspectors in the control of unlawful work by foreigners, in which the Committee noted with satisfaction that the Government had met its commitment to take the necessary measures to transfer the control of unlawful work to a body other than the labour inspectorate, so as to enable inspectors to carry out their main duties fully, in accordance with Article 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Convention.

Lastly, in observations sent on 10 July 2006 the SNU-TEF (FSU) reports what it sees as an aggravation of the situation: an inter-ministerial circular signed on 27 February 2006 ordering several joint operations every year. In the organization’s view, the circular violates the principles on which the action of the labour inspectorate is based, its ethics and the independence which the inspectorate must enjoy in order to perform its duties and which is embodied in the Convention. It would appear that all the organizations of employees of the Minister of Labour reacted immediately to resist what they see as a series of abuses resulting in the perversion of the inspectorate’s duties and to defend the culture and rights of inspectors by refusing to allow them to be associated with what they consider to be purely police operations to identify people by their appearance, with no heed for the fundamental logic of labour law, namely protection of the rights of wage earners, and in breach of Article 17 of the Convention, which gives labour inspectors discretion as to follow-up action and of Article 15(c), providing for confidentiality of the source of any complaints to the inspectorate.

The organization indicates that, at a national meeting of organizations held in Paris on 21 and 22 March 2006, 800 inspectors out of 1,800 voted in favour of a motion to reject in its entirety the current policy on the work of foreigners, and in favour of notifying a national strike.

The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to send information replying to its observation of 2004 together with any comments it may deem useful regarding the matters raised by the SNU-TEF (FSU).

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report received in August 2006 and the annual inspection report for 2005 containing all the information requested by virtue of Article 27 of the Convention. The Committee also notes the Government’s reply to its previous comments, in particular on the points raised by the Association L.611-10 in a communication sent to the ILO on 20 September 2004, and the observations made by the union SNU-TEF (FSU) on 13 January 2005 and 13 July 2006, which were forwarded to the Government on 2 March 2005 and 4 September 2006, respectively.

In its observation of 13 January 2005, the SNU-TEF (FSU), as well as the Association L.611-10, which the Government states is not a trade union, referred to the assassination by a farmer in Dordogne in September 2004 of two labour inspection officials while engaged in their functions and pointed to the lack of commitment by the Government in situations in which labour inspection officials are facing difficulties. According to the union, the Government’s attitude has contributed to the development of a climate of lack of respect and consideration from employers towards labour inspection officials, thereby encouraging the violation of labour laws. Noting that many of the points raised by the union concern the application of Convention No. 81 by the Government, the Committee refers to its observation under that Convention on issues of application that are common to the two instruments, and requests the Government to supply any comments it may wish to make on the matters raised.

With regard to issues related specifically to the application of the present Convention, the union criticizes the Government for not taking measures or issuing instructions relating to the obstacles and aggressions perpetrated against labour inspection officials while engaged in their duties. In contrast with labour inspectors in industrial and commercial establishments, labour inspectors in agriculture do not benefit from psychological and legal support structures following incidents of aggression. Moreover, the only step taken by the Ministry of Agriculture consisted of entrusting the general inspectorate with the mission of reducing inspections, particularly by the labour inspectorate for agriculture, in order to improve the experience of farmers subject to inspections. The labour inspection services in agriculture saw this step as a denial of their daily supervisory work.

The Committee however notes with interest the measures announced by the Government with a view to strengthening the authority needed by inspection officials in their relations with employers and workers in the agricultural sector.

1. Effective cooperation of judicial authorities. In a joint letter, the Minister of Employment, Labour and Social Cohesion, the Vice-Minister for Labour Relations and the Minister of Agriculture requested the Minister of Justice to give instructions to public prosecutors to pursue with the greatest severity cases of threats and aggression against labour inspectors. This request was followed by a letter sent by the Minister of Justice on 12 May 2005 to public prosecutors in appeal courts calling for the strict application of law, focusing systematically, where appropriate, on the aggravating circumstance of the victim being responsible for discharging a public service, with special attention to labour inspectors. The Government refers by way of illustration to the case of an employer who opposed an inspection and who was given a suspended prison sentence and a 4,000 euro fine, following the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture with the Minister of Justice.

2. Improving security conditions for labour inspectors and controllers. A working group has been formed to review inspection proceedings and regional meetings of labour inspectors have been organized with a view to exchanging experience of practice and finding solutions. These were followed by the adoption of practical measures: initial and continued training of labour inspection officials on the management of difficult inspections; the establishment of an immediate psychological support procedure in the case of aggression or obstacles to inspections; the strengthening of the legal protection of inspection personnel; the improved coordination of the inspections and their follow-up in order to improve relations between the administration and farmers.

3. Improvement of the training of labour inspection officials and cooperation between the various labour inspection services. The director of the National Institute of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training has been entrusted with the mission of reviewing the functioning and the organization of labour inspection. The mission will focus on trends and the organization of inspections, the management of conflicts and the initial and further training of labour inspection officials. According to the Government, an instruction issued by the Prime Minister on 2 January 2006 proposes closer collaboration, as an experiment, between labour inspectorates in agriculture and labour inspectorates in industry, commerce and services. The Committee requests the Government to supply any additional information that it considers useful on the matters raised by the organization in its successive comments.

Moreover, the Committee notes the following information provided by the Government relating to the resources and activities of the labour inspectorate over the past two years.

4. Labour inspection staff in agriculture. The Committee notes with interest the information concerning the ratio of the number of labour inspection officials compared to the number of agricultural undertakings liable to inspection and the number and categories of workers covered in terms of annual working time. It also notes with interest that for 2005, the budgetary allocations covered 227 labour inspectors and 149 labour controllers. It would be grateful if the Government would continue providing information on the strengthening of the human resources of the labour inspectorate and indicate the enforcement activities relating to working conditions and the protection of workers in comparison to the other activities entrusted to labour inspection officials.

5. Importance of inspections of illegal employment in the work of labour inspection. The Committee notes that the large proportion of inspections covering illegal employment (41 per cent of all inspections in 2005) reflects the fact that this is considered by the Government to be a priority issue. However, these controls are also intended to verify conditions of work of workers (wages, leave, hours of work, accommodation, etc.). The Committee notes that the observation of the SNU-TEF (FSU), received by the ILO on 13 July 2006 and forwarded to the Government on 4 September 2006, raises the issue of the incompatibility of this activity with the mission of protecting the conditions of work of all workers without consideration of the question of the legality of their employment relationship. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on how it is planned, where appropriate, to respond to the concerns expressed by the union as to the role of labour inspection in the field of protecting the conditions of work of foreign workers who are illegally resident in the country.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes that the Government has not provided a report for the period 2002-04. However, it notes that the annual inspection report for 2002 for the agricultural sector contains certain of the information requested by the report form under article 22 of the ILO Constitution, as well as the information and statistics required under points (a) to (g) of Article 27 of the Convention.

