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

Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 (No. 81) - Dominica (Ratification: 1983)

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

Given that for many years the Government has not supplied a detailed report on the manner in which effect is given in law and in practice to the Convention and that the most recent annual report on the work of the labour inspectorate transmitted to the ILO concerns 1996, the Committee would be grateful if the Government would take all the necessary steps to ensure that the next report pursuant to article 22 of the ILO Constitution contains the level of detail required by the report form. It requests the Government to ensure that the information available on each of the subjects listed in Article 21 are included in its report pending the publication of the next annual report on the work of the labour inspectorate.

Articles 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 19 of the Convention. Duties, status, numbers, rights, obligations and powers of labour inspectors. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments, the Government indicates that the staff of the Labour Department consists of four officials, namely the Labour Commissioner, his deputy, and two agents. According to the Government, these officials perform all the duties allocated by the Labour Department. Although they possess the necessary qualifications for providing high-quality advice to employers and workers, the staff of the Labour Department are, however, insufficient in number and also faced with a lack of equipment aggravated by the austerity measures imposed by the International Monetary Fund, making it difficult to undertake advisory activities. Nevertheless, the Government expresses the hope that recommendations resulting from a study of the situation undertaken by a former ILO expert may be implemented. The Committee, however, notes that a copy of the report on this study has not been transmitted to the ILO, despite a written request dated 19 March 2007.

In reply to the Committee’s requests concerning the way in which it is ensured that labour inspectors abide by the code of ethics relevant to their duties, as defined by Article 15(a), (b) and (c) of the Convention, the Government has supplied information on the legal provisions concerning the general obligations of all officials. The Committee would like to emphasize that these provisions are insufficient in relation to the requirements of the Convention. There has to be the strictest possible observance of ethical principles by inspectors to counterbalance the extensive powers and prerogatives which, in accordance with the Convention, have to be accorded exclusively to labour inspection officials in the performance of their duties. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would refer to its General Survey of 2006 on labour inspection with regard to: (i) the prohibition on labour inspectors to have “any direct or indirect interest” in enterprises liable to inspection (paragraph 227); (ii) the scope of the obligation of professional secrecy (paragraphs 229–232); and (iii) the obligation of confidentiality with respect to the source of any complaint and the connection that may exist between an inspection visit and a complaint (paragraphs 235–237). The Committee requests the Government to take steps to ensure that the legislation is supplemented in the light of these clarifications with regard to the duties and obligations of labour inspection officials. It further requests the Government to keep the Office informed of all progress in this respect and to send copies of any relevant draft or final texts.

Article 18. Necessity for adequate penalties. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that the amount of fines which can be imposed on persons who contravene the legislation enforceable by the labour inspection officials has not been revised since 1990 and section 32 of the Act on labour standards provides that anyone contravening the provisions of sections 28 and 29 (concerning the powers and prerogatives of labour inspectors) is liable to a fine, the amount of which is fixed at 75 dollars and multiplied by the number of days for which the contravention continues. However, the Committee notes that section 13 of the Act of 1983 on occupational safety (Chapter 90:08) provides that the amount of the fine applicable for a violation of its provisions is 5,000 dollars, with the possible addition of imprisonment for one year. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would clarify whether the staff responsible for monitoring enforcement of the Act on occupational safety are the same as the staff of the Labour Department, who are also responsible for monitoring the legislation concerning other conditions of work and protection of workers, and to supply a list of the provisions establishing penalties for violations of the provisions relating to conditions of work and the protection of workers and the contraventions to which they apply. The Committee also requests the Government to send a copy of any document describing specific cases of convictions of employers involving the imposition of a fine and/or imprisonment.