The Committee also notes a communication of 20 September 2004 from the Association L611-10, which defines itself as grouping together inspection officials of the labour inspectorate with the objective of defending the supervisory mission entrusted to the inspectorate. A copy of this communication received on 29 September 2004 by the ILO was transmitted to the Government on 8 October 2004. It mainly refers to the murder by a farmer, in September 2004, of two labour inspectors who were engaged in performing their duties and describes an increase of the phenomenon of acts of violence by employers against inspectors while carrying out inspections.

The Association expresses concern at the slowness of the reaction by the public authorities to this tragic event. Deploring the indifference of the authorities with regard to matters of safety and the legitimacy of labour inspection, the Association calls for the Government to comply in full with its obligations under the present Convention, particularly as concerns the following provisions:

Article 6 of the Convention (Relation between the principal functions of the labour inspectorate relating to conditions of work and any further duties which may be entrusted to labour inspectors).

Article 12 (Arrangements to promote effective cooperation between the inspection services and other services or institutions engaged in similar activities).

Article 14 (Adequacy of the numbers and qualifications of inspectors to secure the effective discharge of their duties). The Association indicates in this regard that the number of officials assigned exclusively to labour inspection duties (1,500) is insufficient with regard to the number of employees covered by the legislation (15 million).

Article 16 (Prerogatives and powers of investigation of inspectors on the occasion of inspections). The Association deplores the inertia of the public authorities in relation to acts of intimidation, threats or acts targeting the physical integrity of control inspectors.

Article 21 (Number, frequency and thoroughness of inspections).

Article 22 (Prompt proceedings and the discretion of inspectors as to whether to give warning and advice before initiating procedures). The Association indicates that the public authorities tend to undervalue the enforcement functions of labour inspection in favour of an exaggerated emphasis on its advisory functions.

Article 24 (Effective imposition of adequate penalties for violation of the legal provisions enforceable by labour inspectors and for obstructing labour inspectors in the performance of their duties).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide in its next report full information, clarifications or comments on the above points.

The Committee notes that the statistics supplied in the 2002 annual report show that the majority of the reports of violations drawn up by labour inspectors concern employment legislation. The number of warnings issued in the same field also appear to indicate that inspection in agricultural enterprises is focused mainly on illegal work to the detriment of conditions of work. The prison sentences imposed by the courts are related in the same proportion to breaches of the legislation relating to employment and that on occupational safety and health conditions (12 each). The reports issued concerning violations of the legal provisions on conditions of work, including occupational safety and health, are in many cases not followed up by legal proceedings, in contrast to those relating to illegal employment.

These figures indicate that the supervisory and prevention activities of labour inspectors in the area of conditions of work and the protection of workers appear to be suffering from the increasing importance given to their investigation and prosecution activities relating to illegal and clandestine work. They also reflect the image of a judicial system that is more concerned with penalizing illegal employment and clandestine work than the protection of workers’ rights (Articles 22 and 24).

The annual inspection report, which indicates that in 2000 the number of inspection staff in agriculture was 361 (204 inspectors and 157 controllers), does not make any assessment of the adequacy of their numbers in relation to the number of workplaces liable to inspection and the workers covered (194,565 and 1,621,012, respectively) (Articles 14 and 16). While taking into account the fluctuating number of workers in agriculture, including permanent, as well as seasonal or occasional workers, the Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate the proportion of the working time of labour inspectors and controllers that is devoted to the functions of supervision and the provision of advice and technical information to employers and workers on conditions of work, and the time allocated to the enforcement of legislation relating to illegal employment and clandestine work or to procedures for the settlement of collective disputes (Article 6, paragraph 3).

The function of a "controller of illegal employment" with which inspectors are entrusted by law, by its nature hardly propitious to the establishment and maintenance of the climate of confidence and cooperation necessary in their relation with employers and workers. The Committee nevertheless considers that information relating to situations of illegal employment and clandestine work should be systematically brought to the labour inspectorate’s attention, as these situations generally involve a high likelihood of the violation of legal provisions respecting conditions of work. The intervention of labour inspectors, within the framework of their powers and prerogatives, would allow them to take appropriate measures against the employers concerned.

The Committee would be grateful if the Government would examine the possibility, preferably in consultation with the social partners, of a readjustment of the functions of the labour inspectorate and keep the ILO informed in this regard.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

With reference to its previous observation, the Committee notes the following information provided in reply to the comments made by the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière (CGT-FO), dated 18 February 2002.

1. Delays in the publication of annual labour inspection reports. Efforts are being made so that in future the report is communicated earlier. The 2002 report should already have been available since July 2004, while the 2003 report should be transmitted in February/March 2005.

2. Staff of the inspectorate (Article 10 of the Convention); material resources (Article 11); and number and frequency of inspections (Article 16). The staff and material resources, particularly in terms of information technology and transport, available to inspection personnel are continually progressing. However, while the absolute number of inspections is increasing, their frequency in relation to the workplaces liable to inspection has in practice been considerably reduced over the past two decades, with the ratios (of theoretical value) having fallen between 1987 and 2002 from one inspection every two years to one inspection every 4.2 years for workplaces with 50 or more workers and from one inspection every 4.6 years to one inspection every 20 years for workplaces with fewer than 50 workers. The Government explains the objective reasons for this trend, which include: the regular increase in the number of workplaces to be covered; a relative stagnation in the number of inspection units; the increasing volume and complexity of the legislation covered and the increase in the number of collective agreements; the weakening of staff representation, leading to a multiplication of individual claims; and the reduction of the working week to 35 hours. The Government nevertheless indicates a significant increase in the number of coordinated activities involving inspection staff.

3. Causes of industrial accidents at high-risk workplaces. The procedure established for the notification of industrial accidents results in certain accidents, which are not classified as being serious, not being immediately notified to the inspection services. This is not the case for serious or mortal accidents, when the police and the gendarmerie take responsibility for notifying them immediately. Inspectors are generally called upon to carry out in-depth investigations and to implement legal prevention and/or repression measures to prevent the recurrence of accidents, although the Ministry of Labour has no data on the causes of industrial accidents in high-risk sites. The Committee however notes with satisfaction, following the effects of the accident in the AZF chemical factory on 21 September 2001, the decisions communicated on the implementation and strengthening of systematic inter-institutional collaboration with a view to the prevention to occupational risks, namely: (1) the joint note of the Ministers responsible for labour and the environment, of 14 December 2001, affirming the need, at the local level, for collaboration between the labour inspectorate and the inspectorate of classified installations, respecting the specific functions and prerogatives of each of these inspection bodies (Article 5(a) of the Convention); (ii) the Circular of the Directorate of Industrial Relations (DRT), of 14 February 2002, to prevent the consequences of subcontracting, intended to improve the capacities for intervention of staff representatives in "SEVESO II AS" establishments and the development of risk evaluation through, inter alia, the involvement of the penal responsibility of the employer and the development of social dialogue within the enterprise; and (iii) Circular No. 2003-04, of 12 March 2003, providing guidance for a labour policy, including important components related to the functions of the labour inspectorate and giving many reasons why working structures and methods should be fundamentally adaptable, particularly in relation to the prevention of occupational risks with deferred effects.

The Committee hopes that the efforts made to improve the effectiveness of the inspection system will be continued and that their results will be reflected in the forthcoming annual reports under Articles 20 and 21, of which the time required for their publication and communication to the ILO should be improved through the development of the new information technology system SITERE announced by the Government. It requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the practical measures adopted to implement the action set out in the above circulars in relation to risk evaluation, as well as information on the impact of the implementation of technical instruction DAGEMO/MICAPCOR No. 2002-03 of 28 March 2002 concerning the reports of infringements drawn up by the labour inspectorate on the relations of inspectors with employers and workers or their organizations.

It also hopes that data on the causes of industrial accidents and cases of occupational diseases in all categories of workplace liable to inspection will soon be accessible to the inspection services to facilitate their prevention functions.

The Committee further notes with interest that a working group has been established in the Ministry of Labour, under the direction of MICAPCOR (Central Support and Coordination Mission for the External Labour and Employment Services), to examine, with the technical support of the ILO, issues relating to the professional rules for discharging the function of labour inspection and the means for preparing young inspection officials to manage certain situations which may involve risks for their physical safety or psychological health.

Finally, the Committee notes that the Government’s report indicates in a preliminary remark that it covers Metropolitan France, the four overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Guiana, Martinique, Réunion) and the community of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The Government is requested to indicate the manner in which it is envisaged, where appropriate, that the statistics required by points (c) to (g) of Article 21 are to be published and communicated to the ILO separately for each of these territories in future annual inspection reports under Article 20.

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

With reference to the comments made by the General Confederation of Labour-Force ouvrière on 18 February 2002 concerning the annual inspection report for 1999, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in reply to the points raised concerning: the time limits for the publication of annual labour reports (Article 20 of the Convention); the impact of the inadequacy of the human and material resources of the inspection services on the number and frequency of inspections (Articles 10 and 16); and the causes of employment accidents occurring in high-risk sites (Article 21(g)).

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

With reference to its observation, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments.

Article 13 of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided concerning the judicial and administrative procedures which give effect to the provisions of this Article in the event of danger to the safety and health of workers. It notes that a working group established at the end of 2000 by MICAPCOR, composed of representatives of the Ministry of Justice and of the central administration of the decentralized services of the ministry responsible for labour, has been entrusted with preparing, in close collaboration with the Ministry of Justice, new procedures for reporting violations. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the outcome of the work of this group, and on any measure taken as a result.

Article 15. Noting that the legislation does not provide for exceptions to the principle of confidentiality as to the source of complaints, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the absolute nature of confidentiality may be limited by national legislation, as indicated in the introductory part of this Article. It is for each Member which has ratified the Convention to determine, in national laws or regulations, the exceptions which it intends to make to the obligation of confidentiality required of labour inspectors with regard to the sources of any complaint giving rise to an inspection, taking into account the purpose of the provision, namely the protection of employees making complaints against any reprisals by the employer. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will be able to take, in the light of the above, appropriate measures to supplement the national legislation with provisions determining exceptional situations in which, if necessary with the agreement of the worker concerned, labour inspectors may be released from the prohibition upon revealing the identity of the latter.

Article 16. The Committee notes that, according to the Government, the number and frequency of inspections is well below the standards established in this respect in 1972. At the pace recorded in 1999, workplaces with 50 employees are inspected every four years, while those with under 50 employees are inspected every 14 years. The Government indicates that, according to the conclusions of a working group set up in 2000 to review the situation of labour inspection units, the maximum interval between inspections should be limited to five years for workplaces with fewer than 50 employees and three years for workplaces with over 50 employees. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on any measure taken to improve the situation and to ensure, as envisaged by this Article of the Convention, that workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of the legal provisions subject to the supervision of the labour inspectorate.

Articles 20 and 21. The Committee notes the obstacles preventing the preparation of an annual report in accordance with these provisions. It notes that the situation deteriorated further in 2000-01 as a result of protest action by labour inspectors who, in support of their claims for the improvement of their status, no longer provide statistics on inspections. However, the Government states that the computer services are currently working on the development, by 2003-04, of a labour inspection computer system called the Labour Information Network System (SITERE). The Committee hopes that this project will achieve the expected results and that an annual inspection report containing reliable information on each of the subjects enumerated in Article 21 will be published and transmitted to the ILO within the time limits prescribed by Article 20.

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

The Committee notes the Government’s detailed report and the attached documents, including Decree No. 2000-747 of 1 August 2000 issuing the specific conditions of service of the agents of the labour inspectorate and the new regulations issued in 2000 and 2001 concerning the provision to the staff of the labour inspectorate of various specific bonuses. However, the Committee notes that the Government does not indicate its position with regard to the comments made by the trade union CGT PTT of the Department of L’Aisne in a letter dated 28 December 1999, transmitted to the ILO by the Government on 9 February 2000. In the view of the trade union, the exclusion of private law contractual workers in the postal services from the purview of the labour inspectorate is contrary to the provisions of the Convention. In particular, it draws attention to the absence of protection of these workers, whose contractual conditions are, it alleges, in violation of the labour legislation and are resulting in the abusive precariousness of their situation. According to a note published in June 2000 by the Central Support and Coordination Mission of the Decentralized Labour and Employment Services (MICAPCOR), the question of the competence of the labour inspectorate with regard to staff representatives has henceforth been resolved by point 122 entitled "case of public sector enterprises" of Circular DRT No. 3 of 1 March 2000 respecting administrative decisions concerning the dismissal of protected employees. The note indicates that, as the postal services are henceforth considered to be a public industrial and commercial establishment, under Decisions 18824 and 18826 of the Conseil d’Etat dated 13 November 1998, the Labour Code therefore applies to private law employees and, in these circumstances, the labour inspectorate is competent to intervene where these employees are concerned if their duties are of the same nature as those envisaged by the Labour Code. The MICAPCOR is reported to have expressed an identical opinion in a note dated 12 July 1999, published in the "notes of the mission No. 38 of July 1999". The Committee notes that, according to the information provided by the Government under Article 26, in most cases it is the MICAPCOR which responds to the question of whether certain public law entities are subject to the Labour Code, and therefore to supervision by the labour inspectorate, as governed by this Convention. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide clarifications concerning the liability of postal service establishments to supervision by the labour inspectorate, provide copies of any relevant text and indicate the measures taken to ensure the application of legal provisions respecting conditions of work and protection to workers engaged in these establishments under private law contracts.

With reference to its previous comments concerning the observations made by the trade union organizations Force Ouvrière (FO) and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning the freeze imposed on the National Labour Inspection Council (CNIT), the Committee notes that, according to the Government, it is proposed to set up this tripartite body established by Decree No. 83-135 of 24 February 1983. Placed under the minister responsible for labour, the CNIT is competent for labour inspection under the authority of the minister responsible for labour, labour inspection in agriculture, labour inspection in transport, maritime labour inspection and labour inspection in areas under the competence of the minister responsible for industry. The Council would issue opinions, and transmit them to the Government and to Parliament, on the state of the application of labour law, on the training programme of the National Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Institute and on the annual reports prepared by ministers under whose authority the various labour inspection services are placed. Noting that a body at this level has been awaited by the social partners since its creation was announced in 1983, and that its establishment is regularly referred to by the Government in its reports, the Committee hopes that practical measures will soon be taken for this purpose and that the relevant information will be provided to the ILO forthwith.

The Government also refers to the current reflection on whether to set up a committee of experts responsible for issuing opinions in all appeals concerning the independence of decisions by officials and to ensure that their protection is effectively secured in the exercise of their duties. This committee would be responsible for addressing matters relating to the professional rules applicable to labour inspection. Emphasizing the value of the creation of such a body in order to ensure observance of Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to provide information on the development and results of the reflection carried out on this issue.

With reference to its previous comments, the Committee notes with interest the proportion of women in the staff of the labour inspectorate. However, it notes that, according to the Government, while the number of women is increasing among inspectors, this is not yet the case for managerial posts and that a multi-year plan to improve the access of women to higher managerial posts throughout the Ministry of Employment and Solidarity was approved by Order of the Minister of 7 March 2001.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain points.

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

With reference also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the following points.

Article 3 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, under section 112 of the Act of 2 July 1998, labour inspectors have the opportunity to discharge the duties of vocational training inspectors. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the exact role played by labour inspectors in relation to vocational training and if it would indicate whether they discharge this function in addition to their usual duties. If this is the case, the Government is requested to indicate the manner in which it is ensured that these further duties do not interfere with the effective discharge by labour inspectors of their primary duties, as set out in paragraph 1 of this Article.

Article 5. The Committee notes the confirmation, in reply to the observations made by the trade union organizations FO and CFDT, that the National Council of the Labour Inspectorate has not been activated, despite the appointment of its members in March 1993. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons which have prevented the initiation and operation of the above Council, within which the collaboration envisaged in point (b) of this Article could take place between officials of the labour inspectorate and employers and workers or their organizations, and if it would provide information on the measures which may have been taken or are envisaged to resolve the matter.

Article 7. The Committee notes with interest the organization of an open competition for candidates from enterprises and occupational or trade union organizations for the exceptional recruitment of 15 labour inspectors, and the information concerning the initial and further training provided by the National Institute for Labour, Employment and Occupational Training (INTEFP) for labour inspectors. It would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the outcome of the competition and the assignment of the successful applicants by geographical area and specialization.

Article 8. The Committee notes that the texts respecting the organization of the labour inspection system apply without distinction to all labour inspectors. The Committee nevertheless requests the Government to indicate whether, as envisaged by this Article, special duties are assigned to men and women inspectors. If so, please provide information on the manner in which effect is given to this provision.

Article 9. With reference to the information provided on several occasions by the Government concerning the possibility for labour inspectors to require employers to call upon institutions approved by the Ministry of Labour for the discharge of technical supervision in fields in which they are not qualified, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide examples of the application of such measures in practice. It requests the Government to provide information in particular on the financial aspect.

Article 10. The Committee notes that the number of sections of the inspectorate throughout the territory and overseas territories is determined by the density of employees. It would be grateful if the Government would indicate whether account is also taken of the other criteria enumerated in this Article, such as the various categories of workers, the material means placed at the disposal of the inspectors and the practical conditions under which visits of inspection must be carried out in order to be effective.

Article 13. The Committee notes that labour inspectors are empowered, in the event of serious and imminent danger for employees, to require the temporary stoppage of work in construction sites and public works, particularly in cases of non-compliance with the regulations respecting falls from heights and the risk of being buried. Since 1996, they have also been legally empowered to exercise this power in the absence of protective equipment in operations to isolate or remove asbestos. In other branches of activity, it is for the judges to issue provisional orders requiring measures to be taken to remove the risk, including the temporary closure of a workplace or work site. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would indicate the reasons for the different treatment of situations of grave danger to the safety of workers based on the sector in which they work.

Article 14. In reply to the observations of the CFDT expressing concern at the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of the procedures for the declaration and registration of employment accidents and occupational diseases, the Government indicates that a process of reflection is envisaged concerning the possibility of a procedure for the direct notification of the labour inspectorate, similar to the procedure existing in certain sectors. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide details on such procedures and the advantages which they offer, as well as the measures which have already been taken or are envisaged in relation to the concerns expressed by the CFDT.

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

The Committee notes the Government's report in reply to its previous comments. It draws attention, however, to the following matters.

Article 20(c) of the Convention. The Committee notes that the memoranda of 31 May and 5 July 1985 sent with the report for the purpose of showing the effective application of the principle of confidentiality regarding the source of complaints do not cover the particular aspect of correspondence exchanged between users and the regional and departmental labour inspection services. According to the indication given in the memorandum of 5 July 1985, this matter seems to be covered by circular No. 7 001 of 29 March 1985. The Government is therefore requested to send a copy of this circular with its next report in order to allow the Committee to appreciate its scope in regard to this article of the Convention.

Annual inspection reports. The Committee notes that, despite the information contained in the Government's report, the annual inspection reports for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are not available at the ILO. It would be grateful if the Government would send copies of them at the same time as those relating to subsequent years.

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

The Committee notes the Government's detailed report concerning the application of the Convention. However, it regrets to note for the third consecutive year the failure to transmit the annual reports on the activities of the labour inspectorate sufficiently rapidly for them to be useful. The Committee notes that the Government refers, with regard to Articles 7, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of the Convention, in relation to the application of the Convention in practice, to the statistics and information contained in these reports, and it would therefore be grateful if the Government would take the necessary steps to ensure that in future these reports are published and transmitted to the ILO within the time limits set out in Article 20. Their publication and transmission within appropriate time limits would allow workers and employers and their organizations to be informed of them and react to the points which give rise to concern, while also permitting the Committee to assess developments in the application of the Convention on a factual basis.

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

Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government on the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture regarding the working of the labour inspection system in the agricultural sector following the reforms in the organization and powers of the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry introduced by Decrees on 28 December 1994 and subsequent legislation. The Committee notes that, in the opinion both of the trade unions and the Government, the texts in question are not in themselves an obstacle to carrying out labour inspection tasks in the agricultural sector in accordance with the provisions of the Convention; however, the Committee notes that, in practice, secondary budgetary and administrative measures have been such as to undermine observance of certain fundamental provisions of the Convention.

1. Practical application of the Convention

Article 15, paragraph 1(b). Under the terms of a circular dated 18 June 1991 from the Director of Agriculture and Forestry (Central Region), prior authorization from the Director is required for any official travel in the service of the Regional Directorate, including for the purpose of labour inspection in agriculture, and any such request must indicate the cost. None of the reference budget sections referred to in the circular relate specifically to expenditure connected with monitoring activities. The Government also confirms that all operational budget allocations of the Ministry of Agriculture are spread among the regional and departmental directorates, and the central authority does not intervene in the distribution of these allocations among the decentralized services, including those for agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy services. The Government also indicates that the determination of budget allocations on a decentralized basis is done following consultations with all the heads of the decentralized services at a budget conference in which the Inspection Mission of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) takes part. The Committee points out that the very nature of the inspection service implies a high level of routine mobility, but also the need to undertake unplanned journeys both to workplaces liable to inspection and to institutions and bodies upstream or downstream of the inspection process. The Committee emphasized in its 1985 General Survey on labour inspection that excessive red tape (special permits, time restrictions, check in and check out) could be detrimental to the effectiveness of inspectors' movements (paragraph 243) and that, under Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the competent authority should make the necessary arrangements to reimburse to labour inspectors in agriculture any travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties. It would be desirable, in order to ensure that labour inspectors enjoy the freedom of movement which is essential for the performance of their duties, for any allocations relating to expenditure incurred on inspection visits to be provided for under a specific budget heading. Supervision of the activities of regional and departmental inspection services by the central authority and the production by that central authority of budget forecasts in preparation for its participation in the conference held to determine the distribution at the regional and departmental levels of budget allocations among the services would also thereby be facilitated. The Government is therefore asked to take the necessary measures to maintain throughout its territory a system of labour inspection in agriculture such that, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 1, inspectors and assistant inspectors are able to carry out their tasks under the supervision and control of the central authority to which they are operationally subordinate, and to ensure that, in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 1, they are independent of any improper external influences. The Committee trusts that the Government will provide information on the specific measures taken to that end in its next report.

Article 20, subparagraph (c). The Committee notes the general information provided by the Government in reply to the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture alleging failure on the part of the decentralized authorities to respect the principle of confidentiality of sources of complaints. This information is not sufficient to allow the Committee to assess the application of this provision under which, subject to possible exceptions allowed under national legislation, labour inspectors in agriculture must treat as absolutely confidential the sources of any complaint bringing to the notice of defect, a danger in working processes or breach of legal provisions, and must give no intimation to the employer or his representative that the visit of inspection was made in consequence of the receipt of such a complaint. The Committee requests the Government to provide additional information on the measures taken in particular with a view to ensuring that mail addressed to the inspection services or labour inspectors reaches them directly, without any risk of it being opened beforehand by a general mail distribution service in the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF and DRAF).

Further to its previous comments, the Committee recalls that the Government was asked to describe the practical functioning of the inspection mission of the ITEPSA, which is the central authority within the meaning of Article 7, and to provide information on the manner in which the central authority proposes to deal with the complaints contained in the communications of the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning the application of the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention.

2. Transmission of annual inspection reports

Articles 26 and 27. The Committee notes the communication of the annual inspection activities reports for the years 1993 and 1994. It asks the Government once again to provide such reports in future within the specified time-limits.

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

The Committee refers to its observation on the Convention and asks the Government to provide information on the following points.

1. Articles 10 and 16 of the Convention. The Committee notes the observations of the General Confederation of Labour -- "Force ouvrière" (FO) and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning the numbers in the inspection divisions of the labour inspectorate. According to the FO, although the numbers have increased slightly in absolute terms, the percentage of labour inspectorate personnel assigned to the inspection divisions has dropped over the last 20 years from 90 per cent to 53 per cent as regards inspectors and from 50 per cent to 34 per cent as regards supervisors, whereas the workload has increased. The FO notes that the total staff amounts to 432 inspectors, whereas in 1995 the total staff under the budget of the Ministry of Labour was 811 inspectors and 2,565 supervisors. According to the FO, these figures show the importance attached to employment issues in labour inspection to the detriment of the supervision of the application of labour law. In this context, the CFDT points out that the number of inspectors has barely increased despite the growing complexity of the legislation and the growing number of infringements. The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the numbers of the labour inspectorate. It recalls that under Article 10 of the Convention the number of labour inspectors must be sufficient to secure the effective discharge of the duties of the inspectorate and must be determined with due regard for the importance of duties, the material means and the practical conditions of visits, in order to ensure that, in accordance with Article 16 of the Convention, workplaces are inspected as often and as thoroughly as is necessary to ensure the effective application of legal provisions.

2. Article 5. The Committee notes that the FO and the CFDT state that the members of the National Labour Council of the labour inspectorate, established by Decree No. 83-135 of 24 January 1983, have not been appointed. The Committee asks the Government to make such observations as it deems appropriate on this matter.

3. Article 14. The Committee notes the Government's statement that occupational accidents or cases of occupational disease are brought to the attention of the public social security service and the labour inspection service in a single declaration. The Committee notes that, according to the CFDT, the legislation does not require serious occupational accidents to be notified to the labour inspectorate; if the labour inspector is not informed by the police, he must wait to be informed by the declaration transmitted by the Regional Sickness Insurance Funds (CRAM) several weeks later. The Committee refers to paragraphs 84 to 88 of its General Survey of 1985 on labour inspection in which it indicates that notification to the labour inspection service is not an end in itself but forms part of the more general aim of preventing occupational risks. Its purpose is to enable labour inspectors to conduct inquiries in the enterprise to determine the causes of occupational accidents and diseases and to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to avoid recurrences of such cases. The Committee asks the Government to indicate any improvements envisaged in this respect, with a view to ensuring that the labour inspectorate is informed as soon as possible.

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

Further to its previous comments which concerned the application of the Convention in relation to the adoption of several decrees to reform the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report. It also notes the observations made by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs (UNAS), the General Confederation of Labour "Force ouvrière" (FO), and the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) concerning, among other matters, the strength of the labour inspectorate, the establishment of the National Labour Inspection Council and notification to the inspectorate of serious occupational accidents. The Committee also notes the opinion adopted by the Economic and Social Council on 24 January 1996 on the labour inspectorate, summing up the functions and means of the inspectorate and submitting proposals. Among the objectives of the proposals concerning the organization and activities of the labour inspectorate are the guarantee of the independence of the inspectorate, and the priority for supervision. The Committee notes with interest that there is currently a wide-ranging debate on the labour inspectorate. It requests the Government to provide information on the specific proposals for reform of labour inspection, which may be adopted following the opinion of the Economic and Social Council in connection with the application of the Convention. The Committee is addressing a direct request to the Government on the application of Articles 5, 10, 14 and 16 of the Convention.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes the Government's report and the report on labour inspection in 1992.

It notes the information on the application of the Convention submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) on 9 December 1994.

The Committee also notes the observations presented by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs on 4 November 1994 and by the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions dated 22 June, 16 September and 17 November 1994, concerning in particular the draft reform of the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training.

In its reply received on 16 January 1995, the Government refers to this draft decree.

The Committee also notes the communication from the CGT National Union of Social Affairs received on 1 February 1995. It notes that the above union comments on several provisions of Decree No. 94-1166 of 28 December 1994 concerning the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, the implementation of which appears to raise a number of problems with regard to the Convention, particularly concerning the functions of labour inspectors (Article 3 of the Convention), stability and independence (Article 6), number of inspectors (Article 10) and necessary facilities (Article 11).

The Committee will examine this matter at its next session in November 1995. It therefore asks the Government to send its comments on the above-mentioned observations in its next detailed report on the application of the Convention this year.

Lastly, the Committee notes that the Governing Body has declared receivable, at its 261st Session, in November 1994, the representation made by the World Federation of Trade Unions under article 24 of the Constitution, alleging failure by France to comply with the Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81), and the Social Policy (Non-Metropolitan Territories) Convention, 1947 (No. 82), for the territory of French Polynesia.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by a number of trade union organizations concerning the application of the Convention in relation to a project to reform the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, and following the adoption of Decree No. 94-1166, of 28 December 1994, respecting the organization of the decentralized departments of the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training, giving effect to the reform (observations made by the CGT National Union of Social Affairs (UNAS) on 4 November 1994 and 1 February 1995; the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) on 9 December 1994; and the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions on 22 June, 16 September and 17 November 1994). The Committee noted in particular that, in its communication dated 1 February 1995, the UNAS stated that Decree No. 94-1166 raised various problems concerning the application of the Convention, particularly with regard to the functions of inspectors (Article 3 of the Convention), their stability and independence (Article 6), the number of labour inspectors (Article 10) and their material resources (Article 11).

The Committee notes that the CFDT (Federation of Social, Labour and Employment Protection) made new observations on 24 February 1995 and that the UNAS also did so on 2 October 1995. The documentation attached to this latter communication indicates that the following trade union organizations: CGT National Union of Social Affairs, the General Trade Union of Labour, Employment and Vocational Training Employees (FO), the CFDT (Federation of Social, Labour and Employment Protection), the National Trade Union of Labour Inspectors (SNIT), and the National Federation of Labour Inspection Unions (FNSIT), have brought an appeal to the Council of State to annul Decree No. 94-1166 referred to above, Decree No. 94-1167 of 28 December 1994 and a number of orders. The Committee notes that the Council of State has not yet issued a decision respecting the above appeal.

The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of the decision of the Council of State when it is issued. It also requests it to provide a detailed report containing full information on the application of the Convention in law and practice, particularly with regard to the application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Articles 4, 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention, especially in the light of the observations made by the trade union organizations.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

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

Further to its observation, the Committee 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:

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

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

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

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information contained in the report on labour inspection in 1990. However, it notes once again that the Government's report under article 22 of the Constitution has not been received. The Committee recalls the obligation to supply a report on the application of the Convention in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO. This report, which is a different document from the annual report on the inspection services due under Article 20 of the Convention, should supply all the information required under the report form, including replies to the comments made by the Committee and an indication of the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the report have been transmitted in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to supply the report due under article 22 of the Constitution in time for it to be examined at its next session. 2. The Committee notes with regret that no reply has been received to its previous comments concerning the observations made in 1989 and 1990 by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of the Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). These observations concern the application of Articles 3, paragraph 2, and 10, of the Convention and relate to the sufficiency of the number of inspectors responsible for ensuring the effective functioning of the inspection service and the material resources made available to them. Although noting the general information contained in the annual report of the inspection services for 1990, the Committee trusts that the Government will include in its next report under article 22 of the Constitution any comment that it considers appropriate concerning the above observations or the measures taken as a consequence of these observations. 3. The Committee notes that the annual report of the inspection services for 1990 reached the ILO in December 1992. It hopes that the Government will publish and transmit annual reports for subsequent years within the time limits set out in Article 20 of the Convention.

#CONSTITUTION:22

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

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:

The Committee refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

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

1. The Committee notes the additional observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the further reply provided by the Government. It recalls its previous comments noting observations made by the same Union and the Government's earlier replies. The Union states that the situation continues to worsen, and labour inspectors in agriculture operate in an administrative and financial context which does not assure them of independence from improper external influence. Administratively, the Union is of the view that the changes made by Decrees Nos. 84-1192 and 84-1193 place labour inspection in agriculture under the authority of regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry and not under a central body; that the manpower management and planning methods adopted since 1 January 1992 entrust such tasks exclusively to the same regional and departmental directors even with respect to labour inspection services; that the national central inspection body responsible for the control, evaluation and review of the inspection system is too weak; and that, financially, the allocation of resources for general operations and transportation penalizes the labour inspection services as opposed to the other services. The Union has forwarded observations and petitions to the Government with regard to the refusal by some departmental directors of agriculture to accept the appointment of some high-level labour inspectors in such departments as Tarn and Garonne, Sarthe and Nord. It considers that Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention regarding the independence and central administration of the inspection service; Articles 14 and 15, regarding their numbers and material resources; and Articles 20 and 25, regarding the manner in which they deal with enterprises inspected and complaints received, and make their inspection reports, are not satisfied.

2. The Committee notes the Government's reply that, based on the 1984 Decrees and the regulations on the assignment, evaluation and control of labour inspectors, their independence is ensured in conformity with Article 8 of the Convention. The Government states that vacant inspectors' posts are few, contrary to the Union's allegations, and essentially involve remunerated trainees. Regional and departmental directors of agriculture, even when included in the decision-making process on manpower allocation, do not decide by themselves on the number of labour inspectors, as that is fixed annually in a global way within the context of the Ministry's budget. The Government refers to the Order of 13 March 1987 and the Ministerial Order of 5 May 1989 regarding the national service of labour inspection, which constitutes the central inspection service within the meaning of Article 7 of the Convention. The Committee further notes that, in the context of the global assessment of the budgetary resources of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the departmental budgetary conference of all services concerned determines allocations, and that any conflict is resolved jointly by the competent interregional engineer-general in charge of general inspection services and the specialized labour inspection service.

3. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would have further regard to the Convention's requirements as to the organization and composition of the inspection services in agriculture, and describe the practical functioning of the central body and how it proposes to address the complaints contained in the Union's communications.

4. The Committee notes from the Government that there were no further complaints made with regard to earlier comments relating to the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)). It hopes the Government will provide all available information as to the practical application of this provision and any difficulties met with.

5. Articles 26 and 27. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes that no annual report on inspection in agriculture has been received since March 1992, relating to 1990. It would be grateful if the Government would provide future annual reports in the time-limits laid down, and include statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g).

Point IV of the report form. Please include in future reports under article 22 of the Constitution, information on any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

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

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee takes due note of the information contained in the report on labour inspection in 1990. However, it notes once again that the Government's report under article 22 of the Constitution has not been received. The Committee recalls the obligation to supply a report on the application of the Convention in accordance with the report form adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO. This report, which is a different document from the annual report on the inspection services due under Article 20 of the Convention, should supply all the information required under the report form, including replies to the comments made by the Committee and an indication of the representative organizations of employers and workers to which copies of the report have been transmitted in accordance with article 23, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. The Committee trusts that the Government will not fail to supply the report due under article 22 of the Constitution in time for it to be examined at its next session.

2. The Committee notes with regret that no reply has been received to its previous comments concerning the observations made in 1989 and 1990 by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of the Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). These observations concern the application of Articles 3, paragraph 2, and 10, of the Convention and relate to the sufficiency of the number of inspectors responsible for ensuring the effective functioning of the inspection service and the material resources made available to them. Although noting the general information contained in the annual report of the inspection services for 1990, the Committee trusts that the Government will include in its next report under article 22 of the Constitution any comment that it considers appropriate concerning the above observations or the measures taken as a consequence of these observations.

3. The Committee notes that the annual report of the inspection services for 1990 reached the ILO in December 1992. It hopes that the Government will publish and transmit annual reports for subsequent years within the time limits set out in Article 20 of the Convention.

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

The Committee notes that the report has not been received. It refers to its previous comments on the application of this Convention, and its observation concerning Convention No. 81. It also notes the new comments received from the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture and the CGT Federation of Public Services. The Committee hopes that the Government will not fail to transmit a detailed report under article 22 of the Constitution for examination at its next session and that all the information requested and described in greater detail in its direct request will be supplied.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

1. The Committee notes the observations made by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture concerning application of the Convention and the responsive comments made by the Government in its report; it recalls previous comments noting observations made by the same Union. The Union states that the situation in the labour inspectorate has further deteriorated; it raises the requirement that all travel must be authorised by a regional centre and asserts that this sort of management makes labour inspection in agriculture impossible. The Government responds that the centralisation of authority cited by the Union is useful for appreciating in a more global fashion the needs of the inspection service and that, generally, the Union's claims are overstated.

2. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the information provided by the Government concerning the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture which protect the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate (Article 8), and the arrangements made to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with properly located and furnished offices and transport facilities (Article 15).

3. With regard to its previous comments concerning the confidentiality of sources of complaints (Article 20(c)), the Committee notes information provided by the Government concerning general confidentiality of correspondence. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would in addition ensure that the important principle of confidentiality is maintained with respect to the source of complaints and, in particular, describe the practical application of this Article of the Convention.

4. Articles 26 and 27, and Part IV of the report form. The Committee notes with interest the annual report on labour inspection for 1990. The Committee asks what measures are envisaged or have been taken to incorporate within the report statistics on occupational diseases and their causes as required by Article 27(g). The Committee would also be grateful to learn of any practical difficulties encountered in the application of the Convention, having regard in particular to the rise in the number of serious occupational accidents in 1989, and consequent measures taken.

5. The Committee has also noted that further comments were received from the Union during its current session. It would be glad if the Government would respond also to these comments in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

Further to its observation, the Committee noted earlier comments submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport). The Government is asked to provide the necessary information on the Committee's previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee noted the observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) alleging non-application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 10 of the Convention. The Union indicated that one of the eight labour inspection posts in the Department of Isère had been effectively held vacant for almost one year because the inspector who should do the inspection work in the post has also been given responsibilities for vocational training. Consequently, a number of important enterprises have not been inspected for nine months, and the union's attempts to persuade the inspectorate to remedy the situation have failed. The Committee hopes the Government will include in its next report all due information in this respect.

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicated that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs had been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport had been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services were not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, once more, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.

Article 20 of the Convention. The Committee notes that the annual report on inspection for 1989 was received by the ILO in May 1991. It hopes that the Government will now publish and supply the annual report for 1990, and that in subsequent years the time-limits laid down in the Convention will be observed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1992, published 79th ILC session (1992)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report under article 22 of the Constitution will be supplied for examination at its next session, and that the Government will respond to observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) and the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Service/Labour Inspectorate for Transport) over the past two years. The Committee is once more directly requesting the Government to provide information concerning the details of these observations.

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

The Committee notes the observations submitted by the French Democratic Confederation of Labour (CFDT) alleging non-application of Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 10 of the Convention. The Union indicates that one of the eight labour inspection posts in the Department of Isère has been effectively held vacant for almost one year because the inspector who should do the inspection work in the post has also been given resonsibilities for vocational training. Consequently, a number of important enterprises have not been inspected for nine months, and the union's attempts to persuade the inspectorate to remedy the situation have failed. The Committee hopes the Government will include in its next report all due information in this respect.

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning observations submitted by the General Confederation of Labour (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Services/Labour Inspectorate for Transport), which read as follows:

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicates that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs has been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport have been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services is not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, once more, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it, in its next report, to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.

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

The Committee recalls its previous comments concerning the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on the application of the Convention. It notes a subsequent observation dated 21 June 1990 by the union stating that the situation has worsened and that resources available for inspection in agriculture are quite inadequate. It has also noted the Government's response to the Committee's earlier comments.

Article 7 of the Convention. The Government has referred again to the administrative organisation of labour inspection in agriculture. While it agrees that the functioning might be improved, it does not consider further controls of inspectors' work possible.

Article 8. The Government refers to information provided earlier. It states that the independence and activities of the agricultural labour inspectorate are protected through the administrative arrangements in the Ministry of Agriculture. The Committee hopes the Government's future reports will include all available information in this respect.

Article 15. The Committee notes the Government's explanation of the division of responsibilities between the various inspection offices. It indicates that, although all the difficulties have not been resolved, progress has been made in ensuring a better allocation of resources. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will supply all available information as to the implementation of this Article, specifically concerning arrangements to furnish labour inspectors in agriculture with (a) properly located local offices and suitable means of communication, and (b) transport facilities necessary for the performance of their duties where suitable public facilities do not exist; and with respect to reimbursement of travelling and incidental expenses which may be necessary for the performance of their duties.

Article 20(c). The Committee notes the Government's reference to Circular DAS/7001 of 28 March 1985 concerning the confidentiality of correspondence within the labour inspectorate. The Committee asks the Government to include in future reports information on the practical application of these provisions, particularly as they relate to the sources of complaints brought to the attention of the service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. Furthermore, it notes the comments submitted by CGT (Union of Social Affairs/Federation of Public Services/Labour Inspectorate for Transport) alleging non-observance by the Government of Article 11 of the Convention.

The CGT/Union of Social Affairs indicates that, contrary to the observations communicated by the Government to the Committee of Experts in 1989, according to which "an increase in the budget allocated to the Labour Inspectorate for Transport is now under examination and measures to generalise the use of service cars are being taken",

- the budget allocated to transport costs has been reduced by 8.57 per cent;

- the staff of the Labour Inspectorate for Transport have been asked to limit their inspections and, in particular, no longer to carry out regular inspections;

- the use of service cars by the inspection services is not facilitated.

The Committee hopes, as it did in its previous direct request, that the Government will spare no effort in providing the Labour Inspectorate for Transport with all the means necessary for the effective exercise of their duties and requests it, in its next report, to supply information on the measures taken in this respect.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy (ITEPSA) in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", as a result of the Decrees of 28 December 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DDAF) and the Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry (DRAF).

The union considers that the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, which took place in 1984, has given rise to major difficulties in the operation of the ITEPSA resulting in the "quasi-paralysis" of the inspection services in agriculture. According to the union's memorandum, these difficulties arise essentially from the institutional measures that were adopted.

The union points out that prior to the reform the Inspectorate of Agricultural Labour, Employment and Social Policy was very adequately structured into departmental, regional and national services and that total independence had been recognised at the departmental and regional levels. In the opinion of the union, the Decrees of 1984 marked a rupture in the functioning of the inspection services. They provided for a rearrangement of the various external services of the Ministry of Agriculture, including the ITEPSA, under the direction of the DRAFs and DDAFs with the result that the regional directors and the heads of departmental inspection services were "demoted" in their positions and duties and that, as regards the inspectors, a long tradition of individual independence, responsibility to take decisions and independent representation of the administration in social matters was abandoned. The union considers that the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs and the specific natures of the duties and decision-making powers of inspectors, as set out in the Labour Code, the Rural Code and the Social Security Code, amount to a contradiction that the circulars to apply the 1984 Decrees (which, however, provide for the independent decision-making powers of inspectors in their specific areas) cannot reconcile. In short, the single system of authority of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has resulted in a form of "dependence" for the inspection services that is in contradiction with the nature of their duties.

Furthermore, the union states that the 1984 reform broke up the hierarchical relations between the regional service and the departmental services of the ITEPSA. The incorporation of these services into the organisational system of the DRAFs and the DDAFs has been shown to be totally inadequate for relations between the heads of the departmental services and the heads of the regional services of the ITEPSA, which has had the consequence that the unity in the management of the inspection services has disappeared and the action taken by them varies widely in practice. Moreover, the heads of departmental and regional services of the ITEPSA encounter serious difficulties in their relations with prefects due to the fact that they come up against the barrier formed by the DDAFs and the DRAFs.

Finally, the union points out that the career prospects of the staff of the ITEPSA are different, and indeed discriminatory, in relation to the prospects for the staff of the inter-ministerial labour inspectorate.

In annex to its memorandum, the union enumerates the principal facts, attitudes and situations that it considers to be a result of the 1984 reform and to be in contradiction with the principles of law, and the texts and directives that are in force. Among these texts is Convention No. 129, which, according to the union, has been violated on the following points:

- the existence of a hierarchical structure outside the inspection services which prevents the independence of ITEPSA missions, the suppression of the vertical hierarchical relationship between the regional and departmental levels of the ITEPSA and the obligation to transmit files to the central administration through the DRAFs (Article 8);

- the reduced budget, particularly for travel by the inspectors and the operation of the services (Article 15);

- the insufficient numbers of auxilliary staff allocated to the ITEPSA;

- the opening of mail sent to the ITEPSA by another department of the DDAFs and DRAFs (Article 20(c)).

In conclusion, the union calls for either the ITEPSA to be maintained within the Ministry of Agriculture, although within a framework of total independence as regards the Regional and Departmental Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, or for it to be attached to the Ministry of Labour.

In its reply to the above comments, the Government refers, firstly to the Decrees of 1984 respecting the organisation and duties of the Departmental and Regional Directorates of Agriculture and Forestry, to the general circulars and to the specific circular issued to apply these Decrees. These texts clearly lay down that the staff of the ITEPSA, when exercising their specific functions of inspecting and supervising labour legislation, do not come under the hierarchical authority of either the regional and departmental prefects, or the regional and departmental directors of agriculture and forestry. The Government also supplied a long extract of the reply to a written question raised in 1985, on this subject, by a parliamentarian, and a copy of the Order issued by the Council of State on 6 May 1988 in which it rejects the claims put forward by the CGT-FO Union of staff of the labour and employment service, by the National Federation of Unions of Labour Inspectors and by the Union of Inspection Personnel of Labour Laws in Agriculture, demanding that the Decrees of 28 December 1984 be repealed. The Council of State noted, among other questions, that no provision in the Decrees in question could be considered as having the purpose or effect of prejudicing the application of the provisions of the Labour Inspection (Agriculture) Convention, 1969 (No. 129).

The Committee notes all the explanations supplied by the Government. It also notes, from the letter addressed by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on 15 December 1988 to the Director-General of the ILO, that the difficulties that have been encountered in the work of the ITEPSA are not a result of the texts, but rather of their application by the regional directors of agriculture and forestry. The Committee considers that while the problems of hierarchy, management, co-ordination and, in general, relations with the regional and departmental administrative authorities appear to be at the origin of the discontent within the ITEPSA, the latter also gives the impression of suffering from the absence of supervision and control of a central body, as provided in Article 7, paragraph 3(d), of the Convention. The Committee would therefore be grateful if the Government would supply, with its next report, information on the measures that have been taken to give full effect to this Article of the Convention.

Furthermore, the Committee requests the Government to supply detailed information on the application of Articles 8, 15 and 20(c) of the Convention which, according to the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture, are not fully observed.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee notes the memorandum communicated by the National Union of Labour Directors of the Ministry of Agriculture on "the situation of agricultural labour inspection, employment and social policy in the light of the reform of the external services of the Ministry of Agriculture", and the observations made on this subject by the Government. It is addressing a request directly to the Government on certain points concerning the application of the Convention deriving from the comments made by the above union